Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision reviews a defendant's conviction for attempted criminal possession of a weapon following a guilty plea. The court addresses the denial of a motion to suppress a firearm recovered during a traffic stop, analyzing whether the officer had probable cause or reasonable suspicion based on an inoperable brake light and alleged marijuana odor. Finding that the officer lacked the necessary training to establish probable cause via the marijuana odor alone, the court reverses the judgment, vacates the guilty plea, grants the suppression motion, and remands the case for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer's odor detection, without training, established probable cause to search the defendant's person.
- Whether the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the suppression issue.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence.
Holdings
- The odor of marijuana, when detected by an officer lacking training or experience in odor detection, does not alone establish probable cause; therefore the motion to suppress physical evidence should be granted.
- The valid waiver of the right to appeal does not bar appellate review of the suppression determination because the trial court's oral colloquy expressly excluded challenges to its suppression rulings.
Key quotations
“"As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred"”
“"the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, [was alone] sufficient to constitute probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants"”
Factual background
A police officer stopped the defendant's vehicle at approximately 12:45 a.m. on March 1, 2020, based on the vehicle's dark tinted windows and an inoperable brake light. The officer smelled marijuana, asked the defendant to step out, searched his person, and recovered a firearm. The defendant was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and moved to suppress the physical evidence, which the trial court denied.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence, after which the defendant pleaded guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing that the denial was erroneous and that his waiver of appeal did not preclude review of the suppression issue.
Remand instructions
Matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.