United States v. Jackson

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 7, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-1505 (D.C. No. 1:23-CR-00360-REB-1) JVAN JACKSON, a/k/a Jay Van Jackson, (D. Colo.) III, a/k/a “Little Jay”,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Jvan Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress

evidence discovered in three separate warrantless vehicle searches. We affirm.

Jackson lacks Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the first search. Turning to

the second search, officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Jackson’s vehicle and,

upon observing drug paraphernalia in plain view, probable cause to search it. And for

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2

the third challenged search, officers had probable cause to search Jackson’s vehicle

for evidence of drug distribution.

Background

In February 2023, Denver police were alerted to possible illegal drug

distribution involving a silver Cadillac routinely parked in a specific spot in a

particular apartment complex’s garage. Investigators learned that Jackson lived in the

complex and owned the Cadillac. Between March 13 and 16, officers surveilled the

Cadillac in the garage. On at least two occasions, they observed suspected associates

of Jackson operating vehicles that had been reported stolen. The three warrantless

vehicle searches at issue followed, on March 16, March 31, and April 18. We

describe the circumstances of each search below; for now, it suffices to say that

officers discovered incriminating evidence during each search.

A grand jury indicted Jackson on three drug crimes. After the district court

denied Jackson’s motion to suppress, he pleaded guilty to one count of possessing

fentanyl with the intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to 168 months

in prison and five years of supervised release. Jackson’s plea agreement reserved the

right to appeal the suppression order, and he appeals accordingly.

Analysis

“When reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we view

the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and accept the district

court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Tolbert,

92 F.4th 1265, 1273 (10th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Grimmett, 439 F.3d Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3

1263, 1268 (10th Cir. 2006)). “We review legal questions de novo,” id. (quoting

United States v. Neugin, 958 F.3d 924, 929 (10th Cir. 2020)), including the

“threshold question” of Fourth Amendment standing, United States v. Poe, 556 F.3d

1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2009).

We address each search in turn, setting out the relevant factual details before

assessing their legal implications.

I. March 16 Search

While surveilling the silver Cadillac parked in its usual spot, Detective Jes

Sandoval watched as a silver Toyota parked near the Cadillac. After the detective

learned that the Toyota’s temporary tag was assigned to a Nissan truck, police

conducted a traffic stop of the Toyota on a public street after it left the garage.

Jackson was driving the Toyota. He told the officers that the car didn’t belong to him

but that he was thinking of buying it from a friend’s daughter’s girlfriend. However,

he was unable to provide that person’s name. Nor was he able to produce any

insurance or other ownership documents for the vehicle, even after consenting to a

search of the glove compartment for such documents. The officers impounded the

Toyota and conducted an on-scene inventory search. They discovered a scale,

fentanyl, methamphetamine, and a stolen license plate.

In rejecting Jackson’s motion to suppress this evidence, the district court

determined Jackson lacked Fourth Amendment standing and, further, that the

decision to impound the vehicle was proper under the Fourth Amendment. Jackson Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 4

challenges both rulings. But because we conclude Jackson lacked standing, we do not

consider whether officers properly impounded the vehicle.

Because Fourth Amendment rights are personal, “a defendant raising a Fourth

Amendment challenge must first demonstrate that he has standing to object to the

search.” Poe, 556 F.3d at 1121. To determine whether Fourth Amendment standing

exists, we “inquire whether the defendant has established (1) a subjective expectation

of privacy in the property searched, and (2) that society would recognize that

expectation of privacy as objectively reasonable.” United States v. Guzman, 149

F.4th 1132, 1139–40 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Marchant, 55 F.3d

509, 513 (10th Cir. 1995)). Individuals who do not have lawful possession of a

vehicle do not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, “[n]o matter the

degree of possession and control” they exercise over it. Terrence Byrd v. United

States, 584 U.S. 395, 409 (2018). Thus, Jackson bears the burden to show that his

presence in the searched vehicle was lawful to the extent he had the permission of

either the vehicle’s owner or someone with authority to grant permission. See United

States v. Valdez Hocker, 333 F.3d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2003). In making that

determination, we consider several nondeterminative factors, including whether the

defendant asserted ownership over items seized from the vehicle, testified to his

expectation of privacy at the suppression hearing, or presented testimony indicating

his legitimate possessory interest. Id.

