On Point: c. Drug odor

State v. Quaheem O. Moore, 2023 WI 50, 6/20/23, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

As many surrounding states continue to legalize marijuana–and with the explosion of CBD and other legal hemