United States v. Hays, No. 22-3294 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed an appeal related to a Fourth Amendment issue involving a warrantless search of a vehicle. The defendant, Charles Hays, was stopped by the police while driving, and his passenger was found in possession of methamphetamine. The police officers then searched the vehicle's interior but found no drugs. However, under the hood of the car, inside the air filter, they discovered more methamphetamine.
Hays was indicted and later moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that the officers did not have probable cause to search under the hood and in the air filter. The district court denied his motion, and Hays subsequently pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle, including all parts of the vehicle where there is a fair probability contraband could be concealed, as long as there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity. The court found that given the totality of the circumstances, including the passenger's possession of methamphetamine, Hays's previous drug-related arrest, and the presence of a screwdriver in the car - a tool known to be used for hiding drugs in vehicles - officers had a fair probability to believe that methamphetamine could be concealed in the car, including under its hood.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-3294 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES R. HAYS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 3:20-cr-30021 — Sue E. Myerscough, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 2023 — DECIDED JANUARY 12, 2024 ____________________ Before FLAUM, SCUDDER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. After stopping the car Charles Hays was driving, officers observed Hays’s passenger possessing methamphetamine and a smoking pipe. Officers searched the car’s interior, finding a screwdriver in the center console but no drugs. An officer then searched under the car’s hood and found methamphetamine in the air filter. The only issue on appeal is whether the officers had probable cause to search under the car’s hood, including inside the air filter. Because 2 No. 22-3294 the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement authorizes officers to search a car without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband, including all parts of the car in which there is a fair probability contraband could be concealed, we conclude they did. I The following facts are not in dispute. In October 2019, Illinois State Police (ISP) Inspector Evert Nation received information that a male subject known as “Chuck” was distributing methamphetamine in Christian County, Illinois. That same month, ISP agents were surveilling a suspected drug tra cking location in Christian County and observed a man driving a silver Cadillac arrive at the location. The agents determined that the car was registered to Brenda Berger, and the driver, Charles Hays, was her son. On October 15, 2019, Inspector Nation spotted the Cadillac traveling toward Taylorville, Illinois, and noticed that the vehicle did not have working taillights. Inspector Nation noti ed the Taylorville police chief, Dwayne Wheeler, of his observation. Chief Wheeler located the Cadillac and, after noticing its illegal tints and observing it cross the center lane twice, initiated a tra c stop with help from O cer Jeremy Alwerdt. During the stop, the o cers identi ed the driver as Hays, and O cer Alwerdt recognized the passenger, Tamera Wisnasky, from previous encounters and knew she had an outstanding arrest warrant. When questioned, Wisnasky falsely identi ed herself as Kayla. O cer Alwerdt noticed that Wisnasky was attempting to conceal something in her right hand, which he recognized as a glass pipe used to smoke No. 22-3294 3 methamphetamine. O cer Alwerdt then went to grab Wisnasky’s hands, at which time he observed her shove something in her mouth. At O cer Alwerdt’s demand, Wisnasky spit out the object, and he identi ed it as a plastic container carrying suspected methamphetamine. Wisnasky was consequently arrested. Meanwhile, Chief Wheeler directed Hays to get out of the car. During questioning, Hays looked nervous, falsely identi ed Wisnasky as Kayla, and stated that he had been arrested before and gone to prison for drug possession. At that point, the o cers decided to search the Cadillac. The o cers did not nd contraband inside the passenger compartment but spotted a screwdriver in the center console, which they knew could be used to hide drugs in traps within vehicles. An o cer then searched under the hood, including inside the air lter (a screwdriver is used to open the air lter housing box). In the air lter housing, he found a bag containing methamphetamine. Following indictment, Hays moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the tra c stop, which the district court denied. Hays pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Hays argues that the o cers did not have probable cause to search under the hood and in the air lter. II We review the district court’s probable cause determination de novo. United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 2010). 4 No. 22-3294 Under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, o cers may conduct “a warrantless search of a vehicle … so long as there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity.” United States v. Washburn, 383 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153–56 (1925)). It is well settled that o cers can search a car without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe that illegal substances are present. See, e.g., Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300–02 (1999) (holding that o cers could conduct a warrantless search of a car where they “had probable cause to believe there were illegal drugs in the car”); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538, 545 (7th Cir. 2004) ( nding probable cause to search a car, including the trunk, without a warrant where the o cer discovered a controlled substance which had fallen out of the defendant’s hat). During the tra c stop, o cers saw Wisnasky in possession of a pipe for smoking methamphetamine and methamphetamine itself, and o cers knew that Hays was recently seen at a known drug tra cking location. True, as Hays argues, the o cers observed Hays’s passenger, rather than Hays himself, with methamphetamine. But we previously held that under the automobile exception, an o cer had the authority to conduct a warrantless search of a car when he discovered the passenger in possession of contraband. United States v. McGuire, 957 F.2d 310, 314 (7th Cir. 1992) (“Once Trooper Newman discovered that [the passenger] was transporting open, alcoholic liquor … he had probable cause to believe that the car contained additional contraband or evidence.”); see Houghton, 526 U.S. at 304–05 (rejecting a driver/passenger distinction and noting that a vehicle’s driver and passenger “will often be engaged in a common enterprise … and have the same interest in concealing the fruits No. 22-3294 5 or the evidence of their wrongdoing”). Thus, the o cers had probable cause to search the car’s interior. Further, officers may search all containers within a car “where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.” California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991). In other words, “[i]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search[,]” Houghton, 526 U.S. at 301 (quotation omitted) (emphasis in the original), “including closed compartments, containers, packages, and trunks,” Williams, 627 F.3d at 251. To justify probable cause for a search, “[a]ll that is required is a fair probability of discovering contraband.” Id. at 252. This is true “without qualification as to ownership” of the containers searched. Houghton, 526 U.S. at 301. Once the officers began searching the car’s interior, they discovered a screwdriver in the center console but nothing else to suggest that the screwdriver was a tool of Hays’s trade. Based on their experience, the officers knew that the screwdriver could have been used to hide methamphetamine in the vehicle. Thus, considering the circumstances leading up to and during the stop “viewed from the position of a reasonable police officer,” United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d 808, 815 n.7 (7th Cir. 2006), the officers reasonably found a fair probability that the area under the hood, including the air filter, could contain methamphetamine. See United States v. Eymann, 962 F.3d 273, 286 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Probable cause to search a vehicle exists ‘if, given the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’”) (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Patterson, 65 F.3d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1995) (finding probable cause to search behind a vehicle’s tailgate panel where officers 6 No. 22-3294 observed missing screws from the tailgate interior and a drugsniffing dog alerted to the odor of drugs). AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
