The Blunt in the Console: Odor, Marijuana Legalization, and a Trunk Search
At 11:48 p.m. in Detroit, Sergeant Briggs stops Simone Cole's sedan on Michigan Avenue because the rear license-plate lamp is out. Approaching, Briggs smells burnt marijuana and sees a partly smoked blunt in the center console. Cole says she has a valid medical marijuana registry card and produces it. Briggs asks her to step out; she does, and she declines field sobriety tests. He asks, 'Is there more in the car?' She replies, 'Just what you see.' He asks to search the trunk; she says, 'I'd rather talk to a lawyer.' Briggs says, 'You're not under arrest - I've got probable cause anyway,' and opens the trunk. Inside a backpack he finds four ounces of marijuana in individually labeled packages, a digital scale, and $6,800 in cash. Cole is handcuffed and placed in the back of the patrol car. Ten minutes later, without any warnings, Briggs leans in and asks, 'Where'd the cash come from?' Cole answers, 'My ex - he fronts me.' She is charged with possession with intent to deliver.
1. Cole moves to suppress the marijuana, scale, and cash, arguing that the odor of marijuana no longer supplies probable cause now that adult use is lawful. How should the court rule?
Read the worked answer
Suppression is likely denied, though the analysis is no longer automatic.
Step one - the stop. A burned-out license-plate lamp violates MCL 257.694; the stop is valid, and the officer may order the driver out under Pennsylvania v. Mimms.
Step two - probable cause. The automobile exception permits a warrantless search of the entire vehicle, including closed containers, where probable cause exists to believe contraband is present (Carroll v. United States; Wyoming v. Houghton). Briggs had more than odor: a partly smoked blunt in plain view in the console, plus Cole's statement that there was nothing else. After Michigan legalized adult use, odor alone should no longer be treated as automatic probable cause - it is equally consistent with lawful possession - and a careful prosecutor will not rest on odor by itself. The blunt in plain view supplies the corroboration that makes the difference.
Step three - the registry card. A medical marijuana card is not a search-defense trump. Under People v. Kolanek, compliance with the MMMA is an affirmative defense to be raised with prima facie evidence at the preliminary examination, not a basis for suppression. And the card would cover, at most, 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana; four ounces in individual packages, plus a scale and cash, exceeds that.
Step four - the request for counsel. There is no right to counsel at a roadside search, and the request does not bar a warrantless search supported by probable cause.
File the motion and press the odor argument, the scope of the trunk search, and whether the packaging is consistent with lawful transport. Expect denial, but preserve the record.
2. Should Cole's statement about the cash be suppressed? Analyze custody, interrogation, and any residual use the prosecutor may make of it.
Read the worked answer
Suppress it in the case-in-chief; it remains available for impeachment.
Two questions: custody and interrogation.
Custody is judged objectively. Cole was handcuffed, placed in the back of a patrol car, and never told she was free to leave; a reasonable person would not have felt at liberty. Contrast Berkemer v. McCarty, where roadside questioning during an ordinary traffic stop was non-custodial - the handcuffing and patrol-car placement here cross that line.
Interrogation means express questioning or words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. 'Where'd the cash come from?' is a direct question about the proceeds of the conduct under investigation, asked by an officer who knew the cash had been found with packaged marijuana. That is classic interrogation, not a booking question, and not a spontaneous utterance: she did not volunteer it; she answered a direct question ten minutes after arrest.
Because no warnings were given, the statement is inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona in the prosecution's case-in-chief. If Cole testifies to a different account of the cash - say, that it was savings - the prosecutor may impeach her with it under Harris v. New York, with a limiting instruction.
One more link: if the trunk search were found unlawful, the statement would also be challenged as fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the cash was lawfully seized, suppression rests on Miranda alone, so do not tie the two motions together.
Practical consequence: 'he fronts me' implies a supplier relationship and invites a delivery theory. Negotiate before the prosecutor uses it to add charges or to argue the marijuana was held for sale.
3. Does Cole's medical marijuana registry card require dismissal or suppression of the marijuana evidence? How does the quantity affect the analysis?
Read the worked answer
No - the card does not end the case.
The MMMA protects a registered qualifying patient from arrest, prosecution, or penalty for medical use, but the protection is conditional. Section 4 covers a patient possessing no more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana who meets the act's other requirements. Under Kolanek, compliance is an affirmative defense; the defendant must present prima facie evidence at the preliminary examination, and the ultimate question goes to the jury. It is not a suppression doctrine and does not require exclusion of the physical evidence.
The facts here undercut the defense: four ounces - above the 2.5-ounce usable limit - in individually labeled packages, with a digital scale and $6,800 in cash. That combination tends to show possession with intent to deliver, which the act does not authorize; the MMMA permits transfers only in limited, noncommercial circumstances, and Michigan courts have not read it to immunize distribution for remuneration.
Adult-use law does not rescue her either. The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act permits an adult 21 or older to possess up to 2.5 ounces in public and up to 10 ounces at a residence. Four ounces in a car exceeds the public limit, and the 10-ounce allowance does not travel.
The card and the labels are still useful: they support an inference of genuine medical use, which may blunt the delivery charge and help at sentencing. But the quantity, scale, and cash are the State's best evidence of intent. Spend the pretrial effort on the detention and the statement, not on the card.