## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 4109 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C LE VE LA ND F RAN KLIN , J R ., D ef endant-Appellant.

A p p eal fro m t h e U n it ed S t at es D ist rict C o u rt fo r th e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f In d ia n a , In d ia n a p o li s D iv is io n .

N o. 05C R208

— J ohn D aniel Ti nd er, Ju d g e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 25, 2008

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 27, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Cl eve l and Fra nk l i n, J r. was s t o p p e d b y th e I n d i a n a p o l i s P o l i c e D e p a r t me n t o n D e c e mber1, 20 05, and a s ubsequent s ear ch ofhi s ca r l ed pol i ce to o ver 270 gr ams o fc r ac kc o ca i ne hi ddeni n the da sh

boar d. Fr ankl i n ple d gui l ty to one count o fposs ess i on ofco c ain e w i th i ntent to dist ribute a nd o ne co unt of carrying a fi rearm du ring a d rug trafficking crim e. B efore ple adinggui l ty, Fr ankl i n ra i sed a num bero fchall enges to2 N o. 06

- 4109 th e se ar cho fhi s ca r, whi chh e renews o n a ppea l, a l o ng w i th va ri ous a rg um ents about the ind i ctm ent, th e t ri al proce du re s, and hi s s entence
. Forthe f ol l owing re aso ns, we affi rm the deci si on o f the di str i ct c ourt
.
I. Back gr oun d In2 00 5, th e In d ian ap olis P olic e D ep ar tm en t w as inv es tigat i ng Frank l i n f ordrug tr affi cki ng. On Decem ber1, 20 05, Detecti ve Rober t W heel i ng, wh o w as cond u c ting that i nvest i gat i on, r adio ed Offi c erM attH al l and i nfo rm ed hi m thatFr ankl i n w as d riv ing a go l d C hevr ol et I m pal a, and w as l i kel y i n p os se ssi on o fa l ar ge am ount o fcr ack coca i ne. W h eel i ng al so i nfo rm ed H al l thatFr ankl i n had previ ous c onvi cti ons f ordrug and w eapon o ff enses . H all sp ot te d Fr an klin ’s c ar d riv in g t h ro u gh Ind ian ap olis l ate r that sam e e veni ng. W hi l e f ol l owing hi m , H al l o bser ved thatFra n klin’ s ca r w as tr avel i ng f or ty m i l es per ho ur i n a thi r ty
- fi ve z o ne , a nd thatthe c armade a l an e c h a n g e wi t h o u ts i g na l i n g . Ha v i n gwi t n e s s e d th e s e t wo traf fi c o f f en se s, H al l m ade a tr affi c st o p o f F r an k l i n’ s car. W hi l e a pp ro achi ng the ve h icle, H al l not i ced the sm el l o f burnt mar ij ua na c o mi ngfr o m t he o pe n pa s s e ng e r s i de w i nd ow. A fterte l l i ng Fr ankl i n about hi s t ra ffi c i nfr acti ons, H al l a l so no ti ce d s om eth in gtha t l o o k ed l i k e a m ar ij ua na st em ne arF r an k l i n’ s k ne e. Hal l a sk ed F ran k l i n t o g eto ut o fhi s ca r an d ha d hi m st an d ne arthe t r unk

. F r an k l i n, who h ad be en d r i v in g, d en ied h av in g a n y d ru gs or gu n s in the c ar . W hen Fr ankl i n kept re achi ng n ea r hi s pock etN o. 06

- 4109 3 d es p ite H all’s w ar n in gs th at h e n ot d o th at, H all h a n d c u f f e d F r a n k l i n a n d h a d h i m s i t o n th e c u r b. Abo ut thi s t i m e, H al l ’ s back- up , O ffi cerBrady Bal l, ar ri ved. A fter Fr ankl i n’s passe nger, J am es W right, r efused to co oper ate w ith ins t r u c tio n s fro m th e o ffice rs , B all re m ov ed h im f ro m the carand pla ced hi m i n handcu ff s. Suspi ci ous o fFr ankl i n’s deni al s that the carco ntai ned any dru gs, H al l r etr i eve d his drug sni ffi ng dog, Bubba Deuc e, fr o m hi s pat r o l c ar . The do ga l er te d ne arthe dr i ve r ’ s si de do o r . Offi ce r Hal l the n pr o ce ede d t o c o ndu ct a se ar ch of th e I m pal a. W hi l e e xam i ni ng the i nter i or ofthe car, H al l not i ced thatFr ankl i n had plac ed a num ber of a ir f r esh en ers un d erne ath the d ashboard of his car; k no wi ng f r o m h i s e xp e r i e nc e tha t thi s wa s o ft e n us ed to m as kthe o do r o fdr ug s, Hal l s ea r ch ed ar o und the da sh

. He u l t i ma t e l y d i s c o v e r e d b a g s c o n t a i n i n go v e r 2 7 0 g r a ms o fc r a c kc o c a i ne i n the fuse bo x pa ne l o n the r i g hts i de o fthe da s hb o a r d. Ac c o r d i n gt o th e p o l i c e , F r a n k l i n th e n m a d e i n c r i mi nati ng co m m ents about the cra ck coca i ne se i zed fro m h i s c a r wh i l e s i t t i n gi n th e b ac k ofa p o l i c e s q u a d c a r . At th e st ati on, Fr ankl i n sai d i n a m oni tor ed phone cal l that th e po l i ce mis se d a s emi au to m at i c ha ndg un tha t he had hidden i nsi de the d as hb oard ofthe I m pal a. A fter o bt ai ni nga s ea r chwar r an t, the po l i ce se i ze d the g un from the ca r. On D ecem ber21 , 20 05, Fr ankl i n w as charg ed w i th posse ssi on with i ntent to dist ribute in vi ol ati on o f 21 U. S

. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a nd 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i i ) ; c a r r y i ng a fi re ar m duri ng a d rug tr affi cki ng cr i m e i n vi ol ati on o f4 N o. 06

- 4109 18 U
. S. C

. § 924(c)(1) ; and un law ful posse ssion of a fi rearm by a con victed felon, in viol ation of 18 U

. S. C

. § 922(g)( 1). Fr ankl i n fi l ed a supp re ssi on m oti on o n A pri l 7, 20 06, c h alle n gin g t h e s ea rc h of his c ar . T h e d ist ric t cou rtinit ially den i ed th i s m o ti on on M ay1 2, 2 00 6, b utr eo pen ed th e que st i o n a fte r F r an k l i n s uppl ement ed th e m oti o n. The dist ri ct c ou rt hel d a hear i ng o n the supp re ssi on quest i on i n J une 200 6, ul ti m ate l y denyi ng the suppress i on m oti on f ora seco nd ti m e a fterthe hear i ng. On Jul y 2 8, 20 06, Fr ankl i n ente re d a co nd i ti onalpl ea of gui l ty to counts one and tw o ofthe i nd i ctm ent, the posse ssion w ith inten t to distribu te c h arge an d the u se of a fi re ar m in a drug tr affi cki ng cr i m e char ge. Fr ankl i n re se rv ed th e rig h t t o a p p ea l th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d en ial of h is supp re ssi on m oti on. On October5, 20 06, Fra n kli n fi l ed a se co nd mot i o n t o r e- o penthe s uppr es si o n i ss ue , a nd th e d ist ric t cou rt h eld a sec on d h ea rin g an d a g ain denie d the m oti on. On N ove m ber17, 200 6, Fr ankl i n w as sen ten ced to 300 m ont hs i m p risonm en t and ten yea rs of s u p er vi s ed rele as e, alo n g w ith a fin e o f $1 ,00 0. T h is appeal f ol l ows.

I I. Discu ssi on A. Whether

the i ndi c tm ent

w as def

ecti ve w i th respec t t o the f i rstco unt

, i n that

i tfa ile d to cha r

ge that the f i rearm w as used“in rel ati on”t o a drug traf f i cki ng cri m e. Fr ankl i n fi rs t ch a l l e ng es the s uffi ci ency ofhi s i nd i ctm ent, ar gui ng tha t i t f ai l s t o charg e a n ess enti alel em ent o fN o. 06

- 4109 5 § 9 24( c) ( 1)

. That s tatute pr ovi des cr i m i nal p en al ti es f or an y o n e wh o c a r r i e s a g u n “ d u r i n g a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o a ny c r i me o fv i o l e nc e o r dr ugt r a ffi c k i ngc r i me . . . ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 92 4( c) ( 1)

. F r an k l i n’ s i ndi ct m en t s tate d o nl y tha t he c a r r i e d a fi r e a r m “ d u r i n ga d r u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me . ” At i ss ue , the n, i s whether th e i ndi ct m en t i s i ns uffi ci en t b ec au se it elim in at ed th e p h ra se “in rela tio n to .” Fr ankl i n did noto bj ect to th e in dict m ent in the dist ri ct c ou rt . C on se q u en tly , i n th is c ou rtth e in d ict m e n t “ is i m m une f ro m at tackunl ess i t i s s o obvi ousl y defec tive as not to charg e the o ff ense by any r eas onabl e co nstr ucti on. ” U nite d Sta te s v. Sm it h , 223 F.3d 554 , 571 (7th C ir. 2000 ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks an d c itat ions om itted ). M o r eo ve r, thi s co ur t wi l l a ll ow F r an k l i n t o wi th dr aw the p lea on th e b as is t h at it is ob vio u sly d efe c t i v e o n ly if he s ho ws tha t ac ce ptingthe pl ea un d er the de fi ci en t in d ict m en t w as p lain err o r b y t h e d ist ric t c ou rt
. U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey , 484 F.3d 453 , 455 (7th C ir. 2007). F r an kli n a r g ue s th ats i nc e he was c ha r g ed unde r the p or tion of§ 924( c) ( 1) thatm ake s i t a cr i m e t o car rya g un du r i nga nd i n re l at i o n t o a dr ugt r affi ck i ngc r i m e, the “i n re l ati on t o” port i on o fthe sta tute i s a n ess enti alel emen ttha tmus tb e c ha r g e d in the i nd i c t men t
. He a r g ue s th atthe o m i ss i o n o fthe phr as e m ade the i ndi ct m en t so defi ci ent that he w as unaw ar e o fthe charges to wh i ch he was ple adinggui l ty. Th e g ove rnm ent c oncedes that the ind i ctm ent was notper f ect, and shoul d have use d the phra se “i n re l ati on t o” ra therthan j us t “du ri ng” a drug tr affi cki ng c rim e. H owever, the gov er nm ent a rg ues that the ind i c tm en t i s co nsti tuti onal l y s uffi ci ent insof ar6 N o. 06

