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.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- 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.
- Whether the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the occupants supplied probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants.
- Whether probable cause based on the odor of burnt marijuana extended to the vehicle's trunk.
- Whether the defendant's postarrest statement was sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful trunk search to avoid suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Holdings
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Key quotations
“While we agree that in appropriate circumstances the smell of marijuana can provide probable cause to search all parts of a vehicle, in the circumstances of this case, probable cause to search did not extend to the trunk.” (43-44)
“The search of the Honda’s trunk in this case exceeded the permissible scope of the search because Officer Cooley could not reasonably have believed that the source of the smell of burnt marijuana would be found in the trunk.” (53)
“Similarly, the statements made at the police station must be suppressed as tainted fruit of that impermissible search.” (54)
Factual background
Police stopped a black Honda after learning that its registered owner had a suspended license, although they did not initially know the driver's identity or gender. When Officer Cooley approached, he saw that the driver was male and smelled burnt marijuana coming from the occupants' clothing; searches of the occupants and passenger compartment revealed no contraband. After the defendant refused consent to search the trunk, the officer opened it and found three pistols and two bags of a green leafy substance. The defendant was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and made a statement that the .45 belonged to him.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged in the Boston Municipal Court with firearm, receiving stolen property, and controlled-substance offenses. After a suppression hearing, the motion judge suppressed the trunk evidence and the defendant's postarrest statements. A single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allowed the Commonwealth's application for interlocutory appeal, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.