SEARCHING: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, in his first published opinion for the D.C. Circuit, ruled that evidence of a driver’s personal drug use—such as the smell of pot and a bag of leafy stuff in the backseat—justified searching the vehicle’s trunk. (Diego M. Radzinschi)

Merrick Garland’s decisions are receiving much attention following his nomination by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, The National Law Journal ran a story about his first published opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, United States v. Turner, as evidence of his legal acumen and sound judgment.

My friend and fellow criminal defense attorney David Smith, who represented the defendant in that case, was quoted in the story as saying that Garland “reached the right conclusion,” and that his opinion for the court was a “model of good legal writing and reasoning.” There is no doubt that Garland is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court — even though he rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants on appeal. But my friend David was wrong that Garland’s first opinion was a model of legal reasoning.