Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14413 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14413 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD DEWAYNE SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:25-cr-00106-PGB-RMN-3 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ronald Smith, Jr., appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless USCA11 Case: 25-14413 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14413 search of a car he occupied. Smith asserts, for the first time on ap- peal, that because of recent changes to Florida’s marijuana laws, the odor of marijuana alone cannot establish probable cause to search a car under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amend- ment’s warrant requirement. After review, we affirm Smith’s con- viction. Any theories supporting a motion to suppress that were not raised in the district court will be reviewed by this Court for plain error. United States v. Young, 350 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003) “Plain error occurs if (1) there was error, (2) that was plain, (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that seriously af- fected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial pro- ceedings.” United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Before the district court, Smith argued that the officers lacked probable cause to search the car because the officers’ testi- mony that they smelled marijuana was not credible and the smell of marijuana “was not strong enough based on what [the officers] knew at the time.” Smith does not appeal the district court’s find- ing that officers were credible when they testified they smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the car. Because Smith does not appeal this finding, we accept it. Smith did not assert the issue, as he does here, that the plain smell of marijuana alone could not provide officers with probable cause for a search, rather, he argued that the officers were not cred- ible when they claimed to smell marijuana. This is a different issue USCA11 Case: 25-14413 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-14413 Opinion of the Court 3 than that raised in the district court, not merely an alternative ar- gument on the same issue. See United States v. Horn, 129 F.4th 1275, 1298 (11th Cir. 2025) (“[W]hile an issue can be waived, alternative arguments on an issue cannot.”). The district court did not plainly err in denying Smith’s mo- tion to suppress. The officers had sufficient probable cause under our prior precedent to search the car because they smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the car prior to the search. In United States v. Tobin, we held the smell of marijuana emitting from a home established probable cause for a warrantless search. See United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (1991) (en banc) (“There is no doubt that the agent’s suspicions rose to the level of probable cause when, as the door stood open, he detected what he knew from his law enforcement experience to be the odor of mariju- ana.”). In United States v. Harden, we held “[t]he smell of marijuana alone . . . provide[s] probable cause” for a search. United States v. Harden, 104 F.4th 830, 839 n.5 (11th Cir. 2024). Under the prior panel precedent rule, this Court’s holding that the smell of marijuana alone provides probable cause remains binding until the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc over- rules the holding or undermines it to the point of abrogation. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (explain- ing under our prior-panel-precedent rule, “a prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this [C]ourt sitting en banc” (italics omitted)); United States v. USCA11 Case: 25-14413 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 Page: 4 of 4 4 Opinion of the Court 25-14413 Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019) (“The prior panel prece- dent rule applies regardless of whether the later panel believes the prior panel’s opinion to be correct, and there is no exception to the rule where the prior panel failed to consider arguments raised be- fore a later panel.”). Accordingly, Smith’s argument that probable cause did not exist because the Florida District Courts of Appeal have recently concluded that the smell of marijuana alone does not clearly indicate the presence of contraband fails, as Smith does not cite any binding authority overruling or abrogating this Court’s holdings in Harden and Tobin that the smell of marijuana establishes probable cause. See Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352. Thus, Smith cannot show plain error, and we affirm the district court’s denial of Smith’s motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.