STATE v. ROBERSON, 492 P.3d 620

Background:

Officer stopped a black SUV for an expired tag and a seatbelt violation after it left a known drug motel; driver was Brandon Roberson, passenger Katelyn Turner.
During the stop both occupants initially struggled to produce ID; Turner ducked as the vehicle was stopped; officers learned both had criminal records including drug convictions.
Roberson told the officer there was a small amount of marijuana in the ashtray; the officer smelled raw marijuana inside the vehicle and searched it, then obtained a warrant to search the occupants' motel room, seizing additional contraband.
Roberson moved to suppress evidence obtained from the vehicle and subsequent motel search; the district court granted suppression, reasoning legal medical marijuana made the odor ambiguous and thus there was no probable cause.
The State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5); the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the admission and odor (with other circumstances) provided probable cause despite Oklahoma's medical marijuana regime, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Roberson's Argument	Held
Probable cause to search the vehicle	Admission of marijuana plus strong odor created probable cause to search under the automobile exception	Medical marijuana legalization makes odor/possession ambiguous; no fair probability of criminality	Reversed suppression: admission and odor (and totality of circumstances) supplied probable cause to search
Whether medical marijuana laws negate probable cause from odor/presence of marijuana	Decriminalization for licensed patients does not eliminate other marijuana-related crimes; odor still suggests criminal activity	Medical legalization for patients renders odor insufficient to infer illegality without proof of lack of license	Held that medical-marijuana regime does not defeat officers’ probable-cause inference from admission/odor
Validity/scope of continued detention after traffic stop	Officer developed reasonable suspicion (location, ducking, nervousness, records) to continue investigation and request consent/search	Continued detention and expanded search exceeded the scope because ambiguity about legality of marijuana	Court found reasonable suspicion justified further questioning and investigation, supporting extension of the stop
Admissibility of motel-room evidence obtained via warrant (fruit of vehicle search)	Evidence lawful if vehicle search was supported by probable cause; alternatively warrant was valid and executed in good faith	If vehicle search lacked probable cause, subsequent warrant may be tainted and evidence should be suppressed	Majority reversed on probable cause; concurring opinion noted that even if vehicle search lacked probable cause, Leon good-faith doctrine likely would preserve warrant evidence

Key Cases Cited

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception: mobility of vehicles can justify warrantless searches when probable cause exists)
Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (1984) (officers with probable cause may search a stopped vehicle without a warrant)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed as a ‘‘fair probability’’ under totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2005) (driver admission of marijuana can supply probable cause to search a vehicle)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable suspicion evaluated under the totality of the circumstances)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in a high-crime area is a contextual factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
Lozoya v. State, 932 P.2d 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (odor of marijuana constitutes probable cause to search a vehicle)
Dufries v. State, 133 P.3d 887 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (traffic stop reasonable where officer observed a traffic violation)