Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Stephen Duane Woods, Jr.
Date: 03-10-2026
Case Number: 23-CR-113
Judge: Robert J. Jonker
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Kent County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Grand Rapids
Defendant's Attorney: Michael Rartish
Description:
Grand Rapids, Michigan, criminal defense lawyer Michael Bartish represented the Defendant charged with felony possession of a firearm.
Once the officers successfully detained Woods, he told them multiple times that he didn’t
have anything on his person. One officer then patted Woods down but didn’t find a gun. Other officers used their flashlights to look through the windows of Woods’s locked car for the gun, but they didn’t see one either. So Blank used Woods’s keys to unlock the car and, after a brief search, the officers discovered a pistol under the front passenger seat
Woods moved to suppress the evidence. The motion was denied.
Since Woods had prior felony convictions, a grand jury charged him with possessing a
firearm as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the gun, arguing that the officers’ warrantless search of his car violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied that motion. It concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime—the gun—was in Woods’s car, so they didn’t need a warrant before searching his vehicle.
* * *
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from “unreasonable searches” of their “effects.”
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Generally, this right requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. As relevant here, the “automobile exception” allows warrantless searches of a car if officers have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 578–80 (1991); United States v. Simpson, 138 F.4th 438, 444 (6th Cir. 2025). So all officers need to search a car is probable cause that it holds evidence of a crime.
“Probable cause is not a high bar.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57
(2018) (cleaned up). To search a place, officers need only a “fair probability” that they will find evidence of a crime there. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Here, there was a fair probability that the gun was in Woods’s car, so the officers had probable cause to search it.
Once the officers successfully detained Woods, he told them multiple times that he didn’t
have anything on his person. One officer then patted Woods down but didn’t find a gun. Other officers used their flashlights to look through the windows of Woods’s locked car for the gun, but they didn’t see one either. So Blank used Woods’s keys to unlock the car and, after a brief search, the officers discovered a pistol under the front passenger seat
Woods moved to suppress the evidence. The motion was denied.
Since Woods had prior felony convictions, a grand jury charged him with possessing a
firearm as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the gun, arguing that the officers’ warrantless search of his car violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied that motion. It concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime—the gun—was in Woods’s car, so they didn’t need a warrant before searching his vehicle.
* * *
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from “unreasonable searches” of their “effects.”
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Generally, this right requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. As relevant here, the “automobile exception” allows warrantless searches of a car if officers have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 578–80 (1991); United States v. Simpson, 138 F.4th 438, 444 (6th Cir. 2025). So all officers need to search a car is probable cause that it holds evidence of a crime.
“Probable cause is not a high bar.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57
(2018) (cleaned up). To search a place, officers need only a “fair probability” that they will find evidence of a crime there. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Here, there was a fair probability that the gun was in Woods’s car, so the officers had probable cause to search it.
Outcome:
Woods pled guilty.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Stephen Duane Woods, Jr.?
The outcome was: Woods pled guilty. Affirmed
Which court heard United States of America v. Stephen Duane Woods, Jr.?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Kent County), MI. The presiding judge was Robert J. Jonker.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Stephen Duane Woods, Jr.?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Grand Rapids. Defendant's attorney: Michael Rartish.
When was United States of America v. Stephen Duane Woods, Jr. decided?
This case was decided on March 10, 2026.