State Officers’ Authority to Enforce Federal Drug Laws: Fourth Amendment Probable-Cause Vehicle Searches

Introduction

United States v. Andre Whitlow is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, decided April 16, 2025. The government charged Whitlow—a convicted felon—with being in possession of two firearms found hidden in the glove compartment of his mother’s vehicle during a late-night traffic stop. At trial, Whitlow challenged the legality of the stop and the subsequent search, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence and testimony, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Whitlow’s conviction and 120-month sentence.

Key issues addressed by the court include:

• Whether a state law-enforcement officer may lawfully search a vehicle based on probable cause of a federal controlled-substances violation, under the Fourth Amendment.
• Whether the evidence admitted at trial was sufficient and properly admitted under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
• Whether the district court correctly applied sentencing enhancements and determined the procedural reasonableness of the sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit unanimously reaffirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that:

1. Officer Kazimer had probable cause—under both federal and Ohio law—to believe Whitlow was in possession of marijuana and thus could lawfully conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment.
2. A state officer may enforce federal criminal laws and conduct searches based on probable cause of federal offenses when neither federal nor state law forbids such cross-enforcement.
3. The jury had sufficient evidence to find that Whitlow constructively possessed the two concealed firearms, including a rare Glock 19X depicted in his social-media photographs.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Instagram photographs and testimony about Whitlow’s prior contact with police, nor was the passing mention of the detective’s employment in a homicide unit unduly prejudicial.
5. The sentencing court properly applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a stolen firearm and, even if it had erred, any error was harmless because the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Rogers (97 F.4th 1038, 1041 (6th Cir. 2024)) – Standard of review for suppression rulings: factual findings reviewed for clear error, legal conclusions de novo.
• Galaviz (645 F.3d 347, 355 (6th Cir. 2011)) – Automobile exception to the warrant requirement when probable cause exists.
• Sanders (106 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc)) – Probable cause requires only a “fair probability” of finding contraband, assessed under the totality of the circumstances.
• Sheckles (996 F.3d 330, 337, 341 (6th Cir. 2021)) – Plain-view doctrine: any visible contraband provides probable cause to seize and search.
• Printz v. United States (521 U.S. 898 (1997)) and Marsh v. United States (29 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1928)) – Historical and commandeering analysis of state enforcement of federal law.
• Cooper v. California (386 U.S. 58, 61 (1967)) and California v. Greenwood (486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988)) – Fourth Amendment reasonableness independent of state statutory authorization.
• Virginia v. Moore (553 U.S. 164 (2008)) – State-law prohibitions do not alter the Fourth Amendment analysis once probable cause exists.
• United States v. Turner (553 F.3d 1337, 1346 (10th Cir. 2009)) – Irrelevance of state authorization for Fourth Amendment purposes when probable cause of a federal offense exists.
• United States v. Crump (65 F.4th 287, 295 (6th Cir. 2023)) – Constructive possession elements: dominion and control.
• United States v. Farrad (895 F.3d 859, 875 (6th Cir. 2018)) – Photographic evidence of a defendant with the same firearm is sufficient to prove possession.
• United States v. Mandoka (869 F.3d 448, 456–57 (6th Cir. 2017)) – Standard for Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 evidence admissions.
• United States v. Armstrong (920 F.3d 395, 398 (6th Cir. 2019)) – Standard for admissible sentencing-stage evidence: “minimal indicium of reliability.”

Legal Reasoning

1. Probable Cause for a Federal Violation: Officer Kazimer witnessed loose marijuana in plain view on the center console and had nearly a decade of law-enforcement experience identifying the substance. Under the “common-sense lens” of Sheckles, this established a “fair probability” that contraband was present and justified a warrantless vehicle search.

2. State Officer Enforcement of Federal Law: The court surveyed historical practice (e.g., Prohibition era), constitutional structure (Supremacy Clause), and circuit precedent finding no Fourth Amendment bar when federal and state statutes are silent. Analogies to Virginia v. Moore and Turner reinforced that state-law technicalities do not alter Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

3. Sufficiency and Constructive Possession: By introducing rare Glock 19X photographs from Whitlow’s social media, linked by rarity testimony and the glove-compartment discovery, the government established dominion and control over the weapons beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Evidence and Testimony Admitted under Rules 404(b) & 403: Photographs were offered to prove knowledge of the firearm, a proper 404(b) purpose, and were highly probative given the match. Prior police contact and the detective’s homicide-unit affiliation provided necessary investigatory background without unfair prejudice.

5. Sentencing Enhancement Reliability: An ATF agent’s hearsay recounting of the gun owner’s statement that the Ruger was stolen carried sufficient indicia of reliability (statement against penal interest) for a two-level stolen-firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(4).

Impact

United States v. Whitlow provides important guidance on cross-enforcement authority and Fourth Amendment analysis:

• It aligns the Sixth Circuit with sister circuits in holding that state officers may search for federal crimes absent express prohibition, resolving a circuit split.
• It clarifies that Fourth Amendment probable-cause inquiries remain rooted in the totality of circumstances and are independent of state statutory schemes.
• It affirms the routine admission of multimedia evidence (social-media photographs) to establish constructive possession.
• It confirms that out-of-court statements against interest may satisfy reliability requirements at sentencing.

Future vehicle-search cases will cite Whitlow for the principle that state and local officers need not forgo federal drug-law enforcement when they encounter evidence of federal offenses in the field.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Probable Cause: A “fair probability” that evidence or contraband will be found, based on an officer’s observations and experience, allowing a warrantless search of an automobile.
• Automobile Exception: A Fourth Amendment rule permitting officers to search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause, because vehicles can quickly be moved out of the jurisdiction.
• Constructive Possession: When an individual knowingly has the ability and intent to control an item, even if it is not on their person—for example, weapons hidden in a car the person is driving.
• 404(b) Evidence: Prior bad-act evidence. Admissible to prove motive, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake, or identity, but not to show character conformity.
• Statement Against Interest: A hearsay exception for out-of-court statements that so far tend to subject the declarant to criminal or civil liability that a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless believing it true.
• Harmless Error: A legal mistake that does not affect substantial rights or alter the outcome, allowing an appellate court to affirm despite the error.

Conclusion

United States v. Whitlow establishes a significant precedent reinforcing that state law-enforcement officers may enforce federal criminal laws—particularly federal drug statutes—by conducting warrantless searches whenever they have probable cause, without being hemmed in by state statutory silences or technical prohibitions. It solidifies a Fourth Amendment framework focused on practical, common-sense evaluations of probable cause, independent of state law nuances. The decision also underscores the admissibility of social-media evidence for constructive possession and reaffirms flexible reliability standards at sentencing. As such, Whitlow will guide lower courts, practitioners, and law-enforcement agencies in the balanced enforcement of federal and state criminal laws under the Fourth Amendment.