D.Colo.: A vehicle search for MJ that might have been legally possessed under CO law was still potentially a violation of federal law, and federal law controls

The probable cause analysis for arrest and search is the same. Defendant’s car was searched under the automobile exception in Colorado, and a quantity of marijuana was found. Federal law controls here (Virginia v. Moore), not state law and whether his possession was legal under Colorado law. United States v. Keys, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62483 (D.Colo. Apr. 4, 2022):

Essentially, Keys urges the Court to engage in a different probable cause analysis in the context of warrantless vehicle searches than it would in the context of arrests, seizures, and searches incident to arrest. However, Keys offers no case law in support of such a tenuous distinction. And, much to the contrary, the Tenth Circuit has stated that “[w]hether reviewing a search or an arrest, the same probable-cause standard applies.” Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 962 F.3d 1204, 1221 n.10 (10th Cir. 2020). Thus, the Courts finds that the reasoning in Turner applies to the vehicle search at issue in this case.

Additionally, Keys argues that unlike the officers in Turner, here, the officers use federal law as a post hoc justification for a search that was actually based on state law. (ECF No. 14 at 8.) The Court finds this argument unpersuasive because it is well-established that subjective intentions play no role in the Fourth Amendment probable cause analysis. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996).

In conclusion, the Court is not persuaded by Keys’ attempt to limit the reasoning of Turner to its facts. To the contrary, the Court finds that Turner provides clear guidance. Here, just like in Turner, local officers had probable cause based on conduct that is a federal but not a state law violation. Moreover, the officers had authority to investigate a violation of federal law. United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999) (acknowledging a “preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law.”). And since Keys told the officers that there was marijuana in the vehicle, the officers clearly had probable cause that the vehicle contained evidence of a violation of federal law. Chavez, 534 F.3d at 1344 (officers have probable cause when “there is a fair probability that the car contains contraband or evidence”). Therefore, the warrantless search was justified, and Keys’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.