Com. v. Grooms, K.
247 A.3d 31
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- On Oct. 8, 2018, two uniformed Swatara Twp. officers on foot patrol at Harrisburg Mall smelled fresh marijuana emanating from a locked, parked Mercedes registered to Appellant’s wife.
- Officers used a lockout tool to unlock the vehicle, searched it, and found marijuana (7.8 g), crack cocaine (18.4 g), ecstasy (3.8 g), $1,100, and the defendant’s cell phone; Appellant later acknowledged ownership of the drugs.
- Appellant moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless, non-exigent search lacked probable cause; the trial court denied suppression, reasoning that the odor of marijuana alone established probable cause.
- After a stipulated bench trial, Appellant was convicted and sentenced; he appealed the denial of suppression.
- The Superior Court vacated the sentence, reversed the suppression denial, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether factors beyond odor supported probable cause, explaining that post–Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) precedent (Barr) prevents treating marijuana odor as a per se basis for probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether odor of marijuana alone supplies probable cause to search a parked, locked vehicle | Odor of marijuana alone establishes probable cause to search the vehicle | Odor alone is insufficient—MMA permits lawful possession and Hicks/Barr limit the inferential value of odor | Odor alone does not always establish probable cause; it is a factor under the totality of circumstances; trial court erred applying a per se rule; suppression reversed and remanded |
| Applicability of automobile-search rule (Gary) / exigency requirement | Warrantless automobile search ok if officers had probable cause | Appellant argued lack of probable cause; he did not challenge Gary/exigency below | Gary controlled at time of the search, but Alexander later overruled Gary; Appellant did not preserve an exigency challenge, so that issue is waived on appeal |
| Relevance of Hicks and the MMA to odor-based inferences | Odor remains reliable indicium of illegality | Hicks and MMA show lawful possession is possible and odor cannot by itself distinguish legal from illegal possession | Court relied on Hicks and MMA rationale (as in Barr): police cannot discern lawful from unlawful possession by odor alone; additional circumstances are required to reach probable cause |
| Remedy and remand | Commonwealth sought to uphold conviction | Appellant sought suppression and reversal | Superior Court vacated sentence, reversed suppression denial, and remanded for determination whether other factors beyond odor supported probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stoner, 344 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1975) (explains plain-view/plain-smell context where officers observed contraband and odor)
- Commonwealth v. Barr, 240 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2020) (post-MMA: odor alone is not per se probable cause; odor is one factor in totality analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019) (officers may not infer criminality merely from possession of an item that can lawfully be possessed)
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (plurality) (held automobile exception permitted warrantless search with probable cause; later overruled by Alexander)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (defines probable cause as a practical, probability-based standard under totality of circumstances)