- 4109

as i t m ade Fr ankl i n awa re o fthe sta tute und erwh i ch he wa s b e i ngc ha r g e d a nd the wa y i n whi c h he vi ol ate d the s tatute. A ll p ar tie s a gr ee th at th e in d ict m en t s h ou ld h av e s aid that Fr ankl i n car ri ed the fi re ar m “during a n d i n re l ati on to” a drug tr affi cki ng o ff ense. H owever, thi s ci rcuitdoes not re quir e that a part i cul arword orp h ra se al w ays be us ed w he n ch arging an offen se in an ind ictm en t; rath er, thi s ci rcuit h as hel d that “ [ i ] n deter m i ni ng wh etheran es se nt i ale l em en t o fthe c r i m e ha s be eno m i tt ed f r o m the c h arge, co urts wil l noti nsi st that any par ti cul arword or phr as e . . . be us ed. The e l ementmay be a l l eg ed i n a ny f or m wh i ch subst anti al l y s tat es it. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. We at he rs poon , 581 F. 2d 595, 60 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 78)

. The i nd i ctm ent he re i s fl aw ed, but not so fl aw ed that i t m er i ts re ver sal ; the count o fthe i nd i ctm ent th at i s i n questi on gave Fr ankl i n the dat e an d p l ace at w hi ch the off ense occur re d, i denti fi ed the hand gun thathe c ar ri ed, and ci ted the st at u te und erwh i ch he was char ged. Thi s ci rcui t has pr ev i o us l y he l d, wi thr es pec t to § 9 24 ( c) ( 1) , th at th e r ec i ta tion of tho se f ac ts i s su ffi ci en t to g i ve the defen dan t no ti ce o fthe s ta tu te i n ques ti o n a nd the co nd uc t tha t th e g o ve r nm en t al l eg es r ana f o ul o fthe sta tu te
. H a rvey , 48 4 F
. 3d at 457. W e thus cannot fi nd that an i nd i ctm ent that l i ste d the s tatute under w hi ch F r an k l i n was ch ar g ed an d tha t pr o vi ded spe ci fi cs abo ut th e pr edi ca te c r i m e an d the c o nduct th atr ana f o ul o fthe sta tute w as so defe cti ve that i t doe s no t char ge a vi ol ati o n o fthe s ta tu te un d er any r ea so nabl e co ns tr uct i o n. N ordo we fi nd thatth e d ist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on byacc epti ng F ra nkl i n’s gui l ty ple a.N o. 06

- 4109 7 B. Whether the def

end ant ’s gu i l ty p l ea w as entered kno w i ngl y a nd vol untari l y. Fr ankl i n next a rg ues that hi s g uil ty ple a w as not enter ed kn owingl y a nd vo l untari l y, bec ause nei therthe ple a c olloq u y n or th e p lea ag re em en t a d eq u at ely se t fo rt h all of t h e e lem en ts of a v iola tio n of § 9 24 (c )(1) . Fra n k l in d id not seek to w i thdraw his gui l ty ple a i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. This c ourtwil l thus e xam i ne the r eco rd be l ow onl y f or pl ain e r r o r tha t seri ou sly a ff ec te d e i th erthe f ai r ne ss , the i ntegr i ty, or the p ubl i c r eputati on o fthe pri orpro ceedi ng. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vonn , 535 U
. S. 55, 63 (2002). F r an k l i n a r g ue s th athi s pl ea was not k no wi nga nd vo lun ta r y b ec au se ne i th erthe di st r i ctc o ur t, dur i ngthe R u le 1 1 p lea c olloq u y, n or th e p lea ag re em en t, ad eq u at ely s p e l l e d o u tth e “ i n r e l at i o n to ” e l e me n to f§ 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 )

. He ar gues that hi s case i s s i m i l arto U nited Sta tes v. B rad ley, 381 F.3d 641, 645 (7th Cir. 200 4), i n w hich this cou rt det er m i ne d tha t a g ui l typl ea w as no t k no wi nga nd vol untarybec ause the defendant did notr ecei ve adequate no ti ce o fthe el em ents of§ 924( c) ( 1)

