Search & seizure; People v. Jones; Motion to suppress evidence; People v. Eaton; Validity of a traffic stop; People v. Williams; Automobile exception to the warrant requirement; People v. Kazmierczak; Probable cause; People v. Carter; The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) (MCL 333.26421 et seq.); Whether the odor of marijuana alone justifies the warrantless search of an auto; People v. Zaid (Unpub.); People v. Anthony; Effect of defendant’s statements to the police before the search

Holding that probable cause existed, the court reversed the order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him, including possession of less than 25 grams of hydrocodone and possession of marijuana, and remanded. The trial court ruled that Trooper R “did not have probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after she smelled marijuana, holding that the odor of marijuana was not indicative of criminal activity because the” MMMA made possession of marijuana legal for a segment of the population. The prosecution argued “that the odor of marijuana alone justifies the warrantless search of an automobile and that, even if odor alone were insufficient, defendant’s statements to the police” before the search established probable cause. The court held that his “statements and conduct combined with the odor” provided probable cause. The trial court based its decision on the fact that the MMMA was enacted after Kazmierczak and “because the MMMA made possession of marijuana lawful for a certain segment of the population, the rule stemming from Kazmierczak that the odor of marijuana establishes probable cause” no longer applied. The trial court relied on an unpublished opinion, Zaid. The logic of a later published case, Anthony, “suggests that the enactment of the MMMA did, in fact, affect the reach and scope of” Kazmierczak. Unlike in Anthony, the prosecution here “did not allege that defendant smoked or otherwise used marijuana while in a public place,” or that he “operated his vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. [R] testified only that she smelled a ‘slight odor’ of marijuana. [R] did not indicate that the marijuana smelled burned, and in fact, specifically indicated that she did not believe” he was intoxicated. As he produced a medical marijuana provider card, the court was “not convinced under these circumstances that the ‘slight odor’ of marijuana would have been sufficient to establish probable cause because, essentially, it would appear under the facts that defendant lawfully possessed the marijuana.” It believed this distinction between this case and Anthony was notable. But it held that R had probable cause for the search. “Defendant gave significant indications the he understood his own behavior to be unlawful.” The court found that his “evolving answers to [R’s] questions created a reasonable suspicion” he unlawfully possessed controlled substances, justifying continued questioning and establishing probable cause.