United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 23-1708 & 23-1721 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. PRENTISS JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 2:10-cr-20043-JES-JEH-1 — James E. Shadid, Judge, and No. 2:22-cr-20044-CSB-EIL-1 — Colin S. Bruce, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MARCH 28, 2024 — DECIDED JUNE 4, 2024 ____________________

Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. An Urbana, Illinois, police officer pulled over a car just after midnight because its head and tail- lights were not lit. During the traffic stop, the officer smelled unburnt marijuana. He asked the driver, Prentiss Jackson, to exit the car and told Jackson he would search him and the 2 Nos. 23-1708 & 23-1721 vehicle. Soon after leaving the car, Jackson ran. While fleeing, a gun fell from his waistband. Jackson was indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon. He moved to suppress evidence of the gun, arguing it was the product of an unlawful search. The district court denied Jack- son’s motion. He conditionally pleaded guilty, was convicted, and now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We af- firm. I The facts below come from testimony taken and the officer bodycam video presented at the evidentiary hearing held on Jackson’s motion to suppress. Shortly after midnight on June 11, 2022, Prentiss Jackson and a passenger drove through Urbana, Illinois, with unlit head and taillights. As a result, an Urbana police officer con- ducted a traffic stop. The officer asked for Jackson’s driver’s license and registration. Jackson did not have his license but produced another form of identification. The officer smelled the odor of unburnt marijuana ema- nating from the car. He knew the odor came from inside the car, as he had not smelled it before he approached the vehicle. During their conversation about the license and registration, the officer told Jackson he smelled “a little bit of weed” and asked if Jackson and the passenger had been smoking. Jack- son said he had, but that was earlier in the day, and he had not smoked inside the car. Through the officer’s training, he knew the most common signs of impairment for driving under the influence were the odor of marijuana or alcohol and speech issues. He was also taught to look for traffic violations. Concerned that Jackson Nos. 23-1708 & 23-1721 3 might be driving under the influence because of the head and taillight violation, the odor of marijuana, and Jackson’s ad- mission that he had smoked earlier, the officer asked Jackson whether he was “safe to drive home.” Jackson said he was. His speech was not slurred during the interaction, and his re- sponses were appropriate. After questioning Jackson about the marijuana smell, the officer asked Jackson to wait for a moment so he could write a warning, to turn the car off, and to hand over the keys. Jack- son complied. The officer said he would search Jackson and the car. He asked if there were “guns, knives, drugs, [or] bombs” in the car and told Jackson he could “cut breaks and warnings” if Jackson and the passenger were “honest with [him] up front.” Jackson told him none of those items were in the car. The officer then asked Jackson to get out and walk to the back of the car, cautioning Jackson not to reach for his waistband. Before Jackson exited the car, the passenger asked why the officer planned to search the car. The officer told her he could smell marijuana and explain