State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham
375 P.3d 66
Ariz.2016Background
- Before AMMA (2010), Arizona law treated marijuana odor as per se probable cause of criminal activity; courts allowed warrantless vehicle searches on that basis.
- AMMA legalized certain medical marijuana possession/use, raising the question whether odor alone still indicates crime.
- Cheatham was stopped and an officer smelled burnt marijuana from his vehicle; Cheatham was not a registered qualifying patient.
- The officer conducted a warrantless search under the automobile exception and found contraband; Cheatham was convicted and appealed.
- The court reviewed whether, post-AMMA, marijuana odor alone supplies probable cause and whether the vehicle search was authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Cheatham's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does marijuana odor alone establish probable cause after AMMA? | Odor alone cannot establish probable cause because AMMA permits lawful possession/use; officers must consider possibility of lawful conduct. | Probable cause concerns the degree of suspicion; odor still gives probable cause unless facts indicate AMMA-compliant use. | Odor alone still provides probable cause absent indicia suggesting AMMA-compliant possession/use. |
| Must officers consider indicia of lawful AMMA use when odor is present? | Yes — officers must account for the possibility of lawful conduct. | Officers should consider such indicia as part of the totality of circumstances, but odor alone can suffice. | Officers must consider AMMA indicia, but here none existed; probable cause remained. |
| Did the automobile exception permit searching Cheatham’s vehicle and containers? | Search was invalid if odor cannot establish probable cause. | If odor establishes probable cause, automobile exception authorizes search of vehicle and containers that could hold contraband. | Because officer had probable cause, the automobile exception authorized a full vehicle search, including containers. |
| Remedy on appeal | Suppress evidence and reverse conviction if search unlawful. | Affirm conviction if search lawful. | Conviction and probation affirmed; court of appeals opinion vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Decker, 119 Ariz. 195, 580 P.2d 333 (1978) (odor of marijuana as probable cause pre-AMMA)
- State v. Harrison, 111 Ariz. 508, 533 P.2d 1143 (1975) (odor from vehicle justified warrantless search)
- Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119, 347 P.3d 136 (2015) (AMMA legalized medicinal marijuana under specified conditions)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause evaluates degree of suspicion; requires probability, not certainty)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; automobile-exception principles)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (automobile-exception permits searching containers within vehicles when probable cause exists)
- State v. Reyna, 205 Ariz. 374, 71 P.3d 366 (App. 2003) (application of vehicle search principles under Arizona law)