NC: Loose tobacco is a factor in the totality of circumtances for PC for marijuana possession

Loose tobacco can be a factor in the totality of circumstances for probable cause. State v. Simmons, 201 N.C. App. 698, 688 S.E.2d 28 (2010):

Although the State has cited a number of cases in its brief involving the presence of loose tobacco, State v. Jacobs, 162 N.C. App. 251, 253, 590 S.E.2d 437, 439 (2004) (stating during the recitation of the facts that the investigating officer, while examining the interior of a car, recovered a bundle of bills and noticed an odor of marijuana and the presence of loose tobacco that the officer believed to have come from hollowed-out cigars used to smoke marijuana); People v. Shabazz, 301 App. Div. 2d 412, 413, 755 N.Y.S.2d 20, 22 (2003) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the search of a car since a bag that had been thrown from the car contained a cigar that had been modified for the purpose of smoking marijuana and since loose tobacco or marijuana could be seen on the floorboard of the car); People v. Mays, 190 Misc. 2d 310, 315-17, 738 N.Y.S.2d 152, 157-58 (2001) (holding that a suppression motion should be denied since the defendant showed signs of impairment, since defendant was parked near a nightclub which was “a problem” at 4:00 a.m., and since there was a pile of loose tobacco in defendant’s car), the parties have not provided us with any authority tending to show that the mere presence of “cigar guts,” standing alone, is sufficient to justify a finding of probable cause. Instead, the available decisions tend to show merely that the presence of loose tobacco, along with other factors, may suffice to support a valid search and seizure. Thus, given that all of the cases dealing with loose tobacco are factually distinguishable from this case, we have no choice except to attempt to decide this case on the basis of general principles of search and seizure law.

CI’s basis of knowledge was shown by the fact that the informant said that he saw the defendant with drugs. United States v. Boxley, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 648 (D.C. December 31, 2009).*

Search of defendant’s car was lawful as an inventory search, so problematic inevitable discovery (State v. Weinstein, 12/3/09, posted here) did not have to be reached. State v. Morales, 154 Wn. App. 26, 225 P.3d 311 (2010).