CA6: RS developed for stopping vehicles driving in tandem; RS on totality

Police received a tip that a big load of marijuana was coming to a suspected chop shop that they’d been investigating for two years. A tractor trailer unloaded inside the gate at night in inclement whether. Two sets of two vehicles left the lot and the groups were followed, clearly driving in tandem, in different directions. There were no traffic offenses, but when officers initiated a stop based on reasonable suspicion, they could smell the raw marijuana, and that led to a probable cause search and the finding of a large quantity of marijuana. The stop and seizure was valid. United States v. Carrillo-Alvaro, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4343, 2014 FED App. 0178N (6th Cir. March 6, 2014):

Taken altogether, especially in light of the collective knowledge rule, the combination of (1) the informant’s tip, which was corroborated by the presence and description of the tractor-trailer; (2) the prior two-year investigative history, which was briefed to the officers; (3) the activity witnessed by Lee, specifically the unloading of the tractor-trailer at night during inclement weather at a suspected drug distribution location after business hours; (4) the officers’ observations that, shortly after unloading vehicles, two sets of vehicles left the location and drove in tandem on a wintry night when few cars were on the road; and (5) the officers’ training and experience investigating drug trafficking, more than fulfill the reasonable suspicion requirement.

Having assessed the validity of the initial stop, we now review the officers’ subsequent conduct. Once the police initiated the stops, it was only a matter of minutes before they discovered the bales of marijuana and arrested Landeros-Sandoval and Carrillo-Alvardo. The defendants were not arrested, nor were their vehicles searched, until the police had smelled and viewed the marijuana in the cargo area. Under these circumstances, the degree of intrusion into the suspect’s personal security was reasonably related in scope and that the police had probable cause to arrest the suspects. See Davis, 514 F.3d at 610 (finding probable cause to arrest where marijuana was in plain view in a vehicle); Garza, 10 F.3d at 1246 (finding probable cause to search a vehicle where an officer smelled marijuana). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of the motion to suppress for both Landeros-Sandoval and Carrillo-Alvaro.