E.D.Cal.: Possession of enough to be a MJ distributor was PC even in a legal use state

The stop was justified because the taillights were “smoked out” and one couldn’t adequately see them. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana, but he didn’t act on that alone. He asked questions, saw the medical marijuana card, but he also saw enough marijuana packaging that strongly suggested defendant was not just a lawful user. “Officer Munoz had probable cause to search Moore’s car because he had diligently investigated to confirm or dispel his suspicions that Moore possessed more than the allowable amount of marijuana and was engaged in sales of the drug.” United States v. Moore, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212729 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023).

Even if defendant’s cell phone was illegally searched to get its serial number (compare Arizona v. Hicks), three witnesses provided information that there was child pornography on the cell phone and any motion to suppress would have be denied. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making that serial number challenge. United States v. Soto, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211931 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2023).*

Officers had probable cause defendant was hauling bulk cash when he was stopped, and that permitted a search of the whole vehicle. United States v. Zeng, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212044 (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.