State v. Janes

1

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEREMIAH RAY JANES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 22-0748

Court of Appeals of Iowa

June 21, 2023

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Terry Rickers, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Greer, Schumacher, Ahlers, and Badding JJ.

TABOR PRESIDING JUDGE

Jeremiah Janes appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver after the police arrested him and found the substance in his pocket. He contends the police officer's detection of marijuana odor in the hotel parking lot where he was standing did not provide reasonable suspicion to seize him. From there, he argues the search violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.

We find, even if the seizure were unreasonable, Janes could not lawfully resist his arrest. That resistance gave an independent basis to search, resulting in the discovery of the methamphetamine. So we affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

West Des Moines Police Officer Andrew Hofbauer was patrolling along Jordan Creek Parkway around 11:50 p.m. and circled the Motel 6 parking lot with his windows down to smell the air.^[1] While going around the southeast corner of the motel, he "could smell an odor of marijuana and could see several people outside." Hofbauer circled a second time and noticed the marijuana smell especially at the southeast corner of the hotel. On his second lap, he saw two people standing next to a motorcycle and two other people next to a car parked a few spots away from the motorcycle. He parked his car and radioed for support officers on a "suspicious vehicle."

Bypassing that vehicle, a Nissan Rogue, Hofbauer first approached the couple standing near the motorcycle. He would eventually identify them as Janes and Janes's friend, Hailey Rusk. While talking with them, the officer noticed "a strong odor of marijuana." He recalled that it was "stronger, more prevalent than when I was driving around the area." When asked whether he smelled burnt or raw marijuana, Hofbauer testified, "I can't distinguish or recall what the actual odor was, burned or raw."

Hofbauer asked Janes and Rusk for identification, but they refused. Janes asserted he was a "private American national," and chose not to "contract with" the law enforcement officer. Hofbauer responded:

. . . Okay. Well, I'm gonna have you guys stay here until we can figure out where this odor of marijuana is coming from, okay? Because I have reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that there's marijuana in this area and that you guys both are in the area where an odor of marijuana is coming from, okay?

Just as Hofbauer walked away, Officer Brandon Condon walked up to Janes and Rusk. Condon engaged them in conversation for about three minutes until Hofbauer returned. Condon asked Janes why he parked his motorcycle on the curb, too close to a fire hydrant. Condon also testified that he could smell marijuana "emitting in the area" during this conversation. A third officer, Jaime Ballesteros, likewise testified to smelling marijuana on the scene. None of the officers could specify if they smelled burnt or raw marijuana.

Meanwhile Hofbauer spoke with the other two people in the parking lot. They both provided Hofbauer with identification, which he checked for warrants. And he decided the marijuana scent was not coming from them. Then he returned to Janes and Rusk. On Hofbauer's bodycam, Rusk can be seen setting down a backpack she was wearing during their initial encounter. After reaching them, Hofbauer told Janes and Rusk, "I can smell marijuana right now" and hypothesized that it "poofed up" from Rusk's backpack.

Their conversation then turned back to the unauthorized spot where the motorcycle was parked before Hofbauer again asked for identification. When Janes remained recalcitrant, Hofbauer explained the reason for seizing Janes and Rusk was that he smelled marijuana "right here." Hofbauer also said he would arrest Janes for interference with official acts based on his refusal to show identification when "lawfully ordered" to do so. During this discussion, Janes disclosed that he had "paraphernalia" in his pocket, but he didn't believe that the officers could smell marijuana from it.

After roughly twelve minutes of back-and-forth, Hofbauer again expressed his intent to arrest Janes. Janes stated, "no you're not," and asked, "on what grounds?" Hofbauer replied "you're under arrest . . . for interference." Hofbauer, Condon, and Ballesteros then surrounded and advanced on Janes. Janes backed up shouting "don't touch me" and turned away, but was blocked by a railing. The officers wrestled Janes to the ground and handcuffed him. Janes at first kept his arms to his front so the officers could not cuff him. During the tussle, Hofbauer's body camera mount broke.

After taking Janes to the ground, officers searched his pockets, as well as Rusk's backpack. On Janes, they found a bag containing over 100 grams of methamphetamine and a pipe that appeared to have marijuana residue in it. Condon testified that the pipe could have been the source of the marijuana odor. Inside the backpack, officers found 2.3 grams of marijuana in a plastic bag, that was inside a cloth case, that was inside of a purse. Condon also testified that he believed it "could be possible" to detect the smell of that amount of marijuana in that state of packaging from thirty feet away.

The State charged Janes with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, as a class "B" felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2021), and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, a class "D" felony, in violation of Iowa Code sections 453B.1, .3, and .12. And it charged him as a habitual offender, in violation of section 902.8.^[2]

Janes moved to suppress everything found after he was first seized by Officer Hofbauer. After a suppression hearing, where Janes represented himself, the court denied the suppression motion.

The State agreed to dismiss the tax stamp violation and reduce the possession charge to five grams or less, a "C" felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(6). In return, Janes waived a jury and agreed to a bench trial on the minutes of evidence. The court found him guilty as charged.^[3]

Janes now appeals.

II. Scope and Standard of Review

"When a defendant challenges a district court's denial of a motion to suppress based upon the deprivation of a state or federal constitutional right, our standard of review is de novo." State v. Hauge, 973 N.W.2d 453, 458 (Iowa 2022). That review means we consider the entire record to independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances. Id. In doing so, we defer to the district court's fact determinations but are not bound by them. Id. "In our review of the suppression ruling, we consider not only the evidence at the suppression hearing but also the evidence at trial." State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 36 (Iowa 2005).

II. Discussion

Janes argues police officers seized him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In his view, the whiff of marijuana in an open-air parking lot occupied by several people was not particular enough for a seizure. And even if the odor did provide reasonable suspicion to seize him, Janes insists police went too far in detaining him for "a prolonged period of time without likelihood of furthering their investigation."

In his suppression argument, Janes relies on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.^[4] Both documents protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d 101, 107 (Iowa 2001). Evidence obtained following a violation of these constitutional protections is generally inadmissible at trial. Id. at 111.

To justify an investigatory stop, an officer must have reasonable suspicion, backed by specific and articulable facts, to believe criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). The officer "must be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch." Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330-31 (1990) (cleaned up for readability) (citations omitted).

In denying the motion to suppress, the district court found that Officer Hofbauer possessed both reasonable suspicion to detain and probable cause to arrest Janes.^[5] The reasonable suspicion was Hofbauer's "credibl[e] testi[mony]" that he smelled marijuana while driving through the parking lot "where [Janes] was located." The court reasoned that Hofbauer questioned other people in the parking lot and "eliminated them as potential sources of the marijuana aroma."

But Janes points out that Hofbauer detained him before confirming the other couple was not the source of the smell. According to Janes, he was seized when Officer Hofbauer told him to "stay here until we can figure out where this odor of marijuana is coming from." See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 55354 (1980) (holding that seizure occurs when a reasonable person under the circumstances would not feel free to leave).

Janes next focuses on particularity. He contends the smell of marijuana did not furnish reasonable suspicion because Officer Hofbauer never determined with any precision that the smell was coming from him. See United States v Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981) ("An investigatory stop must be justified by some...