Late-Night Stop, Marijuana Odor, and 30 Grams of Cocaine
At 11:40 p.m., Officer Ruiz stops a sedan because its registration expired three months earlier. The driver, Lee, has a revoked license. Passenger Pat is breathing hard and avoids eye contact. As Lee steps out, Ruiz smells burnt marijuana from the open door and sees a small marijuana cigarette in the center console. Lee says, 'That's mine, Pat had nothing to do with it.' Ruiz asks for consent to search; Lee says, 'I'd rather you didn't.' Ruiz says, 'The odor gives me probable cause,' and searches the car. In Pat's backpack on the rear floorboard, Ruiz finds 30 grams of powder cocaine. In the console, he finds 12 grams of marijuana. Pat says nothing. Lee denies knowing the backpack was there, but the backpack has Pat's name tag. The State charges Lee and Pat with trafficking in cocaine by possession and with marijuana possession. Both move to suppress.
1. Was the stop and the vehicle search lawful under the Fourth Amendment and North Carolina law? Analyze each step.
Read the worked answer
The stop was lawful. An expired registration gives an officer reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. The revoked license justified further investigation and likely arrest of Lee.
The search was also likely lawful. The odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car, plus the visible marijuana cigarette in the console, gave probable cause to believe marijuana was in the vehicle. North Carolina still criminalizes marijuana possession, so the odor supports probable cause. Under the automobile exception, officers may search the vehicle and containers inside it that may contain the contraband. A passenger's backpack on the rear floorboard is within that scope, and under Wyoming v. Houghton an officer with probable cause to search a vehicle may search containers belonging to passengers. Lee's refusal of consent does not defeat probable cause.
The cocaine was discovered during a lawful search for marijuana and is admissible under the plain-view doctrine. The search would be unlawful only if it extended to places where marijuana could not be hidden or if the odor were stale or otherwise unreliable. On these facts, suppression should be denied.
2. Can each defendant be convicted of trafficking in cocaine by possession? Address actual and constructive possession and the 28-gram threshold.
Read the worked answer
Trafficking in cocaine by possession requires possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine, including any mixture. The 30 grams here meets the weight threshold if the State proves the substance is cocaine and the weight includes the mixture.
Possession may be actual or constructive. Pat has the stronger case for constructive possession: the backpack was on the rear floorboard near Pat, carried Pat's name tag, and contained the cocaine. That evidence links Pat to control over the backpack. Pat may also have possessed the 12 grams of marijuana, but the marijuana was in the console and is not clearly linked to Pat.
Lee's trafficking liability is weaker. Lee was the driver and controlled the car, but the backpack belonged to Pat, Lee denied knowledge, and proximity alone is not enough. The marijuana cigarette and Lee's admission support misdemeanor marijuana possession. Lee could be guilty of trafficking only if the jury finds joint constructive possession, such as shared control over the backpack or knowledge plus the ability to control the cocaine. The evidence on that point is thin.
3. What should the court do with Lee's statement 'That's mine, Pat had nothing to do with it' and Pat's silence?
Read the worked answer
Lee's statement is admissible against Lee as an admission by a party-opponent. It is not hearsay when offered by the State against Lee. The portion 'That's mine' admits possession of the marijuana cigarette and supports the marijuana charge.
The statement is not admissible against Pat merely because it mentions Pat. If offered for Pat's guilt, it is hearsay. It might be offered by Pat as a statement against Lee's penal interest, but its reliability is doubtful as to the cocaine: Lee admitted marijuana, not knowledge of the backpack or cocaine. The exculpatory phrase 'Pat had nothing to do with it' is not sufficiently against Lee's penal interest to qualify under the hearsay exception without more.
Pat's silence after the search is pre-arrest silence. It cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt, and the jury should not be allowed to infer guilt from it. The court should admit Lee's statement against Lee only, with a limiting instruction if Pat is tried jointly.