People v. Zuniga
2016 CO 52
| Colo. | 2016Background
- State trooper stopped a Jeep on I-76, smelled a "heavy odor" of raw marijuana at the open passenger window and observed "extreme" nervousness from the occupants.
- Occupants (driver and passenger Victor Zuniga) gave inconsistent accounts of their trip to Colorado.
- Trooper deployed a narcotics K-9 (trained to detect marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin); the dog alerted at the vehicle's rear.
- Search of the rear hatch revealed ~1 pound of marijuana in a duffel bag and 12.6 ounces of marijuana concentrate in a cooler; Zuniga admitted ownership and was arrested.
- Zuniga moved to suppress arguing lack of probable cause for the search; trial court granted suppression, reasoning marijuana odor/dog alert could indicate legal possession under Amendment 64.
- The People appealed interlocutorily; the Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding the odor of marijuana may be considered in the totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause analysis and that probable cause existed here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Zuniga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the odor of marijuana and a K-9 alert may contribute to probable cause after Amendment 64 | Odor and dog alert remain relevant facts under the totality of the circumstances and can support probable cause | Odor/dog alert are ambiguous because possession of ≤1 oz is legal, so they cannot support probable cause | The odor of marijuana is relevant and may contribute to probable cause; trial court erred in excluding it |
| Whether probable cause existed to search the vehicle | Totality (divergent stories, extreme nervousness, heavy marijuana odor, K-9 alert) created a fair probability of contraband/evidence | The facts (nervousness, inconsistent stories) are weak; odor/dog alert are ambiguous post-Amendment 64, so no probable cause | Under the totality, probable cause existed to search the vehicle; suppression reversed |
| Whether the automobile-exception justified the warrantless search | If probable cause exists that vehicle contains evidence/contraband, automobile exception permits search without warrant | Same challenge as above: lack of probable cause defeats automobile exception | Automobile exception applies because court found probable cause based on totality |
| Role/weight of legally ambiguous facts (e.g., lawful small-quantity possession) in probable cause | Legally ambiguous or potentially innocent facts remain admissible in the totality analysis; their weight may be reduced but not excluded | Such facts should be disregarded or given little weight when they are consistent with lawful conduct | Ambiguous facts may be considered; possibility of lawful explanation affects weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1999) (odor of marijuana contributed to probable cause and exigent-circumstances entry)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (automobile-exception permits warrantless search of vehicle and containers with probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is assessed under the totality-of-the-circumstances)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013) (dog alert evaluated under common-sense totality-of-the-circumstances for probable cause)
- People v. Vaughn, 334 P.3d 226 (Colo. 2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- People v. Coates, 266 P.3d 397 (Colo. 2011) (probable cause is mixed question of law and fact)