Opinion ID: 177422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stop and Search of the Rental Car.

Text: The district court properly denied Freeman and Russell’s motions to suppress because Trooper Lunceford had probable cause to stop their rental car and then developed the requisite reasonable suspicion to continue their detention. When Trooper Lunceford stopped the defendants’ vehicle, he had probable cause to believe that they had violated state law: he had clocked Freeman driving 74 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone and Tennessee law prohibits speeding, see United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 265 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-152). Thus Trooper Lunceford’s initial stop of the defendants’ vehicle comported with the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 352 (6th Cir. 2005). Freeman and Russell contend, however, that Trooper Lunceford lacked the justification to detain them any longer than reasonably required to issue a citation for speeding. This contention is unavailing because the marijuana odor provided reasonable suspicion for Trooper Lunceford to - 13 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell continue the defendants’ detention. “‘Once the purposes of the initial traffic stop [are] completed, there is no doubt that the officer [can] not further detain the vehicle or its occupants unless something that occurred during the traffic stop generated the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify a further detention.’” United States v. Bailey, 302 F.3d 652, 657-58 (6th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Mesa, 62 F.3d 159, 162 (6th Cir. 1995)). Trooper Lunceford maintained throughout the suppression hearing that he had smelled marijuana when he had first approached the defendants’ vehicle. The magistrate judge concluded that Trooper Lunceford was credible and that the marijuana smell had generated reasonable suspicion to justify the defendants’ continued detention. See United States v. Simpson, 520 F.3d 531, 543 (6th Cir. 2008). The magistrate judge’s credibility determination, which the district court implicitly adopted and approved, is not clearly erroneous. Bailey, 302 F.3d at 656 (setting forth the standard of review for factual findings). The magistrate judge observed, in his written report and recommendation, that Trooper Lunceford had “unequivocally and emphatically testified under oath . . . that he did detect the odor of marijuana.” “We are generally reluctant to set aside credibility determinations made by the trier of fact, who has had the opportunity to view the witness on the stand and assess his demeanor.” Peveler v. United States, 269 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001). Freeman and Russell maintain, however, that the videotape belies Trooper Lunceford’s testimony. They emphasize that Trooper Lunceford (1) said nothing about the odor, either to them or in his initial communications with dispatch; (2) stated that Freeman and Russell “might be totally legit”; (3) made several comments about how nervous the men were and about how “something ain’t right” with the rental agreement; and (4) said, after the officers had discovered the drugs, that he “knew [he had] smelled - 14 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell something.” Freeman and Russell also rely heavily upon Trooper Lunceford’s statement that “the rental agreement is really what got me.” They highlight the fact that none of the other officers testified to having smelled marijuana in the vehicle. Freeman and Russell’s arguments are unpersuasive. The fact that Trooper Lunceford said nothing about the odor does not mean that he did not, in fact, smell marijuana. Even though he did not mention the odor in his initial communications with dispatch, he did call for a drug dog soon after returning to his car, which suggests that he had smelled something. Moreover, Trooper Lunceford’s voicing his suspicions with respect to the defendants’ nerves and the third-party rental agreement does not mean that he did not also detect marijuana. Nor is this case controlled by the fact that no one else testified to the smell: they were not on the scene when Trooper Lunceford initially approached the rental car. The defendants’ arguments, several of which the magistrate judge explicitly addressed, do not leave one “‘with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Simpson, 520 F.3d at 535 (quoting United States v. Navarro-Camacho, 186 F.3d 701, 705 (6th Cir. 1999)). Because the magistrate judge was in the best position to evaluate Trooper Lunceford’s credibility, Hill, 195 F.3d at 264-65, and because the record provides “no compelling reason to second-guess the magistrate judge’s decision,” Peveler, 269 F.3d at 702, the credibility determination must stand. It follows, then, that once Trooper Lunceford had smelled marijuana, he had reasonable suspicion to continue the defendants’ detention. See Simpson, 520 F.3d at 543. At that point, Trooper Lunceford “diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel [his] suspicions quickly.” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). - 15 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell After returning to his car, he asked for a canine officer, who arrived on the scene roughly ten minutes later. Approximately twenty-three minutes after Trooper Lunceford had initiated the stop, the canine officer walked his dog around the rental car. This was not an unreasonable amount of time to detain the defendants in light of Trooper Lunceford’s reasonable suspicion that they were or had been engaged in criminal activity. See Davis, 430 F.3d at 355 (concluding that taking thirty minutes to locate drug dog was reasonable where officers reasonably suspected narcotics possession). Once the dog had alerted, the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle, because a “positive indication by a properly-trained dog is sufficient to establish probable cause for the presence of a controlled substance.” United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392, 393-94 (6th Cir. 1994); see Hill, 195 F.3d at 273. In sum, Trooper Lunceford had probable cause to stop Freeman and Russell initially for speeding. Once Trooper Lunceford had smelled marijuana, he had reasonable suspicion to justify the defendants’ further detention. The drug dog’s alert ultimately established probable cause to search the vehicle. Thus the district court properly denied the defendants’ motions to suppress. B. Admission into Evidence of Freeman’s Prior Conviction. It was error to admit Freeman’s prior drug-trafficking conviction pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). That conviction was neither near in time nor substantially similar to the conduct at issue here, and its probative value, if any, was substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice. Rule 404(b) provides that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . . - 16 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell A district court considering whether to admit “other acts” evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) follows a three-step analysis: The first step requires the district court to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that the other act in question actually occurred. If so, the district court must decide whether the evidence of the other act is “‘probative of a material issue other than character.’” Finally, if the evidence is probative of a material issue other than character, the district court must decide whether the “probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect.” United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 719-20 (6th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Freeman does not challenge the first step in the admissibility analysis—there is no dispute that he was previously convicted of a state drug-trafficking offense. “We review a district court’s rulings regarding both the second and third steps of the Rule 404(b) admissibility analysis to determine whether the district court abused its discretion.” Id. at 720 (citing United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 553 & n. 1 (6th Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Allen, No. 08-6363, 2010 WL 3419506, at  (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2010). However, Freeman’s prior conviction is not probative of a material issue other than character. “Other acts” evidence satisfies this second step in the admissibility analysis where “(1) the evidence is offered for an admissible purpose, (2) the purpose for which the evidence is offered is material or ‘in issue,’ and (3) the evidence is probative with regard to the purpose for which it is offered.” Id. (citing United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (6th Cir. 1994)). The Government offered Freeman’s prior conviction for an admissible purpose: to prove his intent to distribute the narcotics found in the rental car. Indeed, “Rule 404(b) explicitly includes intent as a proper purpose for which to offer evidence of other acts.” Id. at 721; see also United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432, 442 (6th Cir. - 17 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell 2008). Moreover, Freeman’s intent is “in issue” because he pleaded not guilty to three counts of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance—a specific intent offense—and the Government therefore must prove his intent beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1192 (6th Cir. 1994). In the end, though, Freeman’s prior conviction was not probative of his intent to distribute here, even assuming any factual issues to be resolved in favor of admission. “To determine if evidence of other acts is probative of intent, we look to whether the evidence relates to conduct that is ‘substantially similar and reasonably near in time’ to the specific intent offense at issue.” Haywood, 280 F.3d at 721 (quoting United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 1985)). Our precedent suggests that “[t]here is no absolute maximum number of years that may separate a prior act and the offense charged.” United States v. Ismail, 756 F.2d 1253, 1260 (6th Cir. 1985). However, not only was Freeman’s prior conviction more than ten years old at the time of his January 2007 arrest, but the Government also failed to show a substantial similarity between the prior conviction and the conduct at issue here. The only evident similarities between the two are (1) the fact that Freeman, a resident of Georgia, was arrested in eastern Tennessee in both instances, and (2) the fact that the prior conviction involved crack cocaine, which was one of three controlled substances found in the defendants’ rental car. There is no additional information in the record as to the circumstances underlying Freeman’s earlier conviction. In Bell, facing a factually analogous situation, we concluded that a defendant’s four prior drug-trafficking convictions were not probative of his intent to distribute narcotics. 516 F.3d at 444. The government had alleged neither that the prior convictions were “part of the same scheme to - 18 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell distribute drugs,” nor that those prior convictions had involved a modus operandi similar to the charged conduct. Id. We therefore concluded that “[s]uch evidence of prior distribution, unconnected to the present charge, is not probative of whether [the defendant] intended to possess and distribute drugs in the instant case.” Id. Likewise, here, because the Government provided no evidence that Freeman’s prior conviction was substantially similar, or in any way related, to the charged conduct, his prior conviction is not probative of his intent to distribute narcotics. Indeed, as we explained in Bell, “[t]he only way to reach the conclusion that the person currently has the intent to possess and distribute based solely on evidence of unrelated prior convictions for drug distribution is by employing the very kind of reasoning—i.e., once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer—which 404(b) excludes.” Id. Accordingly, it was an abuse of discretion to find Freeman’s prior conviction probative of his intent to distribute narcotics. This court’s decision in United States v. Matthews, 440 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2006), relied upon by the district court, is distinguishable from the instant case. In Matthews, the defendant was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. Id. at 820. The defendant had asserted, by way of a defense, that he had picked up a clear plastic bag off the street without knowing that the bag contained crack. Id. at 821. Before trial, the government had filed a notice of its intent to call a witness who had allegedly purchased crack from the defendant some years earlier. Id. at 821-22. The government sought to introduce this evidence to prove the defendant’s knowledge and intent, id. at 821, and the district court ultimately allowed the testimony, id. at 823. On appeal, this court affirmed. Id. at 830. Because the defense had been “based on [the defendant’s] claim that he did not know what was in the bag,” the witness’s testimony as to the - 19 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell earlier drug sales “obviously had probative value.” Id. Indeed, even though the witness testified to events remote in time, “[b]ecause one of [the defendant]’s defenses was that he simply did not know that the bag contained cocaine, the district court properly decided that even eight-year-old drug sales were probative as to whether [the defendant] could identify the contents of the bag.” Id. Accordingly, the district court had “properly concluded that such prior drug sales were probative on the issue of whether [the defendant] knew that the clear plastic bag found in his possession contained cocaine, as well as on the issue of whether [the defendant] intended to distribute the drug.” Id. The Matthews panel did not further analyze the probative value of the prior drug sales vis-a-vis the defendant’s intent. Because the government in Matthews used the “other acts” evidence primarily to prove knowledge and to refute the specific defense presented, the Matthews case is distinguishable from the case at hand. Even assuming, though, that Freeman’s prior conviction is probative of his specific intent, the conviction’s probative value is greatly overshadowed by its potential for unfair prejudice. See United States v. Jenkins, 593 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2010) (describing the prejudicial effect of a prior conviction as “Kong-like” under similar circumstances). We recognize that “[t]he district court has broad discretion in balancing probative value against potential prejudicial impact” under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Ismail, 756 F.2d at 1259; see Bell, 516 F.3d at 445. However, a district court “weighing the probative value of other acts evidence” should consider “the government’s alternative sources of proving intent.” Bell, 516 F.3d at 445; see Jenkins, 593 F.3d at 485-86. In the instant case, the sheer volume and street value of the drugs suggests that whoever possessed them intended - 20 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell to distribute them. See Bell, 516 F.3d at 446. This alternative evidence of intent diminished the Government’s need to introduce Freeman’s prior conviction at trial. See Haywood, 280 F.3d at 723. On the other side of the scale, the prior conviction “unquestionably ha[d] a powerful and prejudicial impact” on the jury. Johnson, 27 F.3d at 1193. “When prior acts evidence is introduced, regardless of the stated purpose, the likelihood is very great that the jurors will use the evidence precisely for the purpose it may not be considered[:] to suggest that the defendant is a bad person, a convicted criminal, and that if he ‘did it before he probably did it again.’” Id. In light of the limited probative value—if any—of the prior conviction, the availability of other evidence of intent, and the substantial likelihood that the jury viewed the conviction as proof of a propensity to distribute drugs, it was an abuse of discretion to admit the prior conviction into evidence. See Haywood, 280 F.3d at 720, 723; Allen, 2010 WL 3419506, at  (both setting forth the standard of review). Even though the district court gave a limiting instruction, that instruction was not “a surefire panacea for the prejudice resulting from the needless admission of such