Policy Text
TOM DaRé , CHIEF OF POLICE
Professional Standards Division NUMBER: 2020 -06
ISSUED: April 30 , 2020
CANNABIS AND SEARCHES
The purpose of this training bulletin is to remind office rs of their legal justification to search a
vehicle based on the reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a vehicle contains cannabis.
The legal grounds to conduct these searches have been set forth by the courts since 1979 and are
in good standing even with the new laws that h ave passed, such as Proposition 64. The cases
listed below show the legal justification to search a vehicle to confirm or deny that a person is in
compliance with the law. This could include smelling freshly burnt marijuana emitting from a
vehicle, observi ng cannabis related items, or a person’s own admission to possessing such items.
Evidence obtained related to more serious offenses while conducting a search of a vehicle have
been upheld in the courts. The most recent case will be summarized and cited, b ut it is suggested
you read the conclusions from these prior findings to further your knowledge on the decisions. In
addition to this, a training video was produced by www.Legalupdatestv.com in July of 2019
referencing marijuana and vehicle searches. This training bulletin is the most recent legal update
produced referencing marijuana laws and the legal justifications to conduct searches and to verify
compliance with state and local ordinances.
All of these cas es listed below ruled that discovery of small amounts of cannabis justifies a further
search to determine the total quantity possessed. Also to determine what level of offense, if any,
is being committed. A search to verify the driver or occupant is in com pliance with the regulations
is permissible by state and local law. It remains unlawful to possess, transport, or give away
marijuana in excess of the statutory permitted limits and to cultivate cannabis plants in excess of
statutory limits. Also in violat ion of local ordinances, it remains unlawful to engage in unlicensed
“commercial cannabis activity,” and to possess, smoke or ingest cannabis in various designated
places, including in a motor vehicle while driving.
TRAINING BULLETIN
CASE LAW RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF VEHIC LE SEARCHES
1. People v. Soberanes (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 21
2. People v. Brocks (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 959
3. People v. Dey (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1318
4. People v. Hunter (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 371
5. People v. Strasburg (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1052
6. People v. Waxler (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 712
7. People v. Fews (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 553 –A summary of this case listed below
San Francisco Officers conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle for expired registration. The driver
quickly got out of the car while a passenger remained in the vehicle. The officers repeatedly asked
the driver to get back into the vehicle and driver did not comply. As the officers approached, the
driver stood reaching back into the vehicle. The second occupant was in the passenger seat making
furtive move ments.
Officers smelled recently burned marijuana as they approached the vehicle. The driver admitted
he possessed marijuana in the vehicle. The passenger continued his furtive movements and the
officer believed that passenger might be reaching for a weap on. The area is known for narcotics
sales and related shootings. The passenger complied with commands to exit the vehicle. The
officer performed a pat search, thinking the passenger’s baggy clothing could conceal a weapon.
The passenger’s pocket contained a loaded semiautomatic gun. A magistrate denied the
passenger’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the officers had probable cause to search
the vehicle. It was concluded that the officer’s pat search of the passenger was justified for officer
safety. The evidence of the smell of recently burned marijuana and the half -burnt cigar containing
marijuana supported a reasonable inference that Mims was illegally driving under the influence or
marijuana, or, at the very least , driving while in possession of an open container of marijuana.
Consequently, the court ruled “there was sufficient probable cause for the warrantless search of
the SUV.” – Opinion of the court.
GGPD EXAMPLE
An officer conducted a traffic stop on a vehicl e for expired registration. Upon detaining both the
driver and passenger, the officer found a jar of marijuana in the driver's pocket. The officer
obtained the driver's consent to search the vehicle. The passenger denied consent to search his
backpack that was in his possession, but admitted to having marijuana inside of it. This officer
used his knowledge of H&S 11357(a) to ensure the passenger and driver were not in possession
of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. He searched the backpack to determine if it was within the
legal amount. Upon searching the backpack, the officer found marijuana and a loaded handgun.
He discovered the handgun was stolen in 2014. The driver and the passenger were both arrested.
The passenger was a local gang member and convicte d felon. He was arrested on multiple weapons
related felonies. 19070073
VEHICLE CODES/ HEALTH AND SAFETY CODES
HS 11357(a) - Except as authorized by law, possession of not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis,
or not more than