## Facts

- An Oklahoma City police officer responding to a disturbance followed Derrick A. Burkley’s vehicle and observed Burkley turn off a highway onto an access road without signaling.
- After entering an apartment complex, Burkley repeatedly used his turn signal while driving through bends and curves, which the officer viewed as unusual.
- The officer initiated a traffic stop based on the observed failure to signal and the subsequent unusual signaling behavior.
- During the stop, officers detected the odor of marijuana and searched the vehicle.
- The search revealed approximately 157 grams of marijuana, two firearms and ammunition, a digital scale, roughly $242,250 in cash (much of it shrink-wrapped), and multiple cell phones that rang repeatedly.
- The government introduced expert testimony that the marijuana quantity and the combination of firearms, a scale, large cash, and multiple phones were consistent with drug distribution.
- The government also presented evidence that Burkley lacked a legitimate source of income.
- Burkley claimed the marijuana was for personal medicinal use and the cash was for booking rap groups but could not identify the source of the funds with precision.
- A jury convicted Burkley of (1) possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, (2) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, and (3) being an unlawful user of marijuana in possession of firearms and ammunition, and found the seized property forfeitable.

## Issues

1. Whether the traffic stop and ensuing vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment where the officer stopped Burkley for turn-signal behavior and then searched after developing additional cause.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove possession of marijuana with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
3. Whether the district court properly ordered criminal forfeiture of the firearms, ammunition, and currency as proceeds of, or property used to facilitate, the offenses.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding the officer had an objectively reasonable basis to initiate the traffic stop and that probable cause supported the vehicle search.
- The court affirmed the § 841(a)(1) conviction, holding that a rational jury could find intent to distribute based on the totality of circumstantial evidence.
- The court affirmed the forfeiture judgment, concluding sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the property was forfeitable as proceeds of or instrumentalities used in the drug-trafficking offense.

## Legal Principles

- A traffic stop is constitutionally reasonable when an officer has objectively reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a traffic violation occurred, even if the officer also finds the driver’s behavior unusual.
- Under the automobile exception, probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband permits a warrantless search of the vehicle.
- Intent to distribute may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including drug quantity and commonly recognized trafficking indicators such as a scale, firearms, large amounts of cash (especially packaged in a manner consistent with drug proceeds), multiple phones, and lack of legitimate income.
- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and uphold the verdict if any rational juror could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Criminal forfeiture may be upheld when evidence supports that seized property constitutes proceeds of the offense or was used to facilitate its commission.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Burkley’s convictions and forfeiture because the traffic stop was supported by an observed signaling violation, the subsequent search was supported by probable cause, and the combined evidence of marijuana quantity, weapons, scale, large shrink-wrapped cash, multiple phones, and lack of lawful income permitted the jury to find intent to distribute and to forfeit the related property.


United States v. Burkley, 513 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2008)