SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                                  DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

 PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS                                Case Nos. SX-2024-CR-00330
                                                                       SX-2024-CR-00331
                                                                       SX-2024-CR-00332
                                              PLAINTIFF,
                             v.

 JACOB A. TURNBULL (330),
 THYMOTHY RODRIGUEZ (331), and
 MARK EMMANUEL PRINCE (332)

                                           DEFENDANTS

                                          Cite as: 2025 VI SUPER 26
Appearances
ESTHER R. WALTERS, ESQ
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Virgin Islands Office of the Attorney General
St. Croix, VI
For Plaintiff

HOWARD        L. PHILLIPS,        ESQ
Deputy Chief Territorial Public Defender
Office of the Territorial Public Defender
St. Croix, V1
For Defendant Jacob A. Turnbull

RONALD E. RUSSELL, ESQ
The Russell Law Firm, LLP
St. Croix, VI
For Defendant Thymothy Rodrigue

KATHRYN D. SLADE, ESQ
Assistant Conflict Counsel
Office of Conflict Counsel
St. Croix, VI
For Defendant Mark Emmanuel Prince
                              MEMORANDUM              OPINION AND ORDER
ql      THESE MATTERS came before the Court for a Suppression Hearing on April 28, 2025
on   Jacob   Turnbull’s   Motion        to Suppress   initially   filed   on   February   25,   2025,   Thymothy
Rodriguez’s Defendant’s Motion to Suppress filed on March 25, 2025, and Mark Emmanuel
Prince’s Motion to Suppress filed on March 26, 2025.              The People were represented by Esther R
People v. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
SX-2024-CR-00330, SX-2024-CR-00331,      SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 8

Walters, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.          Jacob A. Turnbull appeared personally and through
counsel, Howard L. Phillips, Esq., Deputy Chief Territorial Public Defender. Thymothy Rodriguez
appeared       personally and through    counsel,   Ronald   E.   Russell,   Esq.   Mark   Emmanuel     Prince
appeared personally and through counsel, Kathryn D. Slade, Esq., Assistant Conflict Counsel.               For
the reasons set forth herein, this Court finds that there was no probable cause to justify the search
of the vehicle in which the Defendants were traveling and, therefore, will suppress the evidence
seized in connection with the search


                                         FACTUAL        HISTORY

q2        Around midnight on March 10, 2024, during a saturated patrol initiative in Christiansted
town, Virgin Islands Police Department officers traffic stopped a silver Honda Civic near the
Purple Papaya store upon observing the vehicle with no front license plate and observing the
occupants not wearing their seatbelts. There were three occupants in the vehicle: the driver, a front
seat passenger, and one passenger in the rear on the driver’s side of the vehicle. Mark Emmanuel
Prince was later identified as the driver, Jacob A. Turnbull was later identified as the front seat
passenger, and Thymothy         Rodriquez was later identified as the rear passenger.          Four officers
surrounded the vehicle and asked for license, registration, and insurance documents.                  All four
windows of the vehicle were partially down.          While the documents were being collected, Officer
Raheem Benjamin, then a K-9 handler with the Special Operations Bureau, also approached the
vehicle
q3        While walking towards the vehicle, Officer Bejamin instructed the occupants to show him
their hands.     Moments later, while at the rear passenger side of the vehicle, Officer Benjamin asked
the occupants if they had any marijuana in the vehicle, and told the other officers that he could
smell marijuana emanating from the vehicle.          One of the occupants responded incredulously that
they did not have any marijuana and advised the officers that they “don’t even smoke” marijuana
Immediately upon that pronouncement, Officer Bejamin ordered all of the occupants out of the
vehicle, opened the rear passenger side door and began searching a backpack located on the rear
passenger side seat.     Further search of the vehicle yielded two loaded firearms found inside of the
middle console of vehicle
People y. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
SX-2024-CR-00330,        SX-2024-CR-00331,     SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 8

q4           Upon being ordered out of the vehicle, all occupants were patted down for officer safety
No weapons or contraband was found on any of the occupants.                       In addition to the firearms, several
empty vials were also found inside of the vehicle.                 Each of the occupants, upon inquiry, advised
that they did not have a license to carry a firearm.               None of the occupants claimed possession of
the firearms, and they were all taken into custody.                The occupants were read their Miranda rights
after they were transported to the police station for booking


                                                LEGAL STANDARD
q/5          The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that: “(t]he right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.” U.S.            Const.   amend.     IV.   The Fourth Amendment applies to the
U.S. Virgin Islands through Section 3 of the Revised Organic Act of 1954.                          Heath v. People of the
V..,   78 V.1. 990,      1002 (V.I. 2024);     see also 

.       “[{SJearches conducted outside
the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under
the Fourth         Amendment—subject           only to a few       specifically established         and well-delineated
exceptions.”        People of the V.I. v. Looby, 

 (V.I. 2018) (citations omitted).                   “Under the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement, law enforcement may                                seize and search an
automobile without a warrant if probable cause exists to believe it contains evidence of criminal
activity.”      Brownev. People of the V.I.,      56 V.1. 207, 217 (V.I. 2012) (citations omitted).              “Probable
cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person could believe there
is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” /d
(citations omitted).        “The test of reasonableness cannot be fixed by per se rules; each case must be
decided on its own facts.” /d. (citation omitted)
q6           The   exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct                    by excluding evidence
obtained unconstitutionally.          See Elkins v. U.S.,    

 (1960).      “[T]Jhe exclusionary
rule encompasses both the ‘primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or
seizure’ and [...] ‘evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,’ the so
called       ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’”     Utah v. Strieff, 

 (2016) (citing Segura v.
People v. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
SX-2024-CR-00330, SX-2024-CR-00331, SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 

 U.S.      796, 804 (1984)).      However, “evidence will not be excluded as ‘fruit’ unless the
illegality is at least the ‘but for’ cause of the discovery of the evidence. Suppression is not justified
unless ‘the challenged evidence is in some sense the product of illegal governmental activity.’”
Segura, at 815 (citing U.S. v. Crews, 

 (1980))


                                                    DISCUSSION

         A.   The initial traffic stop of the vehicle was reasonable

q7       The vehicle occupied by the Defendants was traffic stopped because it was observed with
no front license plate and the occupants were observed not wearing their seatbelts.                     Failure to affix
a license plate to the front body of a vehicle is a violation of 20 V.I.C. § 334.!                 Operating a motor
vehicle without the driver and passengers wearing seatbelts is a violation of 20 V.L.C.                          § 446.”
Therefore, Officer Raheem Benjamin, who initiated the traffic stop in this matter, had reasonable
articulable suspicion for the traffic stop.?         Even if the observed traffic violations were determined
to be a pretext to initiate the traffic stop, given the objective legal basis for the stop, any subjective
motivations for the stop are irrelevant to determining the constitutionality of the stop.                   In Whren v.
U.S.,   

 (1996),       “the Supreme Court established a bright-line rule that any technical
violation of a traffic code legitimizes a stop, even if the stop is merely pretext for an investigation
of some other crime.”        U.S. v. Mosley, 

 (3d Cir. 2006)

         B.    The warrantless search of the vehicle was not supported by probable cause




! Specifically, 20 V.I.C. § 334(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]hen two plates are issued, two plates shall be
displayed. One plate must be affied to the front body of the vehicle and the other to the rear, and both plats must be
clearly visible from the front and rear of the vehicle.”
2 Specifically, 20 V.1.C. § 446(b) provides that “{n]o person may operate a motor vehicle unless the operator an any
passenger in the front seat of the vehicle are restrained by a lap and shoulder restraint where provided by the vehicle
manufacturer which crosses over the hop and pelvis and any passengers age fourteen and older seated in the outboard
rear and center rear seats are restrained by a lap restraint
3 The Court did not find Officer Benjamin’s testimony to be credible that prior to the traffic stop he was able to observe
the occupants of the vehicle not wearing their seatbelts. Nonetheless, that finding does not affect the Court’s
conclusion that the traffic stop was reasonable because Officer Benjamin’s body camera footage clearly demonstrated
that the vehicle stopped did not have a license plate affixed to the front body, which by itself presented reasonable
articulable suspicion for the traffic stop
People v. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
SX-2024-CR-00330, SX-2024-CR-00331, SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of 8

qs        Officer Raheem Benjamin, however, testified that probable cause for searching the vehicle
was based solely upon the odor of marijuana he smelled in the vehicle.*                    “Under the automobile
exception to the warrant requirement, law enforcement may                       seize and search an automobile
without a warrant if probable cause exists to believe it contains evidence of criminal activity.”
Browne,      at 217      (citations omitted).      “Probable cause exists when,         under the totality of the
circumstances, a reasonable person could believe there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”              /d. (citations omitted)
q9        Under federal law, and specifically under the Controlled Substances Act, the possession of
marijuana remains illegal.         

