Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the smell of marijuana may be considered as one factor, but cannot alone establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search in light of Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act. The Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment, reinstated the trial court's order suppressing evidence, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the odor of marijuana, standing alone, establishes probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle after enactment of Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act.
- Whether lawful possession or use of medical marijuana, considered with other articulable facts, may contribute to a totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause determination.
- Whether Commonwealth v. Hicks supports the conclusion that lawful possession of medical marijuana alone cannot support probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search.
- Whether the trial court properly granted Barr's motion to suppress where the record showed that the vehicle search was based solely on the odor of marijuana.
Holdings
- After enactment of the Medical Marijuana Act, the odor of marijuana alone does not establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle.
- The odor of marijuana may be considered as one factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause analysis, but it may not be the stand-alone basis for a warrantless vehicle search.
- Hicks does not directly resolve the vehicle-search issue, but its individualized-suspicion reasoning supports the conclusion that lawful possession of medical marijuana, standing alone, cannot establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search.
- The trial court properly granted Barr's motion to suppress because the record supported its finding that the troopers searched the vehicle solely on the odor of marijuana.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, the smell of marijuana alone cannot create probable cause to justify a search under the state and federal constitutions.” (J-70-2021, at 23-24)
“Given this dichotomy, we conclude that the odor of marijuana may be a factor, but not a stand-alone one, in evaluating the totality of the circumstances for purposes of determining whether police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search.” (J-70-2021, at 23-24)
“Thus, one’s liberty may not be abridged on the sole basis that a law enforcement officer detected the smell of marijuana, because, to do so, would eliminate individualized suspicion required for probable cause and would misapply the totality-of-the-circumstances test.” (J-70-2021, at 26-27)
Factual background
During a late-night traffic stop in Allentown, Pennsylvania, troopers smelled burnt marijuana coming from a vehicle occupied by Barr, his wife, and another passenger. Barr and his wife presented medical-marijuana identification cards before the troopers searched the vehicle. The troopers nevertheless searched without a warrant, recovering a small amount of marijuana, packaging materials, and a firearm. The trial court found that the search was based solely on the marijuana odor and that the troopers lacked sufficient knowledge regarding lawful medical-marijuana use.
Procedural history
After a traffic stop, Pennsylvania State Troopers searched the vehicle based principally on the odor of burnt marijuana and recovered marijuana and a firearm. The trial court granted Barr's suppression motion and granted habeas relief in part by dismissing the small-amount-marijuana charge. The Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court agreed that marijuana odor was not automatically sufficient to establish probable cause but vacated and remanded for reconsideration of other circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment, reinstated the trial court's suppression order, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Remand instructions
Vacate the Superior Court's judgment, reinstate the trial court order granting Barr's motion to suppress, and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion.