STATE v. ROBERSON
492 P.3d 620
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Appellee Brandon Roberson was charged with multiple drug- and gang-related offenses after a traffic stop and subsequent searches of his vehicle and motel room. The district court granted his motion to suppress, blocking prosecution. The State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5).
- Officers observed a black SUV with an expired tag leave a known drug motel; driver (Roberson) was unbelted and nervous; passenger ducked as if hiding something; initial inability to produce IDs; records check revealed prior criminal convictions for both occupants.
- During post-stop questioning Roberson told Officer Beyerl there was a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle ashtray; the officer smelled raw marijuana when he looked inside and then searched the vehicle, finding evidence that led to a warrant for the motel room and more contraband.
- The district court suppressed the evidence, reasoning officers lacked probable cause because legalized medical marijuana meant the substance might have been lawfully possessed.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the admission and odor of marijuana (given medical-marijuana limits) supplied probable cause to search and that medical-marijuana legalization for licensees does not eliminate the probative value of marijuana odor or presence for probable-cause assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search vehicle based on admission/odor of marijuana given Oklahoma's medical-marijuana regime | Admission that marijuana was present and the strong odor provided probable cause to search for contraband | Odor/presence could indicate lawful medical marijuana possession, so no probable cause to search | Reversed suppression: admission plus odor gave probable cause; medical-marijuana limits do not negate probable-cause inference |
| Validity of the initial traffic stop | Stop lawful: officer observed expired tag and seatbelt violation | Stop contested? (not seriously disputed) | Stop was valid; traffic violations justified the stop |
| State's right to appeal suppression under 22 O.S. § 1053(5) | Appeal permissible where suppression prevents further prosecution | N/A | Allowed: Court may hear State's interlocutory appeal after suppression prevented prosecution |
| Applicability of the good-faith (Leon) exception to preserve seized evidence (argued in concurrence) | Even if vehicle search faulty, the subsequent warrant and its execution were not shown to be in bad faith | Evidence should be suppressed if initial search tainted warrant | Concurrences: good-faith doctrine would independently support admission; majority resolved reversal on probable cause instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; established search exceptions)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (automobile searches on probable cause)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (presence in a high-crime area is relevant to reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149 (driver's admission of marijuana supplied probable cause to search vehicle)
- Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (odor of marijuana constituted probable cause to search vehicle)
- Dufries v. State, 133 P.3d 887 (traffic stop justified by observed traffic violations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)