United States of America v. Ahmad Rashad Rhodes

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2829
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Ahmad Rashad Rhodes,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: June 12, 2025
Filed: August 19, 2025
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 5 --

COLLOTON, Chief Judge.
Ahmad Rhodes was convicted of several drug and firearm offenses. On appeal,
Rhodes challenges an order of the district court* denying his motion to suppress
evidence. We conclude that there was no reversible error, and affirm the judgment.
On March 20, 2023, officers with a narcotics task force observed passengers
at a bus station in Kansas City, Missouri. A Greyhound bus traveling from Los
Angeles stopped at the station on its way to New York. Detective Antonio Garcia
deployed a trained drug dog to sniff the bus and its contents. The dog alerted to a
suitcase located in the luggage compartment. The dog also alerted to a backpack
located in the bus’s passenger compartment. Officers retrieved the suitcase and the
backpack, and placed them on the station platform in an effort to identify the owner
of the bags.
A man wearing a coat and fanny pack, later identified as Rhodes, approached
the bags and reached for the backpack. Detective Collin Love asked Rhodes whether
the backpack belonged to him, and Rhodes answered in the affirmative. Love advised
Rhodes that a drug dog alerted to his bag, and asked Rhodes whether he was carrying
any large sums of currency, illegal narcotics, or firearms. Rhodes admitted that he
had a small amount of marijuana in his backpack. Love then asked permission to
search Rhodes’s backpack and to conduct a pat down search of his person. Rhodes
consented. Love then asked Rhodes to take off his coat and fanny pack, and Rhodes
placed them on a bench nearby.
*The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable W.
Brian Gaddy, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 5 --

While Love searched the backpack, Garcia began to speak with Rhodes.
Rhodes was sitting next to the coat and fanny pack on the bench. Garcia asked to
search the fanny pack. Rhodes declined to consent.
Garcia asked whether he could use his drug dog to sniff the bag instead, and
Rhodes reached for the bag. As he was reaching, Rhodes stated that he had a gun in
the bag. Garcia told Rhodes to remove his hands from the bag and attempted to place
Rhodes in handcuffs. Rhodes did not comply, and a struggle ensued between Garcia
and Rhodes. Several officers were needed to handcuff Rhodes.
Once Rhodes was secured, the officers moved him to an office in the back of
the station and retrieved his other bags from the bus. Garcia searched Rhodes’s coat
and found a pill bottle containing pills that were later identified as fentanyl.
Once Rhodes was brought to the office, Detective Love returned and read
Rhodes a form requesting permission to search his bags. Love removed the
handcuffs, and Rhodes signed the consent form. Officers then searched the bags and
seized a loaded firearm, more than 60 grams of methamphetamine, more than 330
grams of pills containing fentanyl, a quantity of marijuana, a digital scale, and
packaging supplies.
A grand jury charged Rhodes with committing four offenses: possession with
intent to distribute fentanyl; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine;
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; and unlawful
possession of a firearm as a felon. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A), (a)(8), 922(g)(1). Rhodes moved to suppress the evidence seized
at the bus station. The district court denied the motion. At trial, a jury found Rhodes
guilty on all counts. The district court sentenced Rhodes to 180 months’
imprisonment, followed by four years of supervised release.
-3-

-- 3 of 5 --

Rhodes challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear
error. United States v. Mayweather, 993 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2021).
Rhodes first contends that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him
when he was handcuffed and detained inside the bus station. Probable cause exists
when an officer has reasonably trustworthy information that is sufficient to lead a
person of reasonable caution to believe that the suspect has committed or is
committing a crime. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949).
The officers had probable cause to arrest Rhodes at least for possession of
marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Detectives Garcia and Love testified that based
on their training and experience, Greyhound buses from Los Angeles are often used
to transport drugs through the Kansas City area. The drug dog alerted to the presence
of drugs in Rhodes’s backpack. Rhodes admitted that the backpack belonged to him
and that the backpack contained marijuana. These facts and circumstances
established probable cause to believe that Rhodes unlawfully possessed marijuana.
See United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377, 1385-86 (8th Cir. 1990).
Rhodes also maintains that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his
bags because the officers created a coercive environment that induced him into giving
consent. We review the voluntariness of a consent to search for clear error,
considering the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the officer
reasonably believed that the defendant consented. United States v. Magallon, 984
F.3d 1263, 1280-81 (8th Cir. 2021).
The district court found that Rhodes had some college education, prior
experience with law enforcement, and general knowledge of his rights based on his
initial refusal to consent to the search of his fanny pack. The court also determined
that Rhodes did not appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of any controlled
-4-

-- 4 of 5 --

substance; that the officers did not make any promises, threats, or misrepresentations;
and that the officers did not engage in physical intimidation. These findings are not
clearly erroneous, and they support a finding of voluntary consent. See United States
v. Thomas, 97 F.4th 1139, 1142-43 (8th Cir. 2024).
Rhodes argues that officers placed him in a coercive environment by wrestling
him to the ground, handcuffing him, taking him to a secluded room in the bus station,
and soliciting consent without giving him warnings prescribed by Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The use of handcuffs and the placement of a suspect
under arrest or in custody does not preclude a finding of consent where other
circumstances suggest voluntariness. Magallon, 984 F.3d at 1281; United States v.
Bearden, 780 F.3d 887, 895 (8th Cir. 2015). Context is also relevant: Rhodes should
have understood that he was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed because he
refused to surrender a bag that contained a gun, not because he was under pressure
to consent. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the indicia of
voluntariness outweighed factors that might have weighed against a finding of
consent. The district court properly declined to suppress evidence seized as a result
of the consensual search.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-5-

-- 5 of 5 --