United States v. Salvador Vasquez, 19-50275

Officers stopped a van parked partially in the roadway against a gate; van protruded into traffic, wheels not adjacent to curb, front angled toward oncoming traffic.
Officers observed the van ~20–30 seconds, saw no attempt to reposition it; bystanders dispersed when officers approached; headlights/taillights were on and four occupants remained inside.
Officers reported smelling a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from the van. During a subsequent search officers found a firearm, 20–30 vape pens, a text about marijuana vape cartridges, a vape charger, and $6,680 in cash.
Vasquez (a felon) was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)); he moved to suppress evidence and statements.
District court denied suppression; on appeal Vasquez argued the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the search lacked probable cause (citing Prop 64), and he was not read Miranda warnings prior to questioning.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, credited officers’ credibility findings, and affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonable suspicion for traffic stop (Cal. Veh. Code §22502)	Officers had reasonable suspicion because the van obstructed the roadway, was not within 18 inches of the curb, and was angled toward traffic	Vasquez: stop lacked reasonable suspicion	Stop upheld; district court’s finding that the van obstructed the roadway was not clearly erroneous; reasonable suspicion existed
Probable cause to search the van	Smell of burnt marijuana plus context (gang-controlled building, area known for drug activity, van in driveway with lights on, occupants present, people dispersed) and corroborating evidence inside supported probable cause	Vasquez: odor alone cannot justify probable cause post-Prop 64; search invalid	Search upheld under the automobile exception: odor plus corroborating facts supported a reasonable inference of unlawful marijuana-related activity (e.g., possible DUI or other offenses) and thus probable cause
Whether Miranda warnings were given before questioning	Officers testified they read Miranda from a department card	Vasquez and other occupants denied receiving warnings	District court credited officers’ testimony; Miranda warnings were given; findings not clearly erroneous

United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (framework for de novo review of reasonable suspicion/probable cause with deference to inferences)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause judged by totality of circumstances)
United States v. Ped, 943 F.3d 427 (9th Cir. 2019) (probable cause under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (reasonable suspicion required for a traffic stop)
United States v. Bontemps, 977 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2020) (deference to district court credibility findings)
United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2010) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
United States v. Scott, 705 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2012) (contextual factors can support inference of unlawful activity despite Prop 64)
People v. Johnson, 50 Cal. App. 5th 620 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (smell of marijuana alone insufficient for probable cause under California law)