72 Cal.App.5th 904
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Deputies stopped Derrick Blakes for illegal front-window tint and discovered his driver’s license was suspended; the car was then parked legally in a public lot.
- Deputies smelled burnt marijuana from the car; Blakes initially hesitated to exit and was patted down (no weapons found).
- Deputies decided to tow/impound the vehicle and announced they would perform an inventory search; during the search they found burnt marijuana, more marijuana, a digital scale, a handgun holster and a loaded handgun, and multiple IDs.
- Blakes moved to suppress the evidence; a magistrate and the trial court denied suppression; Blakes petitioned for mandamus review in the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal held the warrantless search lacked probable cause and the impound was pretextual (not a community-caretaking justification), ordered the writ, and directed the trial court to grant suppression.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless vehicle search was supported by probable cause under the automobile exception | Odor of marijuana alone did not create a fair probability of a crime (no evidence of DUI or open container) | Smell of burnt marijuana justified probable cause to search for drugs or evidence of DUI/open-container | No — odor alone, without evidence of recent use, impairment, or open container, did not establish probable cause |
| Whether the search was a valid inventory search incident to impound | Impound was pretextual; vehicle was legally parked and not a caretaking risk; officers motivated to investigate | Impound lawful to prevent an unlicensed driver from driving away; objective community-caretaking justification sufficed | No — impound motivated by investigatory purpose; inventory search was pretextual and invalid |
| Effect of Proposition 64 on marijuana-based probable cause | Lawful possession per Prop 64 means cannabis generally is not contraband and cannot alone justify searches | Exceptions (DUI or open-container violations) can supply probable cause if supported by evidence | Prop 64 limits probable-cause inferences from marijuana odor; only evidence of a statutory violation (DUI/open container) supports search |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (search of vehicle compartments incident to probable cause)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory-search exception to warrant requirement)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (subjective intent irrelevant to objective probable-cause analysis; limited applicability to inventory/administrative searches)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches and caretaking justification)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (probable cause judged under objective standard)
- People v. Camacho, 23 Cal.4th 824 (prosecution’s burden to justify warrantless searches)
- People v. Johnson, 50 Cal.App.5th 620 (Prop 64’s effect on marijuana-based probable cause)
- People v. Williams, 20 Cal.4th 119 (inventory searches must not be a pretext for general rummaging)