{"id":1729,"date":"2008-04-06T18:17:27","date_gmt":"2008-01-27T10:29:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-27T10:29:10","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1729","title":{"rendered":"Alleged medical use did not negate probable cause to search"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s alleged medical use did not negate probable cause to search, and necessity defense was for trial. State v. Fry<\/a>, 142 Wn. App. 456 (2008):<\/p>\n

\u00b611 This reasoning applies here. Information relating to the validity of a suspect’s medical use defense will almost always be within the defendant’s knowledge. The defendant’s assertion of the defense is not necessarily a fact; further development of the facts at trial may well show that the medical use defense is not viable. Therefore, the mere production of a document purporting to be a marijuana use authorization does not prohibit further investigation by the State. Here, probable cause to search Mr. Fry’s house existed as soon as officers smelled marijuana. His production of a medical use document did not provide automatic protection against a reasonable police investigation and search. Whether the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana was viable was an issue for trial.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Odor of alcohol coming from car and open containers when stopped for a traffic offense is cause to get the driver out and check to see whether he is capable of driving further. Hinton v. State<\/a>, 289 Ga. App. 309, 656 S.E.2d 918 (2008).*<\/p>\n

Officer could ask questions and observe obvious changes on a vehicle during a traffic stop. Consent here was voluntary. United States v. Arraiza, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95936 (D. Neb. December 18, 2007):<\/p>\n

In this case, Trooper Frye articulated a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity due to the “mud” applied in the rear wheel well (a pattern observed in previous drug seizures), the air freshener, Arraiza’s bizarre responses to the Trooper Frye’s questions concerning Arraiza’s itinerary, and Arraiza’s nervousness. All would constitute a basis to detain Arraiza for further investigation under Terry v. Ohio<\/em><\/a>, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). However, Arraiza consented to the search of the Ford Explorer following the actual traffic stop. Therefore, further discussion of an investigative detention is unnecessary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1729","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}