United States v. Smith, No. 14-2846 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseOfficer Tourville stopped a speeding car. The driver’s license identified the driver as Smith. Tourville noticed a “slight odor of marijuana” coming from inside the car. Tourville checked Smith’s license, requested back-up, and asked permission to search. Smith would not consent. A K-9 unit arrived 17 minutes after the initial stop and 11 minutes after the request to search. As the dog approached, Smith sped away and led a high-speed chase for several minutes. When his car spun out, Smith jumped a fence, ran across the highway, and escaped. Search of the vehicle pursuant to a warrant revealed two kilograms of cocaine; $6,000; a hand gun with ammunition; prescription bottles for Smith; credit, insurance, and membership cards in Smith’s name; cell phones, one with a number assigned to Smith; and a partially consumed bottle of soda. The DNA profile from the soda bottle matched DNA collected from Smith, who was then on supervised release following conviction for distribution of controlled substances. Later, Smith was arrested in Chicago and was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, carrying of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Smith unsuccessfully moved to suppress, arguing that the faint smell of marijuana was insufficient to extend his detention. The Eighth Circuit upheld denial of the motion, admission of evidence of Smith’s prior conviction, and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Court Description: White, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The smell of marijuana from defendant's vehicle, along with the officer's credible testimony, was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the automobile and its contents; further, defendant's actions in leading the police on a high-speed chase and then abandoning the vehicle provided an independent ground for his arrest and the search of his vehicle; no error in admitting evidence of defendant's 2002 conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute as it was relevant to his intent and knowledge in this prosecution for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; no error in permitting a police officer to testify as an expert on drug trafficking; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.
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.