United States of America v. Abdul Outlaw

Newark, New Jersey criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant who was charged with possession of marijuana.



On the evening of December 31, 2020, four plainclothes police officers in unmarked cars patrolled a high-crime area in Newark. One of the officers, Detective Marc Castro, testified that on this patrol, he spotted a parked, running Audi that had its sunroof open and "heavy aftermarket tints." App. 60. As Castro's vehicle approached the Audi, he testified that he smelled burning marijuana,[1] and decided to conduct a vehicle stop. At the time, it was a crime in New Jersey to operate a vehicle while in possession of marijuana.



Castro then stepped out of his vehicle, illuminated the Audi's windshield with his flashlight, and saw that there were two occupants in the vehicle. One of those occupants-the driver-was Appellee Abdul Outlaw. When he shined his flashlight into the windshield, Castro did not see Outlaw or the passenger smoking marijuana, exhibiting signs of being under the influence of marijuana, discarding anything, or making furtive movements. Castro approached the driver's side of the Audi, Outlaw rolled down his window, and Castro saw smoke emanating from the window and noticed that "the smell of burning marijuana became more pungent." Id. at 64. Upon request, Outlaw provided his license, registration, and insurance documents without making sudden or furtive movements, and while keeping his hands in plain view.



Castro then asked Outlaw to step out of the vehicle, "[d]ue to the belief there's criminal activity afoot in the vehicle due to the smell of burning marijuana, along with physically seeing the smoke emanating from the vehicle." Id. at 65. He did not, however, see Outlaw or the passenger smoking marijuana, ask them if they had been smoking marijuana, smell marijuana on their breath or clothing, or observe that they appeared to be under the influence of marijuana. Castro decided to pat down Outlaw "[d]ue to the burning marijuana inside the vehicle" and his "belie[f] there may be more contraband or weapons, and due to officers' safety." Id. at 66. Castro found a firearm with a scratched-off serial number and a prescription bottle with 3.6 grams of raw marijuana on Outlaw's person, and (after the pat-down) placed him under arrest. Castro testified that the raw marijuana he uncovered was not the burning marijuana he smelled.



Officers also searched the passenger. They did not find anything illicit and did not arrest her. They also did not find any weapons or drugs in the car, nor did they find marijuana residue or paraphernalia that could confirm Castro's testimony that he smelled burning marijuana.



The officers issued two motor vehicle summonses to Outlaw for his illegally tinted windows and possession of marijuana (the raw marijuana in the bottle) in a motor vehicle in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 39:3-75, 4-49.1. Outlaw was also charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of marijuana in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:39-7B(1), 39-5B, 39-3D, 35-10A(4). Later, after the Government adopted the case for federal prosecution, a grand jury charged Outlaw in a one-count indictment with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Outlaw moved to suppress the evidence obtained from Castro's search (i.e., the firearm and prescription bottle with marijuana), and, after an evidentiary hearing and supplemental briefing, the District Court granted Outlaw's motion.



* * *



Legal issue Did the smell of marijuana provide probable cause to arrest and search an individual in a vehicle with multiple occupants?

Headnote



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROBABLE CAUSE AND SEARCHES. The court addressed the distinction between probable cause required for searching a vehicle and probable cause necessary for arresting an individual, concluding that the smell of marijuana, while justifying a search of the vehicle, did not provide sufficient probable cause for the arrest of an individual since the smell could not be specifically attributed to him.



FOURTH AMENDMENT. SEARCH AND SEIZURE. The court affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained from a pat-down and search incident to an arrest, finding that the officers lacked probable cause to individually associate the smell of marijuana with the defendant, thus violating the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.



EVIDENCE LAW. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. The court upheld the suppression of evidence obtained during an unlawful search, emphasizing that reasonable suspicion or probable cause must be specific and particularized to the individual for an arrest to be validated under the Fourth Amendment.



Key Phrases Probable cause to arrest. Suppress the evidence. Marijuana odor and smoke. Unlawful search. Fourth Amendment rights.

While the vehicle stop was lawful given the tinted windows and burning marijuana smell, Castro did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search Outlaw's person.



Affirmed



See: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242114p.pdf