ILNews

COA: Lingering odor of burnt marijuana does not justify warrantless search

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

No possibility of danger or smell of marijuana was evident, and that was enough to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to suppress evidence found during a police officer’s search of a motorist’s backpack.  

The COA reversed the trial court’s denial of Adam Miller’s motion to suppress in Adam Miller v. State of Indiana, 53A-05-1211-CR-560. A majority of the court held the trial court erred, but in his dissent, Judge Cale Bradford countered there was probable cause to search Miller’s backpack.

Miller was pulled over by Bloomington police officer Jordan Hasler for driving with an expired license plate sticker. When Hasler decided to tow the car because of its expired sticker, Miller said he needed to retrieve his cell phone and backpack from inside the car. The officer got the backpack and as he searched it for weapons, found marijuana and a smoking device that emitted burnt marijuana odor.

Miller was arrested and charged with possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor.

In his motion to suppress the evidence, Miller alleged, in part, violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When the trial court denied Miller’s motion, the defendant filed a motion to correct error and a motion to certify the trial court’s order for interlocutory appeal.

 Miller appealed, arguing the officer’s warrantless search of the backpack was not based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or reasonable safety concerns.

The Court of Appeals agreed. It noted when a search is conducted without a warrant, the state has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed. In this instance, the officer could not point to articulable facts supporting either a suspicion of criminal activity or a concern over the possibility of harm.

Subsequently, the COA ruled that the search of Miller’s backpack was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.

The court of appeals rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the search falls within the automobile exception. It found there is no evidence that the odor of marijuana emanated from the vehicle and Hasler did not testify that the vehicle smelled of marijuana.

In his dissent, Bradford maintained the search was supported by probable cause that contraband might be found in the impounded car.

Bradford stated that even though Hasler did not indicate he detected the odor of burnt marijuana coming from Miller’s vehicle, Hasler did detect the odor of burnt marijuana on Miller and Miller’s actions during the traffic stop were suspicious and raised a reasonable inference that his vehicle contained contraband.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT