Court Opinion

ID: 9906559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 16:01:17.409435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:12.259006
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1132
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                               Pedro Armando Nava

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: September 21, 2023
                            Filed: December 4, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Pedro Armando Nava conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent
to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(A)(i). The district court 1 sentenced him to a 121-month term of
imprisonment to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. He appeals the denial
of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

                                        I.

       On the morning of January 22, 2022, Nava was driving on Interstate 40 in
Crawford County, Arkansas, with his fiancée. Trooper Joshua Elmore observed
Nava’s car cross the fog line and noticed that its registration sticker was expired.
After Elmore signaled him to pull over, Nava stopped at the Arkansas Welcome
Center parking lot. Elmore approached the vehicle and spoke to Nava from the
passenger side window. He later testified that he smelled marijuana as soon as he
approached the car. Elmore asked Nava to exit the vehicle so they could speak in his
patrol car, and called for a backup trooper.

       Nava sat in the front passenger seat of the patrol car, without handcuffs or
restraints, while Elmore questioned him about his itinerary and rental car. Nava told
him that he and his fiancée were driving a one-way rental from California to
Charlotte, North Carolina, where his aunt lived. Nava added that they would
continue driving to New York City, where he had never visited, before flying back
to California. The rental agreement indicated that the car had to be returned in New
York by January 24th, only two days later, which seemed to Elmore like a quick trip.
Elmore then asked Nava how much “weed” was in the car, and Nava responded that
he had “a joint” in the door. Elmore exited the patrol car, while Nava remained in
the passenger seat, and approached his fiancée in the rental car. He asked her about
their travel plans and found it “very odd” that she said they were just “driving
around” and did not know where they were going.

      1
        The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable
Mark Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
                                        -2-
       Elmore then had Nava move from the front to the backseat of his patrol car
and had his fiancée sit in the backup trooper’s patrol car. Elmore and the backup
trooper proceeded to search the rental vehicle, ultimately finding narcotics concealed
in the lining of otherwise empty suitcases in the trunk. Nava and his fiancée were
subsequently arrested.

       Nava was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute more
than one kilogram of heroin and one count of possession with intent to distribute
more than 500 grams of cocaine, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1). He moved to suppress the statements and physical evidence obtained
during the traffic stop. After an evidentiary hearing, where the government
introduced dashcam footage of the stop and Elmore testified, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the motion be denied, concluding that Nava was not in custody
when Elmore questioned him in the patrol car and that Elmore had probable cause
to search Nava’s vehicle. The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation in its entirety. Nava then pleaded guilty to one count of the
Indictment, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

                                         II.

       When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, we review findings of
fact for clear error and review legal conclusions de novo. See United States v.
Callison, 2 F.4th 1128, 1131 (8th Cir. 2021). “We will affirm the denial of a motion
to suppress unless the district court’s decision was unsupported by substantial
evidence, was based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or was clearly
mistaken in light of the entire record.” United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d
407, 414 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Woods, 829 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir.
2016)).

      Nava argues that the district court erred in two ways: first, by concluding that
he was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda warnings; and second, by deciding

                                         -3-
that the odor of marijuana was sufficient to establish probable cause to search his
rental car. We address each argument.

                                           A.

       Under Miranda v. Arizona, a law enforcement officer is required to advise of
the “privilege against self-incrimination and to the assistance of counsel” prior to
subjecting an individual to custodial interrogation. United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d
1343, 1347 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing 384 U.S. 436, 444–45 (1966)). A driver is not
typically considered to be “in custody” when they are questioned during a traffic
stop such that their Miranda rights are triggered. United States v. Soderman, 983
F.3d 369, 376 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436, 439–
40 (1984)). To determine whether a driver’s Miranda rights are triggered during a
traffic stop, “courts should look for the ‘functional equivalent of formal arrest.’”
United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 935 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Berkemer, 468
U.S. at 442).

       The stop here was not custodial. Although Nava was asked to sit in Elmore’s
patrol car, he “retained a degree of free movement.” See Soderman, 983 F.3d at 377.
His detention and questioning were brief, and he was neither handcuffed, nor moved
to the back seat until after his conversation with Elmore had ended. See id.;
Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 441. Because the record supports the factual determination
that Nava was not in custody during the traffic stop, the district court did not err
when it found no Fifth Amendment or Miranda violation.

                                           B.

       Nava also argues that, given the legality of medical marijuana and industrial
hemp under Arkansas law, the district court erred when it concluded that the odor of
marijuana was sufficient to establish probable cause to search his car. When a police
officer makes a lawful traffic stop and has probable cause to believe that the vehicle
contains contraband, the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
                                         -4-
requirement may justify a warrantless search. United States v. Milk, 66 F.4th 1121,
1131 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Walker, 840 F.3d 477, 483 (8th Cir. 2016)),
cert. denied, No. 23-5274, 2023 WL 6378935 (Oct. 2, 2023). As Nava
acknowledges, this Circuit recognizes that “the odor of marijuana provides probable
cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception.” Id.
(quoting United States v. Williams, 955 F.3d 734, 737 (8th Cir. 2020)) (citing
Walker, 840 F.3d at 483). Because Elmore smelled marijuana coming from Nava’s
rental car when he first approached the vehicle, the district court did not err in
concluding that officers had probable cause to search it.

                                        III.

      We affirm the judgment of the district court.
                       _____________________________

                                         -5-