If Law Enforcement Incorrectly Determines that Probable Cause was Not Established Can an Appellate Court Later Determine that There was Probable Cause and Admit the Evidence?

Yes!

Taken together, these facts established a “fair probability” that the car would contain evidence of drug trafficking.  That the deputies thought they lacked probable cause is irrelevant; the analysis is objective.

United States v. Haworth

22 – 1050

Sixth Circuit Appellate Court

October 13, 2022

In August 2020, an employee of the Lansing Comfort Inn found a baggie of suspected methamphetamine in a hotel room and called 911.

At this Comfort Inn, located at 525 North Canal Road in Lansing, Michigan, Mr. Korey Haworth was found with his three children in his car.  His car also had a scale, methamphetamine and a firearm.  The deputies did not believe they had probable cause to search the car but the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court did – what would you have done?

She reported that Mr. Korey Haworth had stayed in that room for the past three days and had just checked out. She also said he looked “kind of out of it.” Shortly thereafter, Deputy C.J. Cunningham of the Eaton County Sheriff’s Department arrived to find Mr. Haworth and his three children in a parked car. Mr. Haworth who was holding two phones and sweating profusely-provided a false name and denied being on probation for any prior drug offenses. Cunningham promptly accessed a database that showed Mr. Haworth had recently been released on probation for a prior drug offense. Cunningham then arrested him for obstruction. 

After the arrest, Dep. Cunningham went to speak with the hotel staff. Meanwhile, Deputy John Davidson arrived at the scene and waited outside the car with Mr. Haworth’s children. The eldest, a six-year-old boy, said that his dad had “left his scale.” Davidson saw a digital scale in plain view on the passenger seat, and asked what it was for; the boy said his dad hid it from them and used it for “secret stuff.” Dep. Davidson relayed this information to Dep. Cunningham, and the two officers considered whether they had probable cause to search the vehicle. They worried they might not and chose to impound the car and perform an inventory search instead. That search revealed multiple bags of drugs and a loaded pistol. 

Denial of Motion to Suppress and Guilty Plea

The government thereafter charged Mr. Haworth with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Mr. Haworth moved to suppress the evidence found during the search. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which Dep. Davidson testified. There, it ruled that the search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and denied Mr. Haworth’s motion.

Appeal

Mr. Haworth then pled guilty, reserving the right to file this appeal. Mr. Haworth argues only that the search of his vehicle was unlawful because the officers lacked a warrant.

As an initial matter, we agree with Mr. Haworth that the exception for inventory searches does not apply. Officers may not conduct an inventory search “for purposes of investigation” – as the officers likely did here. United States v. Snoddy, 976 F.3d 630, 634  (6th Cir. 2020). 

What does apply here, however, is the automobile exception. Under that exception, officers may “[S]earch a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.” Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 922 F.3d 328, 334 (6th Cir. 2019)

Here, Mr. Haworth himself concedes that hotel staff had found what appeared to be methamphetamine in his room; that he was holding two phones when the police arrived; that he lied to Dep. Cunningham about his name; and that his car contained a digital scale. Digital scales are familiar “tools of the [drug] trade,”; and Mr. Haworth’s son gave the officers reason to believe that this one was indeed used for drugs. The officers also knew that Mr. Haworth had lied to them about having recently been convicted of another meth-related charge. Taken together, these facts established a “fair probability” that the car would contain evidence of drug trafficking.  That the deputies thought they lacked probable cause is irrelevant; the analysis is objective. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 586 (2018).

Holding

The search was therefore lawful under the automobile exception.

Information for this case was obtained from United States v. Hayworth, No. 22 – 1050.

This case was issued by the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court and is binding in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.