United States of America v. Timothy McGraddie Drake

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3332
___________________________
United States of America
Petitioner - Appellee
v.
Timothy McGraddie Drake
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: January 16, 2026
Filed: June 8, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Drake was indicted for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), after a traffic stop. Drake moved to suppress
the evidence uncovered during the stop, arguing that the search violated the Fourth

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
Amendment. The district court1 denied Drake’s motion, and he then pled guilty to
one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), a lesser included offense. He was sentenced to 41 months of
imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release. Drake reserved the right to
appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress in his plea agreement. He
now does so, and we affirm.
On June 5, 2023, Officer Perkins of the Kennett, Missouri Police Department
observed Drake driving at night without his taillights illuminated. Officer Perkins
pulled Drake over and he got out of his vehicle to confront Officer Perkins about the
stop. Officer Perkins asked Drake to return to his vehicle and for his license, but he
did not immediately comply. When Drake finally returned to his vehicle, Officer
Perkins accompanied him and immediately noticed “a strong odor of marijuana
emitting from the vehicle” when Drake opened the door. Officer Perkins later
testified that he “believed that it may be in the vehicle or Mr. Drake may have just
possibly smoked some marijuana.” After conversing with Drake, Officer Perkins
learned that Drake was driving with a suspended license. During the remainder of
the stop, Drake continued to exhibit evasive and agitated behavior. The stop
escalated by Drake continuing to be extremely agitated and getting in Officer
Perkins’s face, causing Officer Perkins to handcuff Drake.
After Officer Perkins handcuffed Drake, he discovered the vehicle was not
insured. So, Officer Perkins called for a tow truck. Officer Perkins then searched
the vehicle and discovered more than 300 methamphetamine pills, 7.5 ounces of
marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and $20,284. Following this discovery, Drake was
indicted and entered a conditional plea to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. Drake now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing
in relevant part, the odor of marijuana coming from his vehicle was insufficient to
1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
establish probable cause to search his vehicle because recreational marijuana is legal
in Missouri.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. McGhee, 944 F.3d 740, 742 (8th Cir. 2019). Additionally, “[we] ‘may
affirm the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress on any ground supported by
the record.’” United States v. Mayo, 97 F.4th 552, 555 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting
United States v. Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 614 (8th Cir. 2021)).
“During a lawful investigatory traffic stop, officers may search a vehicle
without a warrant when they develop probable cause to believe it contains
contraband or evidence of criminal activity” under the automobile exception. United
States v. Merrett, 8 F.4th 743, 751 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Williams,
955 F.3d 734, 737 (8th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)). “Probable cause exists when, given
the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person could believe there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in a particular
place.” United States v. Soderman, 983 F.3d 369, 375 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting
United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407, 418 (8th Cir. 2017)). This is an
objective standard that requires us to “afford officers ‘substantial latitude in
interpreting and drawing inferences from factual circumstances.’” Brown v. City of
St. Louis, 40 F.4th 895, 900 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Just v. City of St Louis, 7 F.4th
761, 767 (8th Cir. 2021)).
Possession of recreational marijuana may be legal in Missouri, but
“[o]perating or being in physical control of any motor vehicle . . . while under the
influence of marijuana” is not. Mo. Const. art. XIV § 2(3)(1)(d). Considering the
strong odor of marijuana Officer Perkins smelled coming from Drake’s vehicle, as
well as his evasive and erratic behavior during the stop, we conclude Officer Perkins
could have reasonably believed he would discover evidence that Drake had operated
a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana by searching his car.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Consequently, Perkins had probable cause to search Drake’s vehicle under the
automobile exception.
As a result, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --