Commonwealth v. Garden

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from vehicle occupants supplied probable cause to search the passenger compartment and the occupants, but not the vehicle’s trunk under the facts presented. The trunk search therefore exceeded the permissible scope of the automobile exception under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fourth Amendment. Evidence seized from the trunk and the defendant’s subsequent statements were suppressed as fruits of the unlawful search.

Holdings

1. The initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on information that the vehicle's registered owner had a suspended license. Once the officer learned that the driver was male, reasonable suspicion that the registered owner was driving with a suspended license dissipated, but the officer did not violate the defendant's rights by continuing to approach the already-legitimately-stopped vehicle and explain the reason for the stop.
2. An odor of burnt marijuana detected by an officer qualified to recognize it can, standing alone, establish probable cause to search a vehicle's passenger compartment and its occupants for marijuana or evidence of marijuana use and possession.
3. Although the odor of burnt marijuana supplied probable cause to search the passenger compartment and occupants, it did not, on these facts, establish probable cause to search the vehicle's trunk.
4. The defendant's statement at the police station was properly suppressed as fruit of the unlawful trunk search because the arrest resulted directly from that search and the Commonwealth showed no attenuation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the vehicle stop remained lawful after the officer learned that the male driver could not be the female registered owner with the suspended license.
2. Whether the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the occupants supplied probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants.
3. Whether probable cause based on the odor of burnt marijuana extended to the vehicle's trunk.
4. Whether the defendant's postarrest statement was sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful trunk search to avoid suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Disposition

affirmed