People v. Waxler
168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 822
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Feb 2012 Deputy Griffin approached Waxler’s truck at a Safeway parking lot after reports of illegal dumping; he smelled burnt marijuana and saw a pipe with burnt marijuana in the passenger area.
- Deputy Griffin searched the truck and found a methamphetamine pipe and a small bindle of suspected meth; Waxler was detained, Mirandized, and later admitted varying stories about the meth’s origin.
- Waxler produced a valid medical marijuana ("215") card, but after the search the officer remained concerned about amount and concealment.
- Waxler moved to suppress the search, arguing the odor and small visible amount of marijuana (0.3 grams in the pipe bowl) could not justify a warrantless automobile search because possession under 28.5 grams is an infraction.
- The trial court denied suppression; Waxler pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether odor/observation of burnt marijuana in a car gives probable cause to search under the automobile exception | Odor and visible burnt marijuana provide probable cause to search for contraband in vehicle | Smell and small visible amount (0.3 g) are insufficient because possession under 28.5 g is only an infraction; a 215 card makes possession lawful | Yes. Odor and observation of marijuana provide probable cause; marijuana remains contraband even if possession of ≤28.5 g is an infraction, and a 215 card does not negate probable cause to search (Strasburg governs) |
| Whether possession of ≤28.5 g being an infraction prevents an automobile search | Infraction status does not change that marijuana is contraband, so probable cause supports a search | Criminality reduced to an infraction means officers should not search absent evidence of a "criminal amount" | No. California treats possession as a crime for Fourth Amendment purposes; the automobile exception applies regardless of quantity qualified by §11357(b) |
| Whether a 215 medical marijuana card vitiates probable cause or bars search | Officers can still investigate despite a 215 card; CUA is an affirmative defense, not an absolute shield | 215 card makes possession lawful and should preclude search/arrest | 215 card does not automatically preclude search; officer may verify compliance with medical limits and investigate further |
| Applicability of dwelling-entry cases (Hua/Torres) to vehicle searches | N/A (People distinguish) | Waxler relied on Hua/Torres to limit searches when only marijuana odor is present | Not applicable: Hua/Torres concern home-entry and exigency; automobile exception has different rationales (mobility, reduced privacy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Robey v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.4th 1218 (Cal. 2013) (automobile exception permits warrantless vehicle searches where probable cause exists)
- Strasburg v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (medical marijuana card is an affirmative defense and does not bar a warrantless search when probable cause exists)
- People v. Gale, 9 Cal.3d 788 (Cal. 1973) (odor of fresh marijuana can establish probable cause to search)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (vehicle mobility and reduced expectation of privacy justify automobile exception)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (reduced privacy interests in vehicles affect search scope)
- People v. Dey, 84 Cal.App.4th 1318 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (usable quantity in passenger compartment supports probable cause to search other vehicle areas)
- People v. Hua, 158 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (limits warrantless home entry for minor marijuana offenses; inapplicable to vehicle searches)
- People v. Torres, 205 Cal.App.4th 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (warrantless hotel-room entry for marijuana odor alone was not justified; distinguished from automobile context)