JERMAUL RONDELL ROBINSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
DEXTER WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
VERNON HARVEY SPRIGGS, III v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Watts, Jan. 20, 2017,
Search – Police have probable cause to search a vehicle where they detect an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle
Following the CoSA opinion in Bowling
Facts: The Court of Appeals was presented with three cases where the Defendant moved to suppress evidence that had been found in a vehicle. In each case, a law enforcement officer testified that a strong odor of fresh marijuana was coming from the car.
In March, the Court of Special Appeals held that odor of marijuana justified a vehicle search. Here, the Court of Appeals agrees.
Facts from the individual cases:
Robinson v. State: In 2014, Officer Steven Vinias and Sgt. Luis Ruiz of the Baltimore Police Department saw Robinson standing near a Nissan Maxima in the 3100 block of Oakfield Ave. and noted the “overwhelming smell of fresh marijuana.” When Robinson “made a movement toward his waistband,” he was detained. Robinson told the officers that he was driving the Nissan and admitted there was marijuana in there. The vehicle was searched and both marijuana and oxycodone were recovered.
Williams v. State: In 2015, Detective Tristan Ferguson of the Baltimore Police Department observed Williams in the driver’s seat of a vehicle in the 4500 block of Fairview Ave. When Det. Ferguson approached the vehicle, he “smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana emanating from Williams’s vehicle.” Williams admitted that he smoked marijuana. Det. Ferguson searched the vehicle and recovered a scale along with 170 grams of packaged marijuana.
Spriggs v. State: In 2014, Cambridge Police noted an odor of marijuana coming from Spriggs’ vehicle. As they approached, Spriggs exited his vehicle and began walking away. Cambridge PD stopped him, noting that he was carrying a large sum of money. They then searched his vehicle based on the odor of marijuana and recovered 143 grams of cocaine and 142 grams of marijuana.
Vehicle Search (Carroll Doctrine):
Vehicle Search- Carroll Doctrine- A police officer may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence. The reason for this is that vehicles can be quickly moved from one jurisdiction to another, thus making it impracticable to obtain a warrant.
Vehicle Search – Carroll Doctrine- LEO ability to search a vehicle does not depend on the law enforcement officer’s right to make an arrest, but instead depends on probable cause to believe that the vehicle’s contents are illegal.
Searches:
Search- Probable Cause – Probable cause exists where, based on the available facts, a person of reasonable caution would believe “that contraband or evidence of a crime is present.”
Contraband- “contraband” means goods that are illegal to possess, regardless of whether possession of the goods is a crime.
Odor of Marijuana:
Probable Cause – “The odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle may be just as indicative of crimes such as the possession of more than ten grams of marijuana, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, or the operation of a vehicle under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, as it is of possession of less than ten grams of marijuana.”
Odor of Marijuana- “[A] law enforcement officer has probable cause to search a vehicle where the law enforcement officer detects an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle”
Marijuana – Contraband- Because all marijuana is contraband, “for purposes of probable cause, there is no distinction between the significance of a criminal amount of marijuana versus the significance of a noncriminal—but still illegal—amount of marijuana.”
Search Warrants for Marijuana:
Search Warrant – “Because marijuana, in any amount, is subject to seizure and forfeiture, it can be the legitimate object of a search
warrant, notwithstanding the circumstance that possession of less than ten grams of marijuana is a civil offense.”
Search Warrant- Seizure- “The seizure of Schedule I substances is authorized under the criminal laws of the State of Maryland.” “Because marijuana is property subject to seizure under the criminal laws of the State, a search warrant may be obtained.”
Seizure- CR 5-601(d)(2) specifically states “making the possession of marijuana a civil offense may not be construed to affect the laws relating to… seizure and forfeiture.”
Occupants:
Notes on Searches- When dealing with people, there are two general types of “searches”: a frisk for weapons and a more thorough search for evidence/contraband.
Notes on Frisking Occupants- In order to frisk someone, you need reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity (which might be provided by the odor of marijuana) as well as reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous (which might be provided by your observations).
Frisk- Drug Dealing- While the Court of Special Appeals has noted the “intimate connection between guns and narcotics”, the Court of Appeals has held that, without more, suspicion of drug possession alone is not enough to frisk.
Notes on Passenger Searches – A warrantless search of an individual (outside of a frisk or consent) is generally based on their arrest. If there is probable cause to arrest an occupant, they may be lawfully searched. If they are not under arrest, and no other search-warrant exception applies, they may not be searched.
Odor of Marijuana- Without more, the odor of marijuana might not be enough to arrest and search the passenger in a vehicle (not including the driver or owner).
Note on Arrest- Probable cause that a vehicle contains marijuana is not necessarily the same as probable cause to arrest all of the passengers. There must be probable cause that everyone to be arrested has committed a crime.
Occupants – As the Supreme Court stated, “a car passenger… will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrongdoing.”
Occupants- Moreover, where there is evidence of drug dealing in the car, the Supreme Court has noted that “a dealer would be unlikely to admit an innocent person with the potential to furnish evidence against him” into the vehicle.
Probable Cause- If CDS or other evidence is located within the vehicle, consider some of the standard factors in determining probable cause and nexus:
– How close was the suspect to the item?
– Was the item in “plain view”?
– Who owns where it was found?
– What evidence is there that more than one person was using it?
CR 5-601(d)(2) states that “The provisions of … this section making the possession of marijuana a civil offense may not be construed to affect the laws relating to… seizure and forfeiture.”
In a hearing to discuss the bill, “Senator Robert Zirkin, one of the sponsors of the bill, testified that… ‘[t]he intention of this bill is not to stop what would be right now a lawful search incident to arrest.'”
Strength of odor doesn’t matter – Rather than cabining our holding to the requirement that the odor must be strong or overwhelming, we conclude that the odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search a vehicle. As discussed above, marijuana in any amount, no matter how small, is contraband; accordingly, the odor of marijuana constitutes probable cause to search a vehicle.
In other words, for purposes of probable cause, there is no distinction between the significance of a criminal amount of marijuana versus the significance of a noncriminal—but still illegal—amount of marijuana.
Cannabis Card –
HG 13-3313 Any of the following persons acting in accordance with the provisions of this subtitle may not be subject to arrest… for the medical use of cannabis:
(1) A qualifying patient:
(i) In possession of an amount of medical cannabis determined by the Commission to constitute a 30-day supply; or
(ii) In possession of an amount of medical cannabis that is greater than a 30-day supply if the qualifying patient’s certifying physician stated in the written certification that a 30-day supply would be inadequate to meet the medical needs of the qualifying patient;
(2) A grower licensed under § 13-3306 of this subtitle or a grower agent registered under § 13-3306 of this subtitle;
(3) A certifying physician;
(4) A caregiver;
(5) A dispensary licensed under § 13-3307 of this subtitle or a dispensary agent registered under § 13-3308 of this subtitle;
(6) A processor licensed under § 13-3309 of this subtitle or a processor agent registered under § 13-3310 of this subtitle; or
(7) A hospital, medical facility, or hospice program where a qualifying patient is receiving treatment.
“Qualifying patient” means an individual who: Has been provided with a written certification by a certifying physician in accordance with a bona fide physician-patient relationship