. H e a l so c i tes U ni t e d S tat e s v. Se e s i ng, 234 F.3d 45 6, 46 2 (9 th C ir. 20 00 ), a N i nth Cir cui t ca se i n w hi ch the cour t d eterm i ned that a gu il typl ea was no t k no wi ngo r v o l unt ar y b ec au se the defe nd ant was unaw ar e o fth e “in r el ati on t o” el em ent o f the o f f ense. The go ver nm ent a rg ues i n re sponse that the pl ea col l oquy a dequa te l y de m o ns tr at ed F r an k l i n’ s unde r st an d i ng oft h e charg es aga i nst hi m . A dd i ti onal l y, atthe ple a he a r i ng, the g o v e r nme ntp r e s e nt e d t e s t i mon y f r o m DEA Offi cerPau l B uchm an, wh o tes ti fi ed to the ci rcum sta nces8 N o. 06

- 4109

o fF r an k l i n’ s ar r es t, the a m ou nt o fc r ac kc o ca i ne f o und i n hi s ca r, and th e m oni tor ed phone cal l i n w hi ch F r a nk l i n t a l ked abo utthe p o l i c e mi s s i ngthe R ug e r h a nd

g un tha t he ha d k epti n the c arwh il e tr an spo r tingthe drugs. The gov er nm ent al so ar gues that the disc overy o f the gun an d t h e drugs i n the sam e par t o fthe car( und er the dashbo ar d, w hi l e the drugs we re fo u nd i n a fuse bo x panel o n the si de ofthe d as h b oar d) was suffi ci ent t o es ta b lish th at t h e f ire ar m w as ca rrie d d u rin g a n d in re l ati on t o the dr ug tr affi cki ng cr i m e. F i na l l y , th e g o ve r nm en t po i nt s o ut th at F r an k l i n sti p ulated that there w as an ad eq ua te factu al basis fo r every el em en t charg ed i n the i nd i ctm ent. H i s co unsel ’ s e xact sti pu l ati on, ta ken fro m the ple a p ro ceedi ng, i s that “Mr. F r an k l i n do es no t ag r ee wi th al l o fthe de ta i l s o fthe f actualbas i s, but he doe s st i pu l ate thatther e i s a f actual ba si s f o r e ac h e l ement cha r g ed i n b o thc o unt1 a nd c o unt 2 o f t h e in d ict m en t.” C h an ge o f P lea T r. at38 -39 . Fra n klin ar g ue s i n h i s r epl y b r i eftha t th i s st i pul at i o n i s m ea ni ng l es s be ca us e i t o nl y s ti pul at ed to the e l ement s co ntai ned i n the i nd i ctm ent which, he c l ai m ed bef or e, was defe cti ve. This cour t uses a tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces approach w h en ev alu at in g w h et h er or n ot a d efe n d an t v olu n ta rily m ade a gui l ty ple a. “Un der thi s a pp ro ach , w e co nsi der ( 1) the com ple xi ty ofthe c h ar ge ; ( 2) the defe nd ant’ s l eve l o fi nt el l i g en ce , ag e, and educ at i o n; ( 3) whethe r the de f en d an t w as rep resen ted by cou ns el; (4) the j ud ge’s i nq uiry d u ring the ple a hea ri ng and the defe nd ant’ s s tat em ents; and (5 ) the evi dence pro f er re d by the g ove rnm ent. ” U nited Sta tes v. Ferna nd ez , 205 F.3d 102 0, 1025 ( 7th Cir. 2000).N o. 06

- 4109 9 I n thi s ca se , the cha r g es w er e no t es pec i al l y c o m pl ex , a nd th e ch ar g e at i ss ue was si m pl y th at th e g un was pre se nt w hi l e F ra nkl i n w as t ra nsport i ng cr ack coca i ne and w as c on n ec te d w ith th e t ra n sp or t o fcr ac k c oc ain e. Fr an klin st at ed atth e p lea h ea rin g t h at h e w as th irt y y ea r s o ld an d h ad co m p let ed th e e lev en th g ra d e; w h ile Fr an klin d id not have extensi ve f or m al e d u c atio n, he a l so sta ted that h e rea ds fi cti on, non- fi cti on, and l aw boo ks, and s o it w as not pla i n er ro r f orthe dist ri c t co urt to concl ud e that he was capabl e o fundersta nd i ng the charge s t o w hi ch he was ple ading

. The di str i ct c ourtinq u ire d atthe ple a hear i ng i nto Fr ankl i n’s understa nd i ng o f the penal ti es th athe woul d f ac e bypl ea di ngg ui l tyt o c o untt wo a nd re c eived the s ti pu l ati on above thatther e was a f actual bas is for th e elem en ts ch arged i n th e ind ictm en t. Fran kli n’s eff or t t o m in i m i ze the i m porto fthi s s ti pu l ati on i s no t especi al l y hel pful to hi m ; wh i l e i t i s t rue th at the ind i ctm ent in thi s ca se w as fa r f ro m per f ect, the ci tat i on t o th e s ta tu te in c ou n t t w o s h o u ld h av e in for m ed Fra n klin about the e l em en ts ofthe cri m e t o w hi ch he was ple adinggui l ty. I t was notan e rr or, then, f orthe dist ri ct c ou rt to acc ept thi s a s a st i pu l ati on t o the e l em ents of § 92 4( c) ( 1)

