214 A.3d 505
Md.2019Background
- On May 26, 2016, two Montgomery County officers approached a parked Chevrolet Trailblazer; they smelled fresh burnt marijuana and saw a marijuana cigarette in the center console.
- Michael Pacheco was the lone occupant, seated in the driver’s seat; he handed the joint to officers on request.
- Officers removed and searched Pacheco, finding cocaine in his pocket; they searched the vehicle and recovered only minimal marijuana paraphernalia.
- Pacheco was cited for possession of less than ten grams of marijuana (a civil offense under Maryland law) and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute based on the search of his person.
- Pacheco moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing the warrantless search of his person was unlawful because the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for a criminal marijuana offense; the trial and intermediate appellate courts upheld the search, but the Court of Appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Pacheco's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether odor of marijuana + possession of a single joint (apparently <10g) provided probable cause to arrest and search Pacheco incident to arrest | Odor + single joint only indicate a civil offense (<10g); insufficient for probable cause to arrest/search person | Odor of marijuana and visible joint gave probable cause to arrest and search person (and vehicle) | No. Odor + single joint justified searching the vehicle under the automobile exception but did not supply probable cause to arrest and search Pacheco’s person. |
| Whether the automobile exception justified the vehicle search | N/A (Pacheco conceded vehicle search) | Odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband/evidence | Yes. Under Robinson, odor of marijuana gives probable cause to search a vehicle for contraband/evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (Md. 2017) (odor of marijuana supplies probable cause to search a vehicle)
- Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (Md. 2017) (odor alone does not supply reasonable suspicion to frisk occupants for weapons)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to lawful arrest limited to arrestee and area within immediate control)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (scope and justification limits for searches incident to arrest)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (probable cause to arrest assessed from historical facts known to officer)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (historical pedigree and purposes of search-incident-to-arrest doctrine)