This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
In November 2020, a police officer stopped a vehicle driven by the Defendant for traffic violations. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer detected a strong odor of marijuana. The Defendant consented to a search after being informed that her vehicle would be towed and searched if she refused. The search revealed a small amount of marijuana, methamphetamine, and paraphernalia (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court: The court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the vehicle search, ruling that the smell of marijuana provided probable cause for the search (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely on the smell of marijuana, as possession of small amounts was decriminalized, and her consent was coerced (paras 4-5).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless search, relying on the precedent set in State v. Capps (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Does the smell of marijuana alone satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless vehicle search in the context of decriminalized, but not-yet-legalized, possession of small amounts of marijuana? (para 2)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed that the smell of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless search during the decriminalization period (para 13).
Reasons
Per Bacon J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana did not render the smell of marijuana insufficient for establishing probable cause, as possession remained unlawful. The Court distinguished this case from others where legal activities were involved, emphasizing that marijuana possession was still illegal, thus supporting probable cause. The Court also noted that the terms "contraband" and "evidence of a crime" are not synonymous, and the presence of marijuana, even in small amounts, constituted contraband. The Court declined to address whether the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, as it was beyond the scope of the certified question (paras 6-12).