. F i na l l y , the g o ve r nm en t’ s pr es en ta ti on o fthe f ac tu alb as is f o r the pl ea, whi l e br i ef, e st ab l i sh ed th atthe c r a c kc o c a i n e a n d R u g e r p i s t o l w e r e f o u n d i n th e s a me par t o fF r ankl i n’ s I m pal a an d tha t F r an k l i n h ad bo ththe dr ug s an d the g un in the c ara t the s am e ti m e. Tha t pr o xim ity is s u fficie n t to es ta b lish a vio lat ion of § 9 24 (c )(1)

. See U ni t e d St at e s v. M ol i na , 102 F.3d 92 8, 93 2 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); see a lso U ni t e d St at e s v. Pike, 211 F. 3d 385, 389-90 (7th C ir. 2000).10 N o. 06

- 4109 Fi nal l y, Fr ankl i n’s ci tat i on t o U nited Sta tes v. B rad leyis no t m uc h he lp i n thi s ca se . I n B rad ley, the defe nd ant was ch arged w ith a § 9 2 4 (c) offen se for carrying a fi rearm dur i nga dr ugt r affi ck i ngc r i m e an d a ttempte d t o wi th

dr a w h i s g ui l t y p l e a a ft e r the g o v e r nme nto nl y p r o du c ed ev id en c e t h at h e h a d b e e ngu ilty of p os se ss ion of m ar ij uana, wh i ch i s no t a d rug tr affi cki ng cr i m e a nd thus no t a p re d ica te to § 92 4(c ). B rad ley, 38 1 F
. 3d at 644. Thus, w hi l e B rad leyd o e s i n d i c a t e th a tth i s c o u r twi l l a l l o w a defe nd ant t o w i thdraw a guilt y p l ea w hen the dist ri ct cour t, the gov er nm ent, and the defe nd ant a l l se em to b e c on fu se d ab ou t t h e n ec es sa ry ele m en ts of § 9 24 (c ), i t is not m uc h h elp to th e d e fe n d an t in a case w he re there wa s a d e q u a t e p r o o fo fa p r e d i c a t e d r u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me and the g ove rnm ent dem onst ra ted thata hand gun w as used du ri ng and i n re l ati on t o that drug tr affi cki ng o ff ense.

C. Whether

the di stri ctco urtproper l y d eni ed the sup pressi on m oti on. Fr ankl i n next a rg ues that Offi cerH al l ’ s t ra ffi c st op w as p re te x t u a l an d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtth u s im p ro p er ly d en ied Fra n klin ’s s u p p re ss ion m ot i o n . Th is iss u e is enti re l y a pro tect i ve appeal, as Fr ankl i n’s counselpl ans t o see k a wri t o fcer tio ra ri ask i ng the S up re m e Cour t t o r ec o ns i deri ts d ecisi o n i n Whren v. U nited Sta tes , 517 U
. S. 80 6 ( 19 96)

. F r an k l i n a r g ue s th atthe de ci si o n i n Whren now r equi re s r eve rs al b ecause o fem pir i calev i dence th at th e po li ce u se racial p rofi li ng tech niq ue s w he n d eterm i ni ng w hethero r not to conduct a sea rch pu rs uant to a traff ic sto p, and thus that m i nor i ty dri ver s a re m uchN o. 06

- 4109 11

m or e like ly th an n on -m in or itie s t o b e s u b j e c te d to a fu ll s e a r c h pu r s ua ntt o a t r a ffi c s t o p. T h e g ov er n m en t a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly f ound that the se ar ch w as supp orted bypro babl e ca use. Fi rs t, the gov er nm ent a rg ues that the pro babl e ca use de t e r mi na ti on i n t hi s c a s e l a r g e l y c a me do wn t o a c r e dibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n b etwee n the w i tn es se s f o r the defe nse a nd the ar re sti ng o ffi cer, and that the di str i ct co ur tc r e di t e d O f fi c e r Ha l l ’ s t e s t i mon y . Onma t t e r s l i ke th is, “t h e d is tr ict co u rt ’s c h oic e o f w h om to be liev e is al m ostneve r vul nerabl e to a fi nd i ng ofcle arer ro r. ” U nited St at e s v. Al varado , 326 F.3d 85 7, 8 6 2 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thor nt on , 197 F.3d 241 , 247 (7th C ir. 1999 ). Se cond, the gov er nm ent a rg ues t h at Offi cerH al l m ade a propertr affi c st op; Fr ankl i n adm its he does not re m em b er h ow fas t h e w a s g o in g a n d O ffice r H all te st i fied th at h e w itn es se d Fra n klin co m m it t w o t ra ffic vi ol ati ons. H al l al so had probabl e ca use t o sea rch Fr ankl i n’ s v ehi cl e f o r dr ug s be ca us e he c o ul d s m el l mar ij ua na smok e th r o ug h a n o penwi ndo w as he a ppr o ac he d the car . Th i s probabl e ca use dete rm i nati on was bo l ste re d byhi s us e o fa dr ug - sn i ffi ngdo g, who a l er ted ne arthe f r o nto f th e ca r . A po l i ce o ffi ce r who s m el l s m ar ij ua na com ing from a car has p robab le cau s e t o search that car. See U n i t e d S t a tes v. Wim bush , 337 F.3d 947, 951 (7th C ir. 2003 )

