STATE v. ROBERSON
2021 OK CR 16
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background
- Officer Beyerl stopped a black SUV for an expired tag and a seatbelt violation after it left a known drug motel; both occupants were nervous, initially could not produce IDs, and records showed prior criminal histories.
- The passenger ducked as the car was stopped and Appellee (Roberson) displayed gang-related tattoos.
- During questioning Roberson admitted there was a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle ashtray and told the officer not to search.
- Beyerl entered the vehicle, smelled raw marijuana, searched the vehicle, and uncovered evidence that led to a warrant for the motel room and further contraband.
- The district court granted Roberson’s motion to suppress, ruling officers lacked probable cause because medical marijuana legalization made the marijuana possibly lawful.
- The State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5); the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding there was probable cause to search despite Oklahoma’s medical marijuana regime, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the traffic stop and continued detention | Stop was lawful—seatbelt and expired tag justified stop and further questioning | Stop was lawful but further detention/search exceeded scope absent probable cause | Stop valid; officer had reasonable suspicion to continue inquiry |
| Probable cause to search vehicle after admission and odor | Admission of marijuana plus officer’s odor detection established probable cause to search | Medical marijuana law meant presence/odor could be lawful; no probable cause of criminal activity | Probable cause existed: admission + strong odor supported a warrantless vehicle search |
| Effect of Oklahoma medical marijuana laws on marijuana odor as indicia of crime | Legalization for licensed patients does not eliminate marijuana odor as evidence of criminal activity | Legalization renders odor ambiguous and negates probable cause unless license shown | Medical-marijuana legalization does not negate officers’ ability to infer criminality from admission or odor; probable cause may still arise |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; limited exceptions)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (automobile exception applies when officers have probable cause of vehicle contraband)
- United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.) (driver admission of marijuana can supply probable cause to search vehicle)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (presence in high-crime area is a contextual factor for reasonable suspicion)
- Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (Okla. Crim. App.) (odor of marijuana can constitute probable cause to search vehicle)
- People v. Zuniga, 372 P.3d 1052 (Colo.) (marijuana odor remains relevant to probable cause despite limited decriminalization)
- State v. Sisco, 373 P.3d 549 (Ariz.) (medical marijuana laws do not eliminate the probative value of marijuana odor for probable cause)