Introduction

United States v. Pavao, decided by the First Circuit on April 17, 2025, settles a critical question at the intersection of federal and state drug policy: can a local officer, during a routine traffic stop, rely on the smell or sight of marijuana to form reasonable suspicion when the state of Rhode Island has decriminalized small‐scale possession? The appellant, the United States, challenged a district‐court order suppressing evidence obtained after Officer Bemis smelled raw marijuana and observed the defendant’s nervous, waistband‐related behavior. The defendant, Miguel E. Pavao, moved to suppress the firearm discovered during a protective frisk and all statements made during the stop. The Magistrate Judge granted suppression on the ground that Rhode Island’s decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana undercuts any federal reasonable‐ suspicion justification; on interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit reversed.

Summary of the Judgment

During a lawful traffic stop for erratic driving, Officer Bemis smelled and saw raw marijuana in Pavao’s vehicle, noted Pavao’s trembling hand, and observed him repeatedly reaching toward his waistband. Fearing for his safety, Bemis called for backup, ordered Pavao out of the car, and conducted a pat‐down, discovering a firearm. Pavao was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm after a felony. The district court granted suppression, reasoning that under Rhode Island law possession of under one ounce of marijuana is a civil, not criminal, offense—and thus the odor alone could not supply reasonable suspicion. The First Circuit reversed, holding that (1) possession of marijuana remains a federal crime, so evidence of marijuana in a lawfully stopped vehicle does furnish reasonable suspicion under federal law; and (2) Pavao’s furtive, repetitive waistband movements and agitated demeanor justified the protective frisk.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596 (1st Cir. 1996) – held that the odor of burnt marijuana during a lawful traffic stop gave probable cause to search the vehicle, even though the state of Maine had decriminalized small quantities of marijuana.
• United States v. Bizier, 111 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 1997) – clarified in a footnote that evidence of marijuana in a stopped vehicle supports probable cause for arrest under federal law, regardless of state decriminalization.
• Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) – reaffirmed that a traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment if based on probable cause of a traffic violation.
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) – held an officer may not prolong a stop beyond its original scope absent additional reasonable suspicion.
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) – authorized a protective frisk if an officer reasonably suspects a detainee is armed and dangerous.
• Chhien, 266 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) – explained the two‐step inquiry for traffic stops: (a) was the stop lawful at inception, and (b) were subsequent actions reasonably related to the stop’s scope or supported by new reasonable suspicion?

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a two‐pronged Fourth Amendment analysis:

1. Lawful Stop and Prolongation: Pavao’s initial stop for traffic offenses was unquestionably lawful. Under Staula and Bizier, the smell or sight of marijuana—even in a state that treats small amounts as civil infractions—supports reasonable suspicion of federal marijuana possession (21 U.S.C. § 844). Accordingly, calling for backup and delaying the driver for a vehicle search did not exceed the permissible scope of the stop.
2. Justified Frisk: A pat‐down is permitted if an officer reasonably believes the detainee is armed and dangerous (Terry). Pavao’s repeated, unexplained waistband movements; single incident of “target glancing” toward his waistband; visible nervousness; failure to heed orders; and abrupt tossing of marijuana toward the officer combined to create an objective basis to suspect he carried a weapon. The frisk was thus reasonable.

3. Impact

United States v. Pavao reaffirms that federal drug statutes can supply reasonable suspicion even where state law has relaxed penalties for small quantities of marijuana. The decision clarifies that local officers need not ignore federal criminal laws in favor of state policies during traffic stops. Future cases will likely continue to weigh federal–state distinctions in drug enforcement, but Pavao confirms that the Fourth Amendment looks to federal, not state, criminal statutes when assessing reasonable suspicion for contraband searches.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Reasonable Suspicion: A standard lower than probable cause, requiring “specific and articulable facts” that criminal activity is afoot. In Pavao, the smell of marijuana (a federal offense) plus suspicious behavior met that standard.
• Prolongation of a Traffic Stop: Officers may briefly extend a valid stop to verify documents or ensure safety, but not for unrelated investigations unless new reasonable suspicion arises. Here, the marijuana evidence created that suspicion.
• Target Glancing: A trained officer’s term for repeatedly looking at or reaching toward an area—often signals a person is checking for contraband or a weapon.
• Silver Platter Doctrine: Historically barred admissions of evidence seized by state officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment if federal officers would have been illicitly involved. Pavao makes clear this doctrine is irrelevant where the search is lawful under federal law.

Conclusion

United States v. Pavao establishes a binding precedent in the First Circuit: the federal offense of marijuana possession (21 U.S.C. § 844) remains dispositive for reasonable suspicion during traffic stops, irrespective of state decriminalization. The Court affirmed that once an officer lawfully stops a vehicle and detects federal contraband, he may extend the stop to secure backup and search the vehicle. Moreover, a combination of nervous, furtive behavior—particularly repeated waistband movements—justifies a protective frisk under Terry. This ruling ensures federal drug laws continue to guide Fourth Amendment analyses, even in jurisdictions with more permissive state marijuana statutes.