57 Cal.App.5th 946
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In Sept. 2018 Hall was stopped for a nonfunctional license-plate lamp; officer saw a clear plastic baggie with a green leafy substance in the center console, ash and cigar wrappers in the cupholders, and a green leafy substance on the driver’s lap.
- Officer did not smell marijuana, observed no signs of impairment, and had no prior information Hall was armed or dangerous.
- Officers searched the vehicle citing a suspected open-container marijuana violation; they found a backpack on the rear floor and a loaded pistol inside.
- Hall was charged with firearm offenses; the magistrate denied his suppression motion, the superior court denied a § 995 motion, and Hall pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor firearms count.
- On appeal the court considered whether the observation of marijuana (or an alleged open container) provided probable cause to search a vehicle after Proposition 64 legalized limited possession and transport of marijuana.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether observation of marijuana in a vehicle provides probable cause to search under the automobile exception post‑Prop. 64 | Observing marijuana permits searching to determine quantity and whether additional, unlawful amounts are hidden | Lawful possession (up to 28.5 g) is not contraband under § 11362.1(c); mere observation of a small/unknown amount does not establish probable cause | Observation of a not‑unlawful amount of marijuana, without other evidence, does not establish probable cause to search the vehicle |
| Whether an alleged “open container” of marijuana justified the search | The plastic baggie was an open container in violation of § 11362.3(a)(4), supporting probable cause | No evidence described the baggie’s condition; no showing it was open or that the item was on Hall’s person as required by Vehicle Code § 23222(b)(1) | There was no substantial evidence the baggie was an open container or otherwise violated Vehicle Code § 23222; that theory fails |
| Whether other facts (odor, behavior, location) supported probable cause or a frisk | Cited cases where smell, furtive movements, high‑crime area, or signs of impairment supported searches/frisks | Here there was no odor, no furtive/suspicious conduct, and no high‑crime context | Unlike cases with additional corroborating facts (e.g., Fews), the circumstances here lacked the extra indicators needed for probable cause or a Terry frisk |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lee, 40 Cal. App. 5th 853 (Cal. Ct. App.) (lawful possession of marijuana post‑Prop. 64 cannot alone justify vehicle search)
- People v. Johnson, 50 Cal. App. 5th 620 (Cal. Ct. App.) (odor or presence of small amounts of marijuana alone no longer establishes probable cause)
- People v. McGee, 53 Cal. App. 5th 796 (Cal. Ct. App.) (mere presence of a lawful amount of marijuana insufficient for automobile‑exception probable cause)
- People v. Shumake, 45 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1 (Cal. Ct. App. Supp.) (discovery of a legal amount of marijuana in console did not justify full‑vehicle search)
- People v. Fews, 27 Cal. App. 5th 553 (Cal. Ct. App.) (search/frisk upheld where marijuana odor, furtive movements, high‑crime area, and other facts supported officers’ actions)
- Robey v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 1218 (Cal. 2013) (automobile exception requires probable cause)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause standard and appellate review principles)
- People v. Glaser, 11 Cal. 4th 354 (Cal. 1995) (defer to trial court’s factual findings; independent review of Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Waxler v. Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 712 (Cal. Ct. App.) (pre‑Prop. 64 decision; limited persuasive value post‑legalization)
- People v. Strasburg, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App.) (pre‑Prop. 64 decision; limited persuasive value post‑legalization)