Opinion ID: 527606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reed's Appeal

Text: 3 Reed's sole contention on his appeal is that the district court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress because, as he asserts, there was no probable cause to search his vehicle. This contention is without merit. We agree that the Sierra Blanca checkpoint is not the functional equivalent of a border, and that, as a result, Border Patrol agents are required to have probable cause in order to search a vehicle there. United States v. Jackson, 825 F.2d 853 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed.2d 661 (1988). However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, United States v. Maldonado, 735 F.2d 809, 814 (5th Cir.1984), the record before us adequately supports the district court's determination that the Border Patrol had probable cause to search Reed's vehicle. 4 Probable cause determinations are not to be made on the basis of factors considered in isolation, but rather on the totality of the circumstances. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). [P]robable cause is the sum total of layers of information available to law enforcement officials. United States v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883, 895 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 968, 99 S.Ct. 458, 58 L.Ed.2d 427 (1978). The factors relevant to probable cause are not technical ones, but rather factual and practical ones of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act. United States v. Tarango-Hinojos, 791 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir.1986). Furthermore, a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions ... that might well elude an untrained person, and evidence collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). 5 In the present case, Agent Harvey observed several factors that in his experience led him to believe that criminal activity was underfoot. He noticed that Reed and Garrett appeared nervous and refused to make eye contact. See, e.g., United States v. Lanford, 838 F.2d 1351, 1354 (5th Cir.1988). More importantly, he detected the distinct odor of burnt marihuana, and this in itself would have justified the subsequent search of Reed's vehicle. United States v. Hahn, 849 F.2d 932, 935 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Sawyer, 849 F.2d 938 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Villareal, 565 F.2d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 824, 99 S.Ct. 92, 58 L.Ed.2d 116 (1978). Moreover, the detection of the odor of marihuana justified a search of the entire vehicle, including the locked compartment that was a likely place to conceal contraband. United States v. Sanchez, 861 F.2d 89, 91-92 (5th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 105 S.Ct. 881, 884-85, 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985)). 6 It is not controlling that the substance eventually discovered in the vehicle was cocaine, and that no marihuana was ever found. It is settled that the presence or absence of probable cause to search is not determined by what the search does or does not ultimately reveal. The factual underpinning for the search of Reed's vehicle was primarily Agent Harvey's detection of the odor of marihuana. Regarding this odor, Reed argues that since no marihuana or marihuana residue was found in the vehicle, it would have been impossible for Agent Harvey to smell burnt marihuana. We reject this contention. The government advanced several plausible theories for this occurrence, 4 and the resolution of this issue simply boiled down to a credibility choice. Reed's testimony throughout the proceedings contains a multitude of what may be most charitably described as self-contradictions, and Agent Harvey's testimony that he clearly smelled marihuana from the vehicle was positive and unequivocal. The district court's decision to believe Agent Harvey rather than Reed, and thereby deny Reed's motion to suppress, must be affirmed.