Opinion ID: 66725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Illegal Search Argument

Text: Hamilton’s second argument appears to challenge the jury’s findings as to the validity of the search conducted by West and Brown. Because the district court addressed this issue when it ruled on Hamilton’s motion to suppress, we consider Hamilton’s illegal search argument as a challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress rather than as a challenge to the jury’s verdict. As such, we apply the same standard of review as that which we have previously outlined in the context of Hamilton’s probable cause argument. Consensual searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s general prohibition on warrantless searches. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 90 S. Ct. 2041, 2043 (1973); United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1281 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that a “consensual search is constitutional if it is voluntary”). In this case, the record indicates that Hamilton consented to a search of his vehicle. When asked by West for his consent, Hamilton responded “Yes, sir, 8 you can search, there is nothing in here.” R3 at 14. We conclude that because Hamilton consented to the search of his vehicle, the search withstands constitutional scrutiny. We note that grounds for a warrantless search also existed. Both West and Brown smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana as soon as Hamilton rolled down his window. We have held that “the recognizable smell of marijuana gives rise to probable cause supporting a warrantless search.” United States v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1982). In addition, West witnessed Hamilton attempt to conceal what later turned out to be a .45 caliber pistol in the cushion of the driver’s seat and Brown was forced to physically detain Bentley as he attempted to flee. These events would lead any reasonable officer to recognize the development of a potentially dangerous situation. We have long acknowledged that “officers conducting a traffic stop may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety . . . includ[ing] conducting a protective search of the driver, the passengers, and the vehicle.” Purcell, 236 F.3d at 1277 (quotation marks and citations omitted).