OH2: Small quantity of marijuana in passenger compartment alone not cause for search of trunk

A small quantity of marijuana in the passenger compartment is not reason to search the trunk. More is required. Here, defendant’s actions provided it. State v. Griffith, 2011 Ohio 4476, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 3708 (2d Dist. September 2, 2011):

[*P20] The Fourth Amendment limits searches to places where evidence of criminal activity is likely to be found. Farris stands for the proposition that the odor of burnt marijuana in a vehicle’s passenger compartment, standing alone, doesn’t present a likelihood that the vehicle’s trunk contains marijuana. The point of distinction is whether the character or nature of drugs found “in plain view” (or smell) in the passenger compartment presents a likelihood that the vehicle’s trunk contains drugs or other contraband, such that a search of the trunk is justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

[*P21] In Farris, “[n]o other factors justifying a search beyond the passenger compartment were present.” Farris identified one of those other potential factors to include “contraband within the passenger compartment.” That precise factor was present here. In addition, the officer first saw Defendant in a parking lot which, in the officer’s experience, has seen “an increase in drug activity.” (T. 9). Coupled with that, Defendant’s pattern of driving after he saw the officer was evasive, possibly suggesting that he had reason to avoid contact with the officer. California v. Hodari D. (1991) ….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.