 ef seg.       In many states and in the U.S. Virgin Islands,
however, the possession of marijuana has been legalized for medical and recreational use.                         The
Virgin    Islands Cannabis         Use Act, enacted        in 2023,    “establishes   a regulated system       for the
cultivation,        manufacture,    and   sale of Cannabis       for adult, medicinal,    and    sacramental     use.”
19 V.LC.       § 775.     Therefore, while under federal law “the smell of marijuana alone can create
probable cause to search a vehicle’”°, the same no longer holds true under Virgin Islands law
q10       Officer Benjamin suggested in his testimony, that he was authorized to search the vehicle,
based on his detection of an odor of marijuana, in order to verify that the occupants did not possess
more marijuana than legally permissible.                 The possession of marijuana in the Virgin Islands,
however, is now a presumably legal activity.                  In states where the use of marijuana has been
legalized, courts have held that the smell of marijuana alone is not enough to justify a warrantless
search. People v. Armstrong, ---             N.W.3d ---, 

,       at *9 (Mich. 2025) (““‘the smell of
marijuana may be a factor, but not a stand-alone one, in determining whether the totality of the
circumstances established probable cause to permit a police officer to conduct a warrantless search
of a vehicle’”’) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 

 (Mass. 2015)
(“Because stops based on reasonable suspicion of a possible civil marijuana infraction do not


4 Officer Bejamin also testified that probable cause was also based on the Defendants admission that they were not
authorized by the Virgin Islands Office of Cannabis Regulation to posses or transport marijuana. Upon reviewing his
body camera footage, however, Officer Benjamin conceded that he did not ask the Defendants whether they had
authorization to possess marijuana. The People additionally argued that probable cause for the search was supported
by the Defendants’ upper body fidgeting as Officer Benjamin approached the vehicle, and by one of the Defendant’s
attempt to walk away from the officers. Officer Benjamin’s body camera footage, however, did not show either of
those alleged actions by the Defendants, nor did the Court find Officer Bejamin’s testimony about those actions to be
credible
5 U.S. v. Outlaw,    

 (3d Cir. 2025) (citations omitted)
People v. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
SX-2024-CR-00330, SX-2024-CR-00331, SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 8

promote highway safety and run contrary to the purposes of G.L. c. 94C, § 32L, we are disinclined
to extend the rule that allows vehicle stops based on reasonable suspicion of a civil motor vehicle
offense to stops to enforce the civil penalty for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. Such
stops are unreasonable...”); Zullo v. State, 

 (Vt. 2019) (“[A]n odor of marijuana
is a factor, but not necessarily a determinative factor, as to whether probable cause exists.”’)
(citation omitted)
411       The People argue that while adults over the age of 21 can legally possess up to two ounces
of cannabis with an adult use permit pursuant to the Virgin Islands Cannabis Use Act, at the time
of the traffic stop in this matter, there were no licensed dispensaries operating in the Virgin Islands
According to the People, the absence of a legal supply chain means any cannabis possession
inherently suggests illicit cultivation, illegal use, or trafficking. The People admitted, however,
that at the time of the traffic stop, a number of permits had been issued to individuals to cultivate
marijuana for personal use. Consequently, without the complete absence of a legal supply chain,
it is not inherent that the marijuana in a person’s possession is illegally acquired or is being illegally
used.   Only in the total absence of any method to obtain legal marijuana could the suggestion of
illicit cultivation, use, or trafficking of marijuana, be inherent
412       Furthermore, the Court does not find Officer Benjamin’s testimony that there was a strong
order of marijuana emanating from the vehicle to be credible.        When Officer Benjamin approached
the vehicle, all of the windows were partially down, and there were already four other officers
surrounding the vehicle and interacting with the occupants.          If the smell of marijuana was strong,
as alleged by Officer Benjamin, it is highly unlikely that none of the other four officers who
approached the vehicle before Bejamin would have made note of the smell.              Although the Court
does “not evaluate probable cause in hindsight, based on what a search does or does not turn up”,°
the fact that no marijuana was found in the vehicle or on the person of any of the Defendants
further belies Officer Bejamin’s testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating
from the vehicle
q13       Moreover, Officer Bejamin was a K-9 handler with the Special Operations Bureau and was
operating his K-9 unit at the time of the traffic stop. Conspicuously absent from Officer Bejamin’s



