195 A.D.3d 123
N.Y. App. Div.2021Background
- Late-night traffic stop for a taillight infraction; officer approached and smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana and saw a smoky interior.
- Defendant produced license/registration, was removed from the vehicle, and both occupants were patted down and moved to the rear of the car.
- A search of the passenger compartment uncovered a small plastic bag of loose unburnt marijuana in the center console (amount consistent with personal use).
- Officer then opened and searched the trunk, including a closed but unlocked compartment, and recovered a loaded firearm; defendant was arrested.
- Trial court denied suppression relying on earlier First Department decisions (Valette, Mena).
- Appellate Division (Kapnick, J.P.) reversed: held odor plus de minimis marijuana did not supply probable cause to search the trunk; gun and subsequent statements suppressed; weapons counts dismissed and marijuana count dismissed in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the odor of marijuana and a small quantity found in the center console supplied probable cause to search the trunk. | Odor + discovery of marijuana gave probable cause to search entire vehicle (including trunk). | Odor + small personal-use quantity did not establish probable cause or nexus to search the trunk. | No—insufficient probable cause/nexus to search trunk; search unreasonable. |
| Whether the smell of marijuana alone creates a per se rule permitting trunk searches. | Earlier First Dept. decisions support that smell can justify full-vehicle search. | There should be no per se rule; fact-specific probable-cause nexus required. | Rejected a per se rule; will not follow Valette/Mena to that extent. |
| Whether United States v. Ross authorizes blanket searches of vehicle trunks absent facts tying contraband to trunk. | Ross permits searching all parts of a vehicle once probable cause to search the vehicle exists. | Ross must be read in light of its facts (tip identifying contraband in the trunk); it does not eliminate the nexus/probable cause requirement. | Ross does not justify trunk searches without objective facts linking contraband to trunk. |
| Remedy for evidence seized in trunk and statements. | Evidence admissible if search lawful. | Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unconstitutional search. | Suppression granted; firearm and statements suppressed; weapons counts dismissed; marijuana count dismissed in interest of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (establishes automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable; exceptions narrowly construed)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope of vehicle search tied to object of search and places where probable cause exists)
- People v. Langen, 60 N.Y.2d 170 (1983) (requirement of probable cause plus nexus between crime and area searched)
- People v. Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673 (1989) (reduced privacy expectations in vehicles and limits of automobile exception)
- People v. Valette, 88 A.D.3d 461 (1st Dep't 2011) (earlier First Dept. decision treating marijuana odor as sufficient for full-vehicle search)
- People v. Mena, 87 A.D.3d 946 (1st Dep't 2011) (similar to Valette; relied on by trial court but not followed here)
- People v. Ramos, 122 A.D.3d 462 (1st Dep't 2014) (distinguishes cases with only scant drug evidence and finds no probable cause to search trunk)