# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Ei ghth Ci rcui t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 37 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Qui nc y Jac ks on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 18 , 20 15 Fil ed : J an ua ry

28 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Qui nc y L. Ja ck so n pl ed gu il ty to po ss es si ng m ari juan a wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b)( 1) (D). In th e pl ea agre em en t, Jack so nres erv ed th e rig ht to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s. 1

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

I.

On th e ev en in g of Nov em be r 27
, 20 12
, Ja ck so n’s sm al l ai rcra ft di ve rte d fro m it s or ig in al fli gh t pl an —Wich it a, Kan sa s to Ja ck so nv il le
, Ill in oi s— an d la nd ed at th e do wnt own ai rp or t in Kan sa s Ci ty. Hom el an d Secu rit y ag en ts , fin di ng th is su sp ic io us , al ert ed th e Airp or t Po li ce. The y cal le d fo r a do g tra in ed to de te ct il le ga l dr ug s. Thi s

was he r fir st fie ld op erat io n. Sh e ha d a 97 pe rcen t su cces s rat e du rin g tra in in g. Sh e al ert ed po si ti ve ly to n arco ti cs ne ar b ot h wi ng s o f Ja ck so n’s ai rcra ft.

Dr u g En fo rcem en t Age nc y ag en ts le arn ed Ja ck so n was st ay in g at a ne arb y ho te l. Arri vi ng th ere, ab ou t m id ni gh t, th ey kn oc ke d on th e do or se ek in g hi s co ns en t

to se arch

. No on e an swe red

. An ag en t cal le d Ja ck so n’s ro om

. He an swe red
, sa y in g he wou ld co m e to th e do or , b ut he di dn ’t. Afte r m or e cal ls to Ja ck so n’s cel l ph on e

an d th e ro om , a ge nt s sm el le d a st ro ng od or em a n a t i ng fro m th e ro om , l ik e Swis he r Sweet ci ga rs —co m

m on ly us ed to sm ok e m ari juan a. A di ffer en t do g cam e to th e ho te l
bu t d id no t al ert

.

At 2: 00 a.m ., an ag en t ret ur ne d to th e ai rcra ft to dr aft an affi da vi t fo r a warra nt

. The ag en t le arn ed Ja ck so n ha d hi s pi lo t’s li cen se le ss th an a m on th an d ha d reg is te red
th e p la ne fiv e m on th s earl ie r. The ag en t su bm it te d t he dra ft a t ab ou t 8 :0 0 a .m ., bu t th e p ro se cu to r req ue st ed ad di ng th e d ru g d og ’s cert ifi cat io n.

The Hon or ab le Howar d F. Sach s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da t i o n o f th e Hon or ab le Ro be rt E. Lars en , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te J u d ge fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri.

-2

-Als o aro un d 8: 00 a.m ., Ja ck so n le ft hi s ro om

. Two ag en ts ap pr oa ch ed

. He ran

ba ck in to hi s ro om

. The ag en ts fo ll owe d th ro ug h th e op en do or , ha nd cu ffed hi m , an d
read hi m hi s Mir an da rig ht s. Th ey st ay ed wit h J ack so n u nt il ch eck -o ut ti m e, whe n th ey dr ov e hi m to th e Airp or t. An ag en t rem ai ne d wit h hi m th ere. A se arch warra nt is su ed at ab ou t 5: 40 p.m

. th at ev en in g. Age nt s se arch ed th e ai rcra ft, fin di ng two la rg e bo xe s wi th 39 ba gs of m ari juan a, weig hi ng 15 .7 k il og ram s.

Ja ck so n m ov ed to su pp res s th e m ari juan a. A m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d
de nyin g th e m ot io n, fin di ng (1 ) hi s de t e n ti on was im m at eri al be cau se no ev id en ce

cam e fro m it
, (2 ) th e do g’s po si ti ve al ert pr ov id e d p r o b a bl e cau se to se arch th e ai rcra ft, (3 ) th e warra nt was no t ba se d on m is le ad in g in fo rm at io n, an d (4 ) Ja ck so n

was no t th e vi ct im of wro ng fu l pr of il in g. The di st ric t co ur t ag reed (al th ou gh no ti ng

co nc ern a b o u t t he le ng th of de te nt io n)

. Ja ck so n ap pe al s, arg ui ng th ere was no
pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e ai rcra ft, an d th e m ari juan a was th e po is on ou s fru it of hi s de te nt io n.

II.

“ In an ap pe al fro m

a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, th e co ur t rev ie ws fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r, an d qu es ti on s of co ns ti tu ti on al la w de no vo .” Unit

ed St at es v. Gor do n , 74 1 F.3 d 87 2, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ W e m ay affi rm th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s on an y gr ou nd s su pp or te d b y t he reco rd .”
Unit ed Sta te s v. A ll

en , 70 5 F .3d 36 7, 3 69 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

Ja ck so n at ta ck s th e pr ob ab le cau se to se arch hi s ai rcra ft, cl ai m in g th e dr ug do g

was un rel ia bl e, an d th e affi da vi t ha d in su ffi ci en t i n f o r mat io n ab ou t th e do g’s
rel ia bi li ty. The te s t i s “ whe th er al l th e fact s su rro un di ng a do g’s al ert , vi ewed
th ro u g h th e le ns of co m

m on se ns e, wou ld m ak e a reas on ab ly pr ud en t pe rs on th in k
th at a se arch wou ld rev eal co nt rab an d o r e v i de nc e of a cri m e.” Fl or id a v. Ha rr is
, 13 3 S.Ct . 1 05 0, 10 58 (2 01 3)

. “ [E]vid en ce of a do g’s sa ti sf act or y pe rfo rm an ce in a

-3

-cert ifi cat io n or tra in in g pr og ram can it se lf pr ov id e su ffi ci en t reas on to tru st hi s al ert .”

