On October 3, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in State v. Vega, 2018-Ohio-4002. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice O’Donnell, in which Judge Marilyn Zayas of the First District Court of Appeals sat for the recused Justice DeGenaro, and Chief Justice O’Connor concurred in judgment only, the court upheld the search of the defendant’s car, the duration of that search, and the subsequent discovery of wrapped marijuana candy in sealed envelopes in the car. The case was argued June 12, 2018.

Case Background

On March 28, 2015, Cleveland State University Police Officer Jeffrey Madej saw Appellee Edwin Vega make a left turn at a red light. The officer initiated a traffic stop, and as he approached the car, smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming out of the car. Madej asked Vega to get out of the car so the officer could continue the search based on that strong odor of pot.

During the search, Madej found three cell phones, several raw buds of marijuana, some “shake weed,” and an open package of SweetStone candy in the console.  He also found rolling papers, several canisters of odor-masking spray, and a partly opened postal service box with two sealed priority mail envelopes. The officer felt the packages and thought they contained individually packaged drugs.  Vega told him they contained stickers, but Madej did not believe him. Madej asked Vega for consent to open them, but Vega refused.

Officer Madej then spent some time talking with his supervisor and other officers to determine if he had probable cause to open the envelopes or get a drug-sniffing dog, but he could not do so. Madej wrote Vega tickets for making an illegal turn and possessing marijuana.  And then, based on the odor of marijuana coming from the car and the discovery of all of the other items he had found, Madej decided to open the sealed envelopes. In one envelope Madej found 75 packages like the ones he had seen in the center console. The packages indicated they contained marijuana-infused candy. Madej then arrested Vega for drug trafficking. This arrest took place one hour and twelve minutes after the initial traffic stop.Later testing confirmed that the candy contained marijuana.  The other sealed envelope also contained 75 packages of marijuana-infused candy.

Vega was indicted for drug trafficking, drug possession, and possession of criminal tools.  He moved to suppress the candy found in the mail envelopes, arguing a lack of probable cause to open the envelopes and an unlawful detention based on the duration of the traffic stop.  The trial court granted the motion to suppress, on the ground that the smell of marijuana coming from the car did not provide probable cause to open the envelopes, which the officer had testified were odorless. The trial court also found the detention was unreasonably long. The state appealed.

The Appeal

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, in a split decision. The majority found that while the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana and the small amount of pot found, he did not have probable cause to open the envelopes which were odorless. The majority also found Vega should have been released after getting the misdemeanor citations.  The dissenting judge would find that the trial court’s finding of probable cause to search meant Madej could open the envelopes because he reasonably believed they could contain pot, and the delay in opening them was irrelevant because Madej had probable cause to open them. The state appealed to the Ohio high court.

State’s Proposed Proposition of Law

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when police extend a traffic stop based on probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband. Officers may extend the traffic stop and detain the driver for as long as necessary to reasonably complete the search of the vehicle and its packages and containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015) and United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982) explained.

Key Precedent

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (“If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”)

Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (“When there is probable cause to search for contraband in a car, it is reasonable for police officers […] to examine packages and containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one.”)

State v. Moore, 2000-Ohio-10 (“The smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.”)

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.)

State v. Batchili, 2007-Ohio-2204 (A traffic stop may be prolonged if there is reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances to justify the ongoing detention.)

Merit Decision

Executive Summary

The court pretty much totally accepts the state’s argument and its proposed proposition of law.

Position of the Parties

The state argues that Officer Madej lawfully opened the envelopes in Vega’s car because he had probable cause to believe they contained marijuana, and that the extended stop was justified because the officer did have probable cause to search the car and because of the officer’s reasonable attempts to obtain a canine unit to help with the search.

Vega concedes the officer had probable cause to search, but not to open the envelopes, which were odorless. He also argues that the infused candy should be suppressed because the length of the detention was unreasonable.

Analysis

Building On Existing Precedent Leads To Upholding Search and Detention

Most of the court’s opinion is a summary of existing precedent, both from its own jurisprudence, and that of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1982, in United States v. Ross, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement allows for the warrantless searches of containers that hold items for which officers have probable cause to search (in that case, a brown bag in the trunk).

In 1999, in Wyoming v. Houghton, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that holding (passenger’s purse, after observing a syringe in driver’s shirt pocket).

In 2000, in State v. Moore, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the odor of marijuana alone by a person qualified to recognize it is enough to establish probable cause for a warrantless search of the car.

Building on these cases, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the fact that the small amount of marijuana found in the center console of the car did not jibe with the strong odor of marijuana coming from the car, plus the cellphones, odor masking agents, and rolling papers, gave  Officer Madej probable cause to open the sealed envelopes.

In 2015, in Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the extension of a traffic stop to allow a drug-sniffing dog to sniff the car violates the Fourth Amendment. But, as the Ohio high court found in State v. Batchili, a traffic stop can be prolonged if there is reasonable suspicion to conduct a further investigation. And here the court found more than reasonable suspicion to detain Vega—it found probable cause to detain him and open the envelopes because of the strong odor of pot coming from the car and the other drug paraphernalia. And since the stop was extended due to that probable cause, there was nothing wrong with the length of the detention.

Case Syllabus

None

Concluding Observations

While I wrote that initially the momentum in this case was going against the state, with Mr. Van struggling to justify the search beyond the initial discovery of the marijuana and the length of the detention, I noted that things began to shift with Judge Zayas’ introduction of the “fluidity of probable cause.” As the case went on, sentiment seemed to shift toward the state’s position that once the officer felt the envelopes and didn’t believe Vega about what was in them, a different kind of drug investigation was begun, and the officer was justified in extending the traffic stop and detaining Mr. Vega for as long as necessary to reasonably complete the search of the vehicle and the envelopes. So, I called this for the state.