. A nd a p oli ce o ffi cer ’ s use o fa drug- sni ffi ng dog ar ound the exte ri oro fa cari s no t a n i l l ega l se ar ch u n d er th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t. Illin o is v. C a ba lles , 543 U
. S. 40 5, 409 (2005 ). F r an k l i n’ s ar g um en t th atthe st o p was pr et ex tu ala nd thus u nconsti tuti onalis not re al l y add re sse d to thi s co urt;12 N o. 06

- 4109 it i s ad d re ss ed to th e Su p r e m e C ou rt
. Whre n has be en re affi rm ed by Arka ns a s v . Su l l i van , 532 U .S. 76 9 (2 00 1), in w h ich th e C ou rtr e i t e ra te d th at it w ou ld n ot en te rt ain argu m en ts bas ed on th e “real” m otiv a tions beh ind otherw i s e la w fu l tra ffic s to p s. Id. a t 77 1- 72
. The Co ur t’ s r ec en t Fo u rt hA m en d m en t jur isp ru d en c e offe rs ob se rv er s litt le re as on to be liev e t h at th e jus t i c e s w ish to rev isitth is d ec isio n . See, e.g., Virgin ia v . M o o re, N o. 06

- 1082 ( Sup. Ct. A pr. 23 , 20 08) , Atw aterv. Lago Vis ta , 5 3 2 U. S

. 31 8 (2001). R egard less, w e nee d only app ly Sup rem e C ou rt pr ec ede ntt o de te r m i ne tha t O ff ic erHal l made a l awful tr affi c s to p o f Fr ankl i n’s carand had probabl e ca use t o sea rch t h e c arf ornar cot i cs. W e thus affi rm the dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on o n the m oti on t o supp re ss.

D . Whether

the di stri ctco urtde ni ed Frank l i n h i s ri ght t o c oun selat

tw o heari ngs i n whic h d ef ense cou nsel mo v e dt o wi th d ra w. Fr an klin arg u es th at t h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied h im h is ri ght t o counselby notappoin ti ng a separ ate at torney t o ap p ea r on h is b eh alf a t t w o h e a r i n gs in w h ich h is defen se c o uns elmove d t o wi thd raw. The fi r sthe ar i ng oc c ur r e d wh e n F r a nk l i n’ s r e t a i ne d c o un s e l, Lind a W agoner, m ade a m oti on t o w i thdraw fr om herr epres entati on. The dist ri ct cour t co nd ucted a hear i ng o n thi s m oti on o n J u l y 1 0, 20 06 , w ith on ly d efe n se co u n se l an d Fra n klin pr e s e nt
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r a nt e d the mo t i o n a nd a ppoi nted W i l l i am M ar sh fr om the Com m unity D efender to re prese nt Fr an klin. I n Octobe r 2006 , Fr ankl i n, thr ough M ar sh, r equeste d that the di str i ct c ourtappoi nt newN o. 06

- 4109 13 counsel, afterM ar sh r efused to fi l e a m oti on to s up press that Fr ankl i n had prepare d. The dis tr i ct c ourt deni ed the m oti on be cause th e disa gr eem ent di d not threa ten M arsh ’s abil ity to serve as an effective ad voca te. Fran kli n’s posi ti on i s that a t bo th hear i ngs he was ess enti all y f or ced to re p re sent hi m sel f, and that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not conduct an i nvest i gat i on i nto hi s c om petence to do that ( Fr ankl i n ci tes Faret ta v. C a liforni a , 42 2 U.S

. 80 6 ( 1975 ) , o n th is point). F r an k l i n a dm i ts th at th er e i s no c as e defi ni nga he ar i ng on a defense counsel ’ s m oti on t o w ithd ra w as a “cr i ti cal st ag e” o fthe proc eedi nge nt i tl i nga de f en dan t to c o unsel

. Bef or e taki ng up the questi on o fwh ethera w i thdrawal mo t i o n i s a c r i t i c a l s t a g e , i ti s wo r th n o t i n gth a ta tn o t i me w as Fra n klin w ith ou t c ou n se l; w h en th e d ist ric t c ou rth eld t h e fi r s th e a r i ng onWa g o n e r ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w, W ag oner was st i l l se rv i ng as Fr ankl i n’s co unsel and w as o n l y a l l o we d t o wi th d r a w a fter th e he ar i ng, at whi chpo i nt th e d i st r i ctc o ur t g av e F r an k l i n a c ho i ce b etwee n h av i ng co uns ela ppo i nt ed o r hi r i nga no th era tt o r ne y . M ar sh nev er w i thdrew as F ra nkl i n’s counsel