Id

. at 10 57

. An affi da vi t “ ne ed on ly s ta te th e do g ha s be en tra in ed an d cert ifi ed to de te ct dr ug s” an d “ ne ed no t gi ve a de ta il ed acco un t of t h e d o g ’s tra ck reco rd or ed uc at io n.” Unit

ed Sta te s v. La ko sk ey , 46 2 F .3d 96 5, 9 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), qu ot in g Unit ed Sta te s v. Su nd

by , 18 6 F .3d 87 3, 8 76 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

The affi da vi t he re ga ve su ffi ci en t fact s ab ou t th e do g’s rel ia bi li ty. It st at ed th at th e do g was tra in ed al on gs id e he r ha nd le r by an es ta bl is he d co m pa ny. Trai ni ng la st ed
fo ur week s, i n c l u d in g op erat io ns in bu il di ng s, lo ck ers , lu gg ag e, au to m ob il es , an d

op en area s. The affi da vi t no te d th at th e do g was cert ifi ed
, wit h a 97 pe rcen t accu racy
rat e in de te ct in g i ll eg al dru gs

.

The fact s he re m eet th e Har ri s st an da rd . Th e po si ti ve al ert by a rel ia bl e do g al on e es ta bl is he d pr ob ab le cau se

. Se e Ha rr is
, 13 3 S.Ct

. a t 1 0 5 7 ( “If a bo na fid e

or ga ni zat io n ha s cert ifi ed a do g aft er te st in g hi s rel ia bi li ty i n a co nt ro ll ed se tt in g, a

co ur t can pr es um e ( s u b

je c t to an y co nf

li ct in g ev id en ce of

fere d) th at th e do g’s al ert

pr ov id es pr ob ab le cau se to se arch .”)

. A l l t h e ot he r fact s su pp or t pr ob ab le cau se

. Ja ck so n was a li cen se d pi lo t fo r le ss t h a n a mo n t h, pu rch as in g th e pl an e m on th s be fo re. Fl y in g a no n- co m m erci al ai rcra ft a lo ng di st an ce at nig ht
, he de vi at ed fro m hi s fli gh t pl an —s us pi ci ou s fo r a ne w pi lo t. H i s e va si ve be ha vi or at th e ho te l
bu tt res se s th e pr ob ab le cau se fin di ng

. Cf

. Unit ed St at es v. Ma ss i
, 76 1 F.3 d 51 2, 52 2-
24 (5 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (fi nd in g— whe re th e do g di d no t al ert —s us pi ci ou s fli gh t pat te rn , de ni al of co ns en t to se arch ai rp la ne , an d ev as iv e an d in co ns is te nt an swe rs ab ou t bo x

on air pl an e d id no t s ho w pro ba bl e cau se ).

Ja ck so n co nt en ds th at hi s arre st in th e ho te l ro om an d hi s su bs eq ue nt de te nt io n awai ti ng th e se arch warra n t w e re il le ga l, m ak in g th e m ari juan a in th e ai rcra ft th e

“ po is on ou s fru it ” of hi s de te nt io n. To th e co nt rary, th e m ari juan a in th e ai rcra ft was

se iz ed du e to th e warra nt , no t th e arre st or de te nt io n. Se e Wo ng Sun v. Unit ed St at es , 37 1 U.S. 47 1, 48 7 (19 63 ) (h ol di ng ex cl us io na ry ru le in ap pl ic ab le when ev id en ce is

-4

-a c q u ire d th ro ug h so ur ce in de pe nd en t of il le ga l se iz ur e). Ja ck so n m ad e n o

in cri m in at in g st at em en ts ; no ev id en ce was se iz ed fro m hi m

. The warra nt was ba se d

on in fo rm at io n ob ta in ed be fo re Ja ck so n’s arre st an d de te nt io n. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Swo pe , 54 2 F.3 d 60 9, 61 3- 14 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (warra nt is in de pe nd en t so ur ce whe n ba se d o n e vi de nc e n ot ob ta in ed by unl awfu l ac t).

Ja ck so n as se rts th at if he ha d no t be en arre st ed an d de ta in ed
, he wou ld ha ve le ft

on th e ai rcra ft wit h t h e mar i ju an a. In Ca rr ol l v. Uni te d St at es , 26 7 U.S. 13 2, 15 3 (1 92 5)
, th e Co ur t he ld th at “ an au to m ob il e or ot he r veh ic le m ay be se arch ed ” “ whe re it is no t pr act ic ab le to se cu re a w a r ran t.” (em ph as is ad de d)

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Nig ro , 72 7 F.2 d 10 0, 10 6- 07 (6 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (“ [S]eve ral co ur ts of ap pe al s ha ve he ld
th at th e au to m ob il e ex cep ti on ap pl ie s to ai rcra ft.” ). Bec au se th ere w as prob ab le cau se th at th e a i r c r a f

t co nt ai ne d ev id en ce of a cri m e, th e pl an e co ul d be he ld un ti l th e

warra nt is su ed

. Se e Cha m be rs v. Ma ro ney , 39 9 U.S. 42
, 51 -5 2 (1 97 0) (“ [W] e se e no di ffer en ce b et ween on th e o ne ha nd sei zi ng an d h ol di ng a car b efo re p res en ti ng th e
pr ob ab le cau se is su e to a m ag is tra te an d on th e ot he r ha nd carr y in g ou t an im m ed ia te

se arch .”). Ja ck so n c ou ld no t h av e si m pl y lef t o n t he air craf

t.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-