Facts
A state trooper observed David Davalos commit a traffic violation by failing to signal a lane change. As the officer initiated a traffic stop by activating his lights, Davalos pulled into the driveway of his home and parked his car. The driveway was beside the home. A public sidewalk ran in front of the house but stopped at the edge of the driveway. There were no fences or gates surrounding the house. The officer parked his patrol vehicle on the street in front of Davalos’s driveway, blocking Davalos’s car from leaving. After getting out of his patrol vehicle, the officer instructed Davalos to do the same and walk to the street. Davalos complied, leaving the driver’s side door open. The officer informed Davalos that he had failed to signal.
For his own safety, the officer walked to Davalos’s car to verify that no one was inside. He could not see into Davalos’s car because it had tinted windows. After knocking on the back left passenger side window to alert potential occupants of his presence, the officer walked to the open driver’s side door to look inside. At that point, he smelled marihuana, saw ashes throughout the car, and noticed that the driver’s side door had been tampered with, i.e., that the panel had been taken off and put back on. The officer returned to the street and asked Davalos to retrieve his driver’s license and proof of insurance. They both walked to Davalos’s car.
While Davalos looked for his documents, the officer again smelled marihuana and noticed ashes and that the door panel that had been tampered with. The officer told Davalos that he smelled marihuana inside Davalos’s car and asked him when he had last smoked. Davalos responded that he had just smoked. When the officer asked whether Davalos “had anything on him,” Davalos replied that he had “a little bit of weed” in his pocket. Because of the odor of marihuana, Davalos’s admission that he had recently smoked marihuana, and Davalos’s possession of marihuana in his pocket, the officer informed Davalos that he would search his car. The search resulted in the discovery of marihuana and a firearm in the door panel.
Davalos was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before trial, he moved to suppress all evidence seized in connection with a warrantless search of his car while it was parked in the driveway of the house that he shared with his parents. Relying on SCOTUS Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586 (2018), and SCOTUS Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), Davalos claimed the car was within the curtilage of his house and thus was entitled to the same Fourth Amendment protections. Davalos additionally asserted that no exigent circumstances justified the search.
The judge found that unlike in Collins, the driveway where Davalos’s car was parked was not part of the home’s curtilage. In making that finding, he explained that there was no driveway enclosure, and the driveway where Davalos’s car was parked was in front of the house next to the sidewalk and street. The judge also found that all four factors in SCOTUS United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987), weighed against a finding that Davalos’s driveway was part of the home’s curtilage. Johnson was entitled to approach the vehicle as part of the lawful stop, and the odor of marihuana, Davalos’s admission that he had recently smoked marihuana, and his possession of a small amount of marihuana created the necessary probable cause to search the car.
Even if the driveway was part of the curtilage, the judge found that the search of Davalos’s car was permissible. Specifically, he found that the officer was entitled to conduct the traffic stop after observing Davalos commit a traffic violation. After he stopped Davalos, the officer only sought to ensure there was no other occupant in the heavily tinted vehicle. The officer developed probable cause to support the search based on the smell of marihuana, Davalos’s admission that he had recently smoked, and Davalos’s possession of marihuana. He further found that the immediacy of the pursuit and ensuing stop also provided a basis for the officer to approach the car initially, at which point he smelled the marijuana that triggered the ensuing search.
Davalos pleaded guilty after signing a conditional plea agreement that allowed him to appeal the ruling on his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Davalos to time served and a three-year term of supervised release. Davalos appeals. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
The officer’s conduct did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. To begin, he validly conducted a stop after a traffic violation. From there, he approached the car and merely looked for the presence of passengers for one obvious reason—officer safety. The officer’s approach and cursory look into the car were perfectly legitimate because the passenger’s presence could not be reasonably ascertained in the heavily tinted car. Upon knocking on the window, the officer smelled marihuana and noticed, in plain view, that the driver side door was tampered with. Importantly, the officer returned to the patrol car parked on the street, without manipulating the door panel. He merely inspected what came into view, which does not constitute an independent search. On the street, the officer asked Davalos for his driver’s license and proof of insurance and then accompanied him to his car to keep an eye on him because the documents were in the car’s glovebox, a place where weapons are often kept. Indeed, the officer was well within his right, in the interest of his safety, to accompany Davalos because of the tampered-with door panel and glovebox retrieval.
Once again, the officer smelled marihuana odor emanating from Davalos’s car and asked him when he had last smoked, to which Davalos confirmed that he just had. But the officer didn’t immediately begin searching the car. In the interest of officer safety, he appropriately asked a relevant question—whether Davalos had anything on him, to which Davalos replied that he had a little bit of weed in his pocket. The officer’s question was perfectly legitimate—Davalos was not in custody, the officer did not use any coercive police procedures and remained calm throughout, and Davalos voluntarily cooperated with the officer and believed no incriminating evidence would be discovered.
By then, the officer had gathered sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search Davalos’s car, particularly for marihuana. The officer searched Davalos’s car only after reconfirming the marihuana odor, hearing Davalos’s admissions, and discovering a noticeably tampered-with door panel. The officer was well within his right to inspect the door panel, among other parts of the car, because the door panel could have contained the object of the search—marihuana. That the search revealed marihuana and a firearm does not change the calculus. The officer’s conduct was wholly appropriate under the circumstances.
Because exigent circumstances existed and the officer gathered sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search Davalos’s car, we have no need to address whether the area searched was curtilage. The officer’s conduct did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50925-CR0.pdf