6 

 at 728 citing Fla.   V. Harris,   

 (2013)
People v. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
S$X-2024-CR-00330, SX-2024-CR-00331,          SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 8


testimony was any mention of his K-9 partner. Typically, K-9 partners are trained to reliably detect
drugs in vehicles.        Notably, even after allegedly smelling a strong odor of marijuana, Officer
Benjamin did not engage his K-9 partner to check the exterior of the vehicle or request assistance
from another K-9 unit
q14        Ultimately, under the totality of the circumstances of this matter in which the alleged smell
of marijuana was the sole factor supporting probable cause for the search of the vehicle, this Court
does not find that probable cause existed to believe that the vehicle searched contained evidence
of criminal activity
           C.   Application of the exclusionary rule is appropriate
qiS        The exclusionary rule is designed           to deter police misconduct by excluding            evidence
obtained unconstitutionally.           See Elkins v. U.S., 

 (1960).     “The exclusionary rule
‘is not an individual right and applies only where it result[s] in appreciable deterrence.’” People
of the VI. v. John, 52 V.1. 247, 261 (V.I. 2009) (citing Herring v. U.S., 

 (2009))
This Court’s determination of whether to apply the exclusionary rule must “focus ‘on the efficacy
of the rule in deterring Fourth Amendment violations in the future.’” /d. This Court finds that in
addition to the general public policy desire “to ensure the constitutional rights of all Virgin
Islanders and visitors are respected”,’ there is a specific need to ensure that the Virgin Islands
Police Department immediately ceases its unconstitutional practice of searching vehicles based
solely on a purported smell of marijuana


                                                   CONCLUSION
G16        Although the initial traffic stop of the vehicle occupied by the Defendants was supported
by reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, the subsequent immediate search of the
vehicle based solely on the purported smell of marijuana was not supported by probable cause
Accordingly, the premises having been considered, and the Court otherwise being fully advised, it
is hereby
           ORDERED        that the Defendants’ Motions to Suppress are GRANTED; and it is further




7 People of the V.L v. Osorio, 

, at *7 (Super. Ct. 2025) citing People of the V.I. v. Warrell, 

,    at *16 (Super. Ct. 2022)
People vy. Jacob A. Turnbull, Thymothy Rodriguez, & Mark Emmanuel Prince
S$X-2024-CR-00330, SX-2024-CR-00331, SX-2024-CR-00332
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 of 8

         ORDERED        that all evidence    seized   from   the silver Honda       Civic occupied   by the
Defendants on March 10, 2024, is SUPPRESSED and EXCLUDED from use in the Defendants
trial on this matter; and it is finally
         ORDERED       that a copy of this Order be served upon the Defendants, Jacob A. Turnbull,
Thymothy Rodriguez, and Mark Emmanuel Prince; upon Howard L. Phillips, Esq., Deputy Chief
Territorial Public Defender; Kathyrn D. Slade, Esq., Assistant Conflict Counsel; upon Ronald E
Russell, Esq.; upon Chad A.        Mitchell, Esq., Assistant Attorney General; and upon Amie             M
Simpson, Esq., Criminal Division Chief.
         DONE and SO ORDERED this 21* day of July, 2025


                                                                           é                ,




                                                                          E.M           IS, JR
                                                                   Superior Court     Judge

 ATTEST
 TAMARA CHARLES
 Clerk of the Court

 By                       dig Aa
                  ourt Clerk II

 Date          YH,/22 25