STATE v. ROBERSON, 2021 OK CR 16

Officer Beyerl stopped a black SUV for an expired tag and a seatbelt violation after seeing it leave a motel known for drug activity. The passenger ducked as the car was stopped.
Driver (Brandon Roberson) lacked a driver's license, appeared nervous, and both occupants had criminal histories including drug convictions.
During questioning Roberson told the officer there was a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle ashtray and said he did not want the officer to search the car.
The officer entered the vehicle, smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana, searched the vehicle, and uncovered evidence that led to a warrant and a motel-room search that produced contraband.
The district court granted Roberson’s motion to suppress, reasoning the officer could not assume the marijuana was illegal given Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana scheme; the State appealed.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the admission and odor supplied probable cause and that Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana regime does not eliminate probable-cause inferences from the presence or smell of marijuana.

Issue	State's Argument	Roberson's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop and continued detention were lawful	Stop lawful: officer observed expired tag and seatbelt violation; additional facts (location, ducking, nervousness, records) gave reasonable suspicion to continue	Stop/detention exceeded scope or lacked reasonable suspicion	Stop was lawful; totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion to further question and briefly detain
Whether admission/odor of marijuana supplied probable cause to search vehicle given Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws	Admission that marijuana was present plus strong odor established probable cause to search despite medical-marijuana exceptions	Legal medical-use regime could make the presence/odor ambiguous and defeat probable cause	Probable cause existed; medical-marijuana licensing does not negate that admission/odor can support probable cause
Whether suppression of evidence should be affirmed or reversed (including alternative Leon good‑faith argument)	Evidence admissible: vehicle search was supported by probable cause; even if not, Leon good‑faith doctrine would preserve warrant fruits	Evidence should be suppressed as product of unlawful search	Reversed suppression order and remanded; concurring opinions note Leon would independently support admission absent bad faith

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; specific exceptions exist)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (establishing the automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1984) (officers with probable cause may search a stopped automobile without a warrant)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (high-crime area is a contextual factor for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (reasonable‑suspicion review uses the totality of the circumstances)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause requires a fair probability that evidence or contraband will be found)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule for warrants)
United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2005) (driver’s admission that marijuana was in the car gave probable cause to search)
Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (odor of marijuana constitutes probable cause to search a vehicle)
McGaughey v. State, 37 P.3d 130 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (scope of inquiry following a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the stop; nervousness and inconsistent answers can support reasonable suspicion)
Dufries v. State, 133 P.3d 887 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (traffic stop reasonable where officer observes a traffic violation)