. T hus, asi de f ro m the bri ef interva l b etw een W agon er’s w ithd raw al and M arsh ’s appoint m ent that i s no t a t i ssue here , Fr ankl i n had re presenta ti on f orthe enti re pro ceedi ng. Fr ankl i n i s a pp ar entl y a rg uingthathe was e nti tl ed to add i ti ona l co unsel to r epres ent hi m atthe hear i ngs o n h is ow n d efe n se co u n se l’s m ot ion to w ith d ra w . Fra n klin ci tes no author i ty f orthi s i nter preta ti on o f h i s S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o counsel

. N or, o bj ecti vel y, does a defe nse c ou n se l’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw qu al i fy a s a14 N o. 06

- 4109

cr i ti ca l s ta g e o fthe proc ee di ng s f o r S i xth Am en dm en t p u rp os es , as t h e p ro c ee d in g is s im p ly n ot th e sor t o f tria ll i ke confro ntati on be tw een the acc used and the s tat e that gi ves an acc used a S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o counsel (or , i n th is c as e, ad d itio n al c ou n se l). Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. A sh , 41 3 U.S

. 30 0, 31 2 (1 973) ( re vi ew i ng the hi sto ri cal “e xpa ns i o n o fthe c o uns elg ua r an te e to t r i al

- l i k e co nfro n ta tio n s . . . ”); s e e a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Jac ks on , 88 6 F
. 2d 838, 84 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) (cr i ti calstage i s o ne wh er e “ abse nce ofd efense co unsel o r l ack ofadvi ce m ay dero gat e fro m the a ccused’ s r i ght t o a f ai r tr i al

. ”)

. I nd eed, th e a tto rney s f orthe gov er nm ent were as ked to l eave the c ou rt ro om d u r i n gth e h e a r i n go n Wa g o n e r ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r aw , an d whi l e th e g o ve r nm en t was pr es en t f o r the c o l l o quy on the m oti on r ega rdi ng M ar sh’ s ap p ointm ent, the gov ernm en t was noti nv o l ve d i n the di sc us si o n o ftha t m o ti o n. F r an k l i n h ad th e as si st an ce o fc o unse l ata l l t i m es i n the proce edi ng be l ow and was not en ti tl ed to addit i onal counsel du ri ng the hear i ngs on hi s own counsel ’s m ot ion to w i thdraw. A ccor dingl y, we fi nd no d en i alo f Fr ankl i n’s S i xth A m endm en t r i ghts du ri ng the pro c e e d i n g s b e l o w.

E. Whe the rthe di stri ctco urtprope r l y c ons i dered the sco pe of the se arch of Franklin’s car in their m oti on t o s upp ress. F r an k l i n n ex t ar gu es th atHal l ’ s se ar cho fhi s ca r went beyo nd the sco pe ofpro babl e ca use be cause sm el l i ng an odor o fma r ij ua na s mok e wo ul d n o tg i v e a p o l i c e o ffi c er probabl e ca use t o sea rch f ordru gs in the dashboar d orN o. 06

- 4109 15 othe r com partm ents ofthe car . The f actualsupport f or thi s a rgu m en t res ts i n l ar ge part on F ra nkl i n’s cl ai m that th e p olic e c on d u c te d m u ltip le s ea rc h es of h is c ar , a cla im th atthe di st r i ctco ur t he ar d and de ci ded no t to c r edi t. The l ega l support f orth is cl ai m i s der i ved fro m a Tenth Cir c u it c ase i n w hi ch thatco urt hel d that a pol i ce o ffi cer w ou ld n ot ha ve p robab le cause to search the tru nk of a ca r s i m pl y b ec au se he s m el l ed m ar ij ua na s m oke inthe p as se n ge r c om p ar tm en t. U nited Sta tes v. N ielsen , 9 F. 3d 1487, 1 4 9 1 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 3 )

. F r a nk l i n’ s o nly c i t a t i o n t o a c as e i n thi s ci rcui t i s t o U nite d State s v. G arci a , 897 F. 2d 14 13 , 1 41 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0) , a c as e th athe l d tha t di smant l i ng doorpanel s co uld notbe j usti fi ed by cons en t to se ar ch b ut co uld be j usti fi ed by probabl e ca use ( and w as j us tified by p robab le cause , i n th at cas e). I n thi s ca se, th e di st r i ctc o ur t cr edi te d Hal l ’ s te st i m o ny t h a th e s me l l e d ma r ij ua n a s mo k e i n th e p a s s e n g e r c o mpartm ent o fFr ankl i n’s carand that a drug- sni ffi ng dog alerted to th e p resen ce of na rcotics from ou tsid e t h e car. A s d isc u ss ed ea rlier , bot h w ou ld giv e t h e p olic e p ro b ab le ca us e to s ea r chthe i nt er i o r o fthe pa ss en g erc o m par tment f ordrugs. Thi s ci rcui t has hel d that the sear ch can go as f ar as p robab le cau se ex ten d s, even i nt o sep arate con tainers or th e t ru n k of t h e c ar . U nited Sta tes v. Ledfo rd, 21 8 F
. 3d 684, 688 (7th Ci r. 20 00) ( ci ti ng W yom i ng v. Hough t on , 526 U
. S. 2 9 5 , 3 0 0