None of these factors favor Jackson. He points to no evidence that he asserted

ownership over items in the vehicle and did not testify about his legitimate Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 5

expectation of privacy. Moreover, no evidence indicates that he had permission from

either the lawful owner or someone with authority to permit him to drive the vehicle.

At best, Jackson points to his statement to officers that he was considering buying the

car from a friend’s daughter’s girlfriend. Yet there is no record evidence indicating

that the friend’s daughter’s girlfriend, whomever she may be, is either the registered

owner or someone with authority to give Jackson permission to drive the vehicle.

Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court that Jackson failed to

show his lawful, permitted presence in the vehicle. See, e.g., United States v. Rascon,

922 F.2d 584, 587 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that defendant lacked standing when

evidence and testimony indicated that he had borrowed the car from a friend but

“there was a complete absence of evidence concerning [the friend’s] possession of

the car”).

In his reply brief, Jackson argues that he has standing because the Toyota was

parked in a spot he was known to use. But that fact goes only to Jackson’s possession

and control of the Toyota, not whether his possession and control was lawful or

permitted. In other words, it does nothing to distinguish Jackson’s possession and

control from the possession and control exhibited by an unlawful possessor.

Because Jackson has failed to demonstrate that he has standing to object to the

March 16 search, we affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress

related to that search. Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 6

II. March 31 Search

About two weeks later, while Sandoval was surveilling a gas station and

convenience store known to be a hub for illegal narcotics, he recognized Jackson

driving a silver Audi into the parking lot with two passengers in the vehicle.

Sandoval watched as Jackson stopped at the gas pumps, one of the passengers got out

of the car and went into the convenience store, and an unknown woman approached

and spoke with Jackson. After speaking with the woman, Jackson drove the Audi

away from the pumps and parked next to Sandoval’s vehicle in front of the

convenience store. Sandoval testified that the passenger who went inside the store

then returned and stood on the sidewalk in front of the two cars, joined by the

unknown woman and another unknown man.

At that point, the unknown woman and the passenger walked to an apartment

complex next to the gas station while Jackson remained in the Audi. When the

passenger returned to the Audi, Jackson drove it to an adjacent restaurant parking lot.

Two unknown individuals approached the Audi and positioned themselves, one on

each side of the Audi, before speaking into the vehicle through the rolled-down

windows. Although Sandoval did not directly observe drugs being exchanged, he

radioed other officers and asked them to make contact with the Audi.

The officers ordered Jackson and his passengers to exit the vehicle and

detained them. After observing a “twisted metal pipe” on the front seat, which they

believed to be drug paraphernalia, they searched the Audi’s passenger compartment.

R. vol. 1, 190. Inside a backpack on the backseat, officers discovered a plastic bag Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 7

containing fentanyl and Jackson’s wallet. Jackson admitted the backpack and wallet

were his but denied ownership of the drugs.

The district court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion for an

investigatory stop of the Audi based on Sandoval’s observations of what he believed,

based on his training and experience, to be hand-to-hand drug exchanges, particularly

when combined with the fact that Sandoval knew officers had found drugs in the

Toyota that Jackson drove in the March 16 stop. The district court further reasoned

that the drug paraphernalia in plain view inside the vehicle provided probable cause

to search the Audi for “evidence of unlawful drug transactions.” Id. at 201.

On appeal, Jackson primarily challenges reasonable suspicion to stop the Audi,

arguing that the officers lacked facts individualized to him because only the

passengers were acting suspiciously, not him. He also implies that the conduct

Sandoval observed was susceptible to an innocent explanation.

