{"id":14100,"date":"2014-11-10T08:20:44","date_gmt":"2014-11-10T13:20:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14100"},"modified":"2014-11-10T08:20:44","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T13:20:44","slug":"dcs-new-mj-decriminalization-doesnt-affect-a-search-from-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14100","title":{"rendered":"DC&#8217;s new MJ decriminalization doesn&#8217;t affect a search from 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Decriminalization of marijuana in the future may change the probable cause calculus, but this search was based on the smell of marijuana and long predated that (April 2010). <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dccourts.gov\/internet\/documents\/11-CM-985.pdf\">Butler v. United States<\/a>, 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 446 (November 6, 2014) (submitted October 25, 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the drugs found on his person because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and could not search him incident to arrest based solely on the smell of marijuana emanating from his vehicle. Citing primarily Minnick v. United States, 607 A.2d 519 (D.C. 1992), the government argues that the identifiable aroma of a drug by itself provides probable cause to arrest and search an individual. While we are not persuaded by the government&#8217;s argument, and recognize that with the passage of the Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014, effective July 17, 2014, see D.C. Council, Act 20-305 (Mar. 31, 2014), the calculus of probable cause in future cases such as this may change, we nonetheless conclude \u2014 albeit not without some pause \u2014 that the arrest and subsequent search of appellant in this case was not unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Decriminalization of marijuana in the future may change the probable cause calculus, but this search was based on the smell of marijuana and long predated that (April 2010). Butler v. United States, 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 446 (November 6, 2014) &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14100\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-probable-cause"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14100"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14100\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14101,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14100\/revisions\/14101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}