- 0 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) a nd U nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 45 6 U.S

. 79 8, 82 0-2 1 (1 98 2)). In th is c as e, th e o d o r of m ar ij u an a w ou ld pr o vi de ano f fi ce r wi thpr o bable cau se t o s ea r chthe pas se ng er co m par tment an d c o nt ai ne r s wi th i n the pa ss en g erc o m par tment, a nd the po l i ce do g ’ s al er tingt o the p re sence ofnar cot i cs woul d provi de additi onalpro bable16 N o. 06

- 4109

cau se to search for na rcotics. A ccord ingly, the sea rch here d id not ex ceed th e s cop e o f p robab le cau se, an d w e affirm the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling o n this parto fthe supp re ssi on i ssue.

F. Wh eth er th e man d a t o ry min i mum s en ten ces in 21 U. S.C. § 841 are cons ti tutional. F r an k l i n n ex t ar g ue s that the mandat o r y min i m um se n te n c es es ta b lish ed b y C on gr es s in § 8 41 a re an u n c on st ituti onaldepri vati on o fhi s due pro cess ri ghts. H e a rg ues that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have bee n f re e to depart fro m the m andator y m i ni m um and consi der the f acto rs se t f or th i n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3 o f th e se nt en ci ngg ui del i ne s i n i m po sing a l ess erse ntence. This i ssue, as the go ver nm ent poi nts o ut, was ra i sed f or t h e f i r s tt i me o n a p p e a l, a n d s o i s w a i v e d

. B u te v e n a s s u mi ngtha t F r an k l i n can m ake th i s ar g um en t he r e, the S uprem e Cour t a nd thi s co urt have consi sten tly hel d that m andat o r y m i ni m um se nt en ce s ar e no t a vi o l at i o n of a d efe n d an t’s d u e p r oc es s rig h ts
. C ha pm a n v . U nited Sta tes , 50 0 U .S. 4 5 3 (1 9 9 1 ); U nite d State s v. Velasco , 95 3 F
. 2d 1457, 1476 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92)

. Fr an klin d oe s no t a rg ue thathi s ca se qua l i fi es unde r e xcept i o n t o the mandat o r y min i m um sente nce f orper sons off er i ng “s ubstanti alas si sta nce” du ri ng a pol i ce i nvest i gat i on, as set fo rth i n § 3 553( e)

. N or do es he qua l i fy unde r the s afety v al ve e xc ept ion t o the m an dat o r y min i m um s etf o r thi n § 3 55 3( f ) , s i nc e, a m o ng ot h er d isq u alify in g fa c to rs , he p os se s s e d a fire ar m in connect i on with hi s drug tr affi cki ng o ff ense. A ccor dingl y, w e a f fi rm the sente nce o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.N o. 06

- 4109 17 G . Whether

the def end ant ’s p ri or

f el ony d rug con vi cti on need ed t o be plea dedi n the i ndi ctm ent andprove n to a j ury. Fr ankl i n fi nal l y a rg ues th at the pri orco nvi cti ons presente d to the c ourtp ursuant to 21 U
. S. C. § 8 51 shoul d have b e e n a l l e g e d i n t he i nd i c t men t a nd pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury. He a r g u e s th a tth i s w a s th e p o s i t i o n o fth e S u p r e me Cou r t i n A lm end a rez-To rres v . U nited Sta tes, 523 U
. S. 22 4 (19 98 ), an d o fJ u st ice T h om as ’ co n c u rrin g op in ion in A pp rend i v. New Jersey, 530 U
. S. 466, 499 (2000 ). A gai n, thi s chal l enge to the ind i c tm ent was not pr e s e nt e d t o the di s t r i c tc o ur tb uta s s umi nga r g ue nd o t h a tF r a n k l i n c a n p r e s e n ti t to th i s c o u r t, th e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s o pi ni o n i n Almend ar ez- Torres s peci fi cal l y r ej ecte d the a rg um ent that a pri orco nvi cti on t rigge rin g a m andator y m i ni m um sen te nce i s a n el em ent o fan o ff ense th at m u st be p ro ve d t o a j u ry . A lm end a rez-To rres , 523 U
. S. at 2 47. Fr ankl i n cor re ctl y a rg ues that J usti ce Thom as’ c o n c u r r i n go p i n i o n i n A ppre nditr eat ed a pr i orco nvi cti on as an el em ent that a pro secuto r m ust p re se nt to the j ury, but thi s was nota m aj or i ty opi ni on, and the opi ni on o f the c ourthol ds that pri orco nvi cti ons need not be c harg ed in an ind ict m en t o r p re se n te d to a j u ry . Appr e ndi, 53 0 U .S. at 4 90 . W e a ffirm th e d ist ric t c o u r t ’s s en te n c e in th is case .18 N o. 06

- 4109 I I I. Concl usi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j ud gm en t of the di str i ct c ourt
.

10- 27- 08