We find these arguments unconvincing. Reasonable suspicion requires a

“particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of

criminal activity” based on the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Cortez,

449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981); see also United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273

(2002) (holding courts must evaluate totality of the circumstances in determining

reasonable suspicion). The record here demonstrates that Sandoval had a sufficiently

particularized and objective basis to suspect Jackson of drug trafficking. For one

thing, Jackson interacted with the unknown woman who approached his vehicle at the

convenience store and who then participated in the offsite interaction with Jackson’s Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 8

passenger. For another, he was in the driver’s seat in the restaurant parking lot when

two other unknown individuals approached the Audi and spoke to those inside. And

though the actions of the Audi’s passengers at the convenience store and the

restaurant could have an innocent explanation, we typically defer to officers’

“professional experience distinguishing between innocent and suspicious actions.”

United States v. Huerta, 166 F.4th 866, 875 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States

v. Gurule, 935 F.3d 878, 885 (10th Cir. 2019)). Such deference is appropriate here,

where Sandoval personally observed “[m]aybe a hundred” instances of drug

trafficking in the convenience store’s parking lot, R. vol. 3, 69; observed multiple

unknown individuals engage in a series of interactions in that parking lot; and

recognized Jackson—a person Sandoval knew from the March 16 search had

previously possessed drugs and drug paraphernalia in his vehicle—as the Audi’s

driver. Together, those facts created reasonable suspicion to stop the Audi, even

though Sandoval never directly observed any drug exchange. See United States v.

Johnson, 364 F.3d 1185, 1194 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding officer can have reasonable

suspicion based on “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting an individual

may be involved in criminal activity . . . even if it is more likely than not that the

individual is not involved in any illegality”).

Such facts also distinguish the out-of-circuit decision Jackson relies on, United

States v. Keith, 559 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2009). There, the Sixth Circuit found

reasonable suspicion lacking where officers observed two men interact outside of a

liquor store late at night, saw one of the men lean into the window of the second Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 9

man’s car and glance at the officers, and watched the men move out of view to the

other side of the liquor store. Id. at 505–06. Crucially, the officers in Keith testified

that neither had previously observed drug trafficking in the liquor store’s parking lot

and neither knew any other facts about the two men. Id. at 505. Here, by contrast, the

detective knew Jackson had been found with drugs in his car just two weeks earlier,

and the detective had observed many drug transactions at the convenience store. We

thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that the officers had reasonable suspicion

to stop the Audi.

To the limited extent that Jackson separately challenges the subsequent search

of the Audi, we reject his argument. Once officers permissibly stopped the Audi, they

observed drug paraphernalia in plain view. This, in combination with reasonable

suspicion of drug trafficking in the parking lot involving Jackson—an individual

who’d previously been found with drugs—suggested “a fair probability that the

vehicle contain[ed] contraband.” United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1316

(10th Cir. 2006). That gave rise to probable cause to search the Audi for illicit use of

drugs. See United States v. McGehee, 672 F.3d 860, 869 (10th Cir. 2012). And the

scope of the permissible search extended to the backpack. See United States v. Ross,

456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982) (“The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile . . . is

defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to

believe that it may be found.”). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Jackson’s

motion to suppress as to the March 31 search. Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 10

III. April 18 Search

Sometime in April 2023, Denver police received renewed reports of possible

drug distribution at Jackson’s apartment complex. On April 18, Sandoval returned to

the complex and observed an unidentified man approach and enter Jackson’s

apartment pulling a suitcase. Sandoval then went to the parking garage and ran the

license plate of a Jeep Compass parked in a spot where Jackson’s visitors often

parked. The Jeep was registered to Sherry Coats, whose driver’s license had been

revoked. The unknown man, accompanied by Jackson and two women, left Jackson’s

apartment with the suitcase approximately an hour later, entered the parking garage,

and approached the Jeep. Jackson put a duffel bag into the Jeep’s trunk, and all four

individuals got in the Jeep. The Jeep drove to a second location in the garage and

jumpstarted the same Audi involved in the March 31 stop; the two women and the

unknown man then left the garage in the Jeep. Jackson stayed behind.