evidence.” Haywood, 280 F.3d at 724. The improper admission of Freeman’s prior conviction, moreover, was reversible error. The district court’s erroneous admission of “other acts” evidence is “reversible unless we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’” Id. (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946)). An assessment of “[w]hether the jury was ‘substantially swayed’ by the improper admission of [‘other acts’] evidence . . . generally depends on whether the properly admissible evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming.” Id. Although the sheer - 21 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell volume and street value of the drugs in this case provided highly persuasive, if not overwhelming, evidence of an intent to distribute, the evidence of Freeman’s possession, relative to Russell, is fairly weak.2 “[T]his was, after all, a case of only constructive possession.” Jenkins, 593 F.3d at 486. Absent evidence of Freeman’s prior conviction, the jury may have believed that he did not know about the drugs. Indeed, it is certainly possible that Russell put the drugs in the car during the twenty or so minutes when he borrowed it from Freeman. In light of the presumption that favors reversal, and because we cannot say that the jury was not substantially swayed, it was reversible error to admit Freeman’s prior conviction into evidence.3 Freeman also attacks the district court’s jury instruction on the use of his prior conviction for impeachment purposes. Because Freeman’s convictions are reversed on other grounds, we do not reach the impeachment issue. C. Admission of Evidence of the July 2006 Incident. Both Freeman and Russell challenge the district court’s admission of evidence, again pursuant to Rule 404(b), that they had reported the theft of thousands of dollars in cash from their Johnson City, Tennessee, hotel room roughly six months before their arrests in this case. The district court properly admitted the evidence, which supported an inference that the defendants had 2 The district court, in denying the defendants’ motions for judgments of acquittal, did note, however, that “the proof is less convincing, less overwhelming with respect to Mr. Russell than it is to Mr. Freeman, especially on the issue of whether or not he knowingly possessed the, the drugs in question here.” 3 One might argue that if the erroneous admission of Freeman’s prior conviction infected the jury’s verdict as to him, then that same error also infected the jury’s verdict as to Russell. However, Russell does not advance that argument on appeal and, therefore, we need not decide the issue. - 22 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell previously trafficked in drugs in eastern Tennessee. The district court, moreover, properly instructed the jury to consider the evidence only as it related to the defendants’ intent. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the Government had presented sufficient evidence that the July 2006 incident had occurred. See Matthews, 440 F.3d at 828 (setting forth the standard of review). When the government seeks the admission of “other acts” evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), “the government is not required to demonstrate [for the court] that the other acts occurred by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bell, 516 F.3d at 441. However, “‘similar act evidence is relevant only if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor.’” Id. (quoting Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 689 (1988)). By presenting the testimony of Officers McCurry and Edwards, the Government put forth sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the July 2006 incident had occurred. Based on evidence that (1) the defendants had kept thousands of dollars in cash in a hotel room; (2) a drug dog had alerted on the money, albeit at a different location; and (3) each defendant had claimed half of the recovered sum of more than $14,000, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendants, together, had recently trafficked in drugs. The Government’s evidence of the July 2006 incident is probative of a material issue other than character. The Government offered this evidence to prove Freeman and Russell’s intent to distribute narcotics—a proper purpose for the admission of “other acts” evidence under Rule 404(b). Haywood, 280 F.3d at 721; see also Bell, 516 F.3d at 442. Because both Freeman and Russell pleaded not guilty to the charged offenses, their intent is “in issue” and the Government therefore must prove their intent beyond a reasonable doubt. See Johnson, 27 F.3d at 1192. Finally, the - 23 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell Government’s evidence is probative of intent because, in July 2006, the defendants engaged in “conduct that [wa]s ‘substantially similar and reasonably near in time’ to the specific intent offense[s] at issue” here. Haywood, 280 F.3d at 721 (quoting United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 1985)). As mentioned, the July 2006 incident occurred just months before, and geographically near to where, Freeman and Russell were arrested in connection with this case. In addition, in July 2006, a drug dog alerted on the thousands of dollars in cash that the defendants had reported stolen, suggesting that the money had recently been in close proximity to narcotics. Just six months later, in January 2007, local law-enforcement authorities discovered a stash of narcotics, worth $20,000, hidden in the