Search & seizure; Probable cause; The automobile exception to the warrant requirement; People v Kazmierczak; Effect of the smell of marijuana on a search in light of Michigan legalizing recreational marijuana for those 21 years old & older; People v Armstrong; Other factors; People v Moorman; Investigative (“Terry”) stop; Terry v Ohio; Duration & scope of the Terry stop; Fruit of the poisonous tree; Utah v Strieff

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. He was charged with CCW after a weapon was found in his vehicle during the stop. His motion to suppress challenged the constitutionality of the search. The trial court denied the motion and bound him over, finding the trooper’s “actions ‘were based on specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the initial smell of marijuana and the age of the vehicle’s occupants.’” In this interlocutory appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that “the search was not justified under the automobile exception because the facts did not give rise to probable cause that the vehicle contained a criminal amount of marijuana over 2.5 ounces, as opposed to a lesser amount punishable as a civil infraction.” In addition to the smell of marijuana, the trooper “became aware at the outset of the traffic stop that both” defendant and his passenger were under 21. They “first denied the existence of any marijuana. But the passenger critically admitted that there was marijuana in the vehicle once she exited the car. Taken together, these facts supported that there a was a fair probability (and more like a guarantee given the admission from the passenger) that contraband would be recovered from the vehicle, therefore justifying the search under the automobile exception.” The court next agreed with defendant that the trooper “exceeded the permissible scope of Terry by preforming a pat-down search unjustified by any concerns for officer safety.” However, the “recovered weapon was not discovered by police exploiting the illegal pat-down, nor were the two searches causally connected.” It noted the pat-down “did not reveal any evidence whatsoever. Nor is there any indication in the record that the initial pat-down in any way opened the door for the later vehicle search, which was justified . . . . And the vehicle search notably occurred only after the passenger freely admitted that marijuana was present.” Given the facts, “the vehicle search was sufficiently distinguishable from the pat-down such as to purge any taint from the initial illegality.” Affirmed.