ILNews

Court decides 2nd marijuana-odor case in 2 days

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Continuing a line of holdings during the past decade, the Indiana Court of Appeals has clearly stated that the odor of raw marijuana can be enough for police to search someone during a valid traffic stop.

The state’s intermediate appellate court issued a ruling Friday in Charles Meek v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1009-CR-964, affirming a Marion Superior commissioner’s denial of a man’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during a warrantless pat-down search following a valid Terry stop of his vehicle.

This case is similar to the one a different three-judge panel decided Thursday in Shon L. Edmond v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1012-CR-756, when analyzing an issue of first impression on whether the smell of burnt marijuana constitutes probable cause for police to search someone. That panel determined the search didn’t violate a person’s rights, and similar logic is now being applied here.

In November 2009, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer saw Eric Moore suspiciously walking away from his disabled vehicle that appeared to have been in a collision. Another car, driven by Charles Meek, pulled up and picked up Moore, and then drove off. The officer followed based on the belief that Moore and Meek were leaving the scene of an accident. He initiated a traffic stop because the windows were darkly tinted in violation of state law and he couldn’t see inside. When the driver rolled the window down, the officer saw three people inside – including a young child – and smelled what he believed to be raw marijuana coming from inside. Another officer arrived on the scene as backup and also smelled raw marijuana.

The original officer on the scene asked if anyone had weapons or contraband and were told no, but after the officer read them their Miranda rights, Meek told police he had a weapon. Officers conducted a pat-down search of both men and found $1,900 in cash and a legally permitted gun in Meek’s pants, but no sign of marijuana. When police asked about the raw marijuana smell from inside, Meek said he’d been smoking marijuana earlier – that led to a more thorough pat-down search because the officers had smelled raw, not burnt marijuana. The second search resulted in a baggie containing marijuana falling from Meek’s pant leg, as well as some white pills suspected to be Vicodin and Hydrocodone.

That led the state to charge Meek with one count of class D felony possession of a controlled substance, and he moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search on grounds that officers conducted the pat-down without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The trial court denied that motion and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.

Specifically, Meek isn’t challenging the traffic-stop validity or the vehicle search. Rather, he contended that the odor of raw marijuana emanating from inside his vehicle didn’t extend probable cause for police to search him personally as they did. That was a violation of his rights under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, he claimed.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. Four years ago in Marcum v. State, 843 N.E.2d 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the judges upheld a police search based on the smell of raw marijuana, and they specifically declined an invitation to hold that police officers’ detection of the odor of marijuana cannot serve as probable cause for a search unless that odor is independently confirmed by a police dog.

Taking that holding along with other precedent such as Lark v. State, 759 N.E.2d 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), the appellate court in Meek’s case looked at the entirety of the situation police faced at the time. The judges cited that Meek originally lied about having a weapon or contraband, his later admission to possessing a weapon, the smell of raw marijuana from the vehicle, and his statement that he’d smoked earlier that day.

“All of those facts taken together, along with the officer’s failure to find the source of the odor of marijuana in the vehicle, and the absence of Moore’s person, supported the subsequent and more thorough pat-down search of Meek’s person that ultimately led to the discovery of the contraband. We find no violation here as the search was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
 

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