defendants’ rental car. Most importantly, Freeman and Russell were traveling together both when they reported the theft from their hotel room in July 2006 and when they were stopped for speeding in January 2007. Accordingly, because the July 2006 incident occurred reasonably near in time and involved conduct substantially similar to the conduct at issue here, evidence of the July 2006 incident is probative of the defendants’ intent to distribute narcotics. Indeed, evidence suggesting that Freeman and Russell had previously collaborated to sell drugs goes directly to the question of whether either defendant was innocently in the presence of the other’s drug-sale activity when their rental car was stopped in January 2007. Having properly concluded that evidence of the July 2006 incident was probative of the defendants’ intent to distribute narcotics, the district court further determined that the evidence was “not unduly prejudicial when you do the [Rule] 403 balancing test.” The district court, moreover, gave the jury appropriate limiting instructions as to the use of the evidence, both immediately after the Government had presented its evidence and after the close of all evidence at trial. See United - 24 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell States v. Merriweather, 78 F.3d 1070, 1077 (6th Cir. 1996). Because neither Freeman nor Russell makes a persuasive argument on appeal as to why the July 2006 incident’s probative value is substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice, there is no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this “other acts” evidence. See Bell, 516 F.3d at 445 (noting the “highly discretionary nature of th[e] balancing process”). D. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Convict Russell. Although the evidence against Russell is not overwhelming, it does support a guilty verdict on each count. Russell’s sufficiency of the evidence argument appears to focus on the jury’s finding that he “knowingly possessed” the narcotics found in the rental car. The Government, relying on a theory of constructive (rather than actual) possession, put forth sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. “[C]onstructive possession exists when a person . . . knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Hunter, 558 F.3d 495, 504 (6th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940, 944-45 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting “that the theory of constructive possession requires ‘specific intent’”). “Physical proximity to drugs, or mere presence in an area where drugs are found, is not sufficient” to support a finding of possession. United States v. White, 932 F.2d 588, 589 (6th Cir. 1991). The evidence in this case allows the inference that Russell was not merely physically present in the rental car, but rather knew that he had the power—and, in fact, intended at some point—to exercise dominion and control over the contraband. In deciding claims such as this one, the court considers “the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any - 25 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364, 374 (6th Cir. 2008); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). At trial, both Trooper Lunceford and Officer Wigand testified that the narcotics had been concealed at the rear center of the vehicle’s headliner. This testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, suggests that both Freeman, the driver, and Russell, in the front passenger seat, had access to the drugs. Trooper Lunceford further testified that both Freeman and Russell had spontaneously put “their hands up in the air” when he had stopped their vehicle; that gesture is “nothing [he] see[s] normally on a routine traffic stop.” The jury could infer, then, that both Freeman and Russell had guilty knowledge of the presence of the narcotics at that time. Russell himself testified that he had borrowed the rental car for twenty to twenty-five minutes to drive to his girlfriend’s house while Freeman had rented a hotel room. This testimony provided a basis for the jury to infer that Russell, not Freeman, had put the drugs in the vehicle’s headliner. Even if the jury concluded that Freeman had hidden the drugs sometime earlier in the day, the jury could infer from Freeman’s entrusting the car to Russell that Freeman and Russell were working together to possess and distribute the drugs. Finally, the Government presented evidence that, after police had recovered more than $14,000 from a hotel maid in July 2006, Freeman and Russell had each claimed half of the money. The jury could infer from this evidence that Freeman and Russell had shared the proceeds of drug distribution previously and that they had intended to do so again, before they were apprehended. This was sufficient for the jury to find that Russell had developed the specific intent to exercise dominion and control over the contraband, as required to establish constructive possession. See Bailey, 553 F.3d at 944-45. - 26 - Nos. 08-5677/08-5678 United States v. Freeman/Russell The Government presented additional evidence that Freeman and Russell had intended to distribute the drugs. Most notably, the sheer volume of drugs suggests an intent to distribute. Indeed, one of the Government’s witnesses estimated that the drugs had a street value of $20,000. Although the evidence against Russell is circumstantial, on the whole, and when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions. See United States v. Welch, 97 F.3d 142, 150-51 (6th Cir. 1996).