USA v. Christopher Session

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Christopher Desean Session. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-14899

Date Filed: 05/10/2016

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14899
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cr-00014-RH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER DESEAN SESSION,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 10, 2016)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-14899

Date Filed: 05/10/2016

Page: 2 of 4

Christopher Session appeals his convictions for possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), possessing with intent to
distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),
(b)(1)(D), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of his drug crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Session appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the drugs
and firearm discovered during a warrantless search of his vehicle. We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Session’s motion to suppress.
Officer Maddox stopped Session for a traffic violation. As Maddox approached
Session’s vehicle, he detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana and observed that
the occupants of the vehicle were extremely nervous. Although Maddox and two
other officers failed to mention the smell of marijuana in their written reports,
Maddox testified about the odor at the pre-trial hearing, and the district court
credited his testimonial account. We defer to the district court’s credibility
determination because it was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams,
731 F.3d 1222, 1230 (11th Cir. 2013). We have previously held that the
recognizable smell of marijuana gives rise to probable cause supporting a
warrantless search. See United States v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895, 903 (11th Cir. 1982);
see also United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

2

Case: 15-14899

Date Filed: 05/10/2016

Page: 3 of 4

Moreover, while the district court permissibly found probable cause based
on the smell of marijuana alone, Officer Maddox further recounted that Session
opened his center console to produce his insurance and exposed what Officer
Maddox perceived were currency and plastic bags filled with “orange, yellowish”
pills. This only added to the already-existing probable cause.
Though Maddox could have lawfully searched the vehicle after smelling
marijuana, he first went to his patrol car in an effort to allow the occupants of
Session’s vehicle to calm down since Maddox perceived them to be nervous.
Maddox also returned to his car to run a background check. When he returned to
Session’s vehicle, Maddox learned by radio that an outstanding warrant existed for
Session’s arrest. Maddox and a second backup officer arrested Session based on
the warrant. They then searched Session’s vehicle and discovered currency and
drugs in the center console, and a firearm, two clips of ammunition, and additional
currency in the glove compartment. The fact that Maddox did not search the
vehicle immediately did not affect the existence of probable cause, as a legitimate
reason for the time lapse existed. Because the search was conducted based on
probable cause, the officers were not required to obtain a warrant before seizing
the drugs, firearm, and ammunition from Session’s vehicle. See United States v.
Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 2163 (1982).
3

Case: 15-14899

Date Filed: 05/10/2016

We AFFIRM Session’s convictions.

4

Page: 4 of 4