Officers stopped the Jeep for traffic violations. When they did so, they

observed burned foil, which they believed to be drug paraphernalia, in plain view. An

officer reached into the Jeep to retrieve the burned foil and detected the odor of

burned fentanyl. Officers then searched the vehicle and recovered sizable quantities

of fentanyl and methamphetamine.

The unknown male with the suitcase was identified as Monserrate de Jesus;

after being advised of his rights, he admitted to smoking fentanyl in Jackson’s

apartment that day and indicated that Jackson had provided him with the fentanyl.

One of the unknown women, identified as Brianna Truxillo, was also advised of her Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 11

rights and similarly admitted to smoking fentanyl in Jackson’s apartment and to

receiving drugs from Jackson. The other female passenger was identified as Coats

(the registered owner of the Jeep); Truxillo said Coats was one of Jackson’s

“workers.” R. vol. 1, 193.

During the traffic stop of the Jeep, Sandoval saw the Audi arrive nearby and

stop in two different positions from which the driver could observe the traffic stop.

When the stop ended, the Audi drove back toward the apartment complex. Officers—

concerned that the Audi’s driver would return to the apartment complex to destroy

evidence—stopped the Audi, identified Jackson as the driver, and arrested him on

suspicion of drug distribution. Officers then searched the Audi and recovered a large

amount of cash from a backpack on the driver’s side floorboard.

The district court found that the officers had probable cause to search the Audi

for “contraband and other evidence of unlawful drug distribution.” Id. at 202.

Challenging that assessment, Jackson argues that though officers may have had

probable cause to believe there was evidence of unlawful drug distribution in his

apartment and in the Jeep, such probable cause did not extend to the Audi.

Law enforcement has probable cause to search a vehicle when there is a “fair

probability” that it contains contraband. United States v. Chavez, 534 F.3d 1338,

1344 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Vasquez-Castillo, 258 F.3d 1207,

1212 (10th Cir. 2001)). The fair-probability standard is “understood to mean

something more than a ‘bare suspicion’ but less than a preponderance of the evidence Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 12

at hand.” United States v. Denson, 775 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting

United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243, 1252 (10th Cir. 2011)).

On these facts, there was a fair probability that the Audi contained contraband.

The occupants of the Jeep told officers that Jackson had supplied them with drugs

that same day at the apartment complex. Jackson was known to drive a silver Audi,

and officers observed the Audi’s driver watching the traffic stop of the Jeep. The

Jeep contained controlled substances, indicating that Jackson’s known associates

transported controlled substances in vehicles, implying that Jackson might do the

same. And finally, just a few weeks prior, officers discovered drug paraphernalia and

fentanyl in the same Audi being driven by Jackson. Thus, officers had far more than a

“bare suspicion” that Jackson was the Audi’s driver—a point Jackson never

contests—and far more than a “bare suspicion” that Jackson had controlled

substances intended for distribution in the Audi. Denson, 775 F.3d at 1217 (quoting

Ludwig, 641 F.3d at 1252).

Because the officers had probable cause to stop and search the Audi, including

any compartments likely to contain contraband, see Ross, 456 U.S. at 824, we affirm

the district court’s denial of Jackson’s motion to suppress as to the April 18 search. 1

Conclusion

Based on our conclusions that Jackson lacks standing to challenge the first

warrantless vehicle search and that the other two searches were constitutionally

1 Having affirmed on the existence of probable cause, we need not reach the government’s argument that this search was justified as a search incident to arrest. Appellate Case: 24-1505 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 13

permissible, we affirm the district court’s order denying Jackson’s motion to

suppress.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge