United States v. Jalen McIntyre

── United States v. Jalen McIntyre ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11854 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11854 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JALEN DEVANTAE MCINTYRE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cr-00200-RAH-JTA-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jalen McIntyre appeals his conviction for possession with in- tent to distribute a controlled substance and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, challenging the district USCA11 Case: 25-11854 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11854 court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a prolonged stop and warrantless search of his vehicle. McIntyre contends that law enforcement’s testimony about smelling mariju- ana in his vehicle did not establish reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop or probable cause to warrantlessly search his vehicle. After review,1 we affirm. I. PROLONGED STOP The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against, inter alia, “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Investigatory traffic stops are seizures under the Fourth Amend- ment. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). Even when a stop is lawful, officers “do not have unfettered authority to detain a person indefinitely.” United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 881 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). “[T]he tolerable duration of police in- quiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (citations omitted). “As a general matter, a traffic stop exceeding the time needed to handle the mat- ter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield 1 “We review the denial of a motion to suppress as a mixed question of law and fact.” United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293, 1302 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and factual findings are reviewed for clear error in the light most favorable to the party that pre- vailed in the district court. Id. USCA11 Case: 25-11854 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-11854 Opinion of the Court 3 against unreasonable seizures.” United States v. Vargas, 848 F.3d 971, 973 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). McIntyre does not argue the stop itself was unlawful; rather, he argues that Officer Rachel Harmon’s and Deputy Jeff Brown’s testimony regarding when and where they smelled marijuana was “incredible as a matter of law” and cannot support a finding they had reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. Harmon’s and Brown’s testimony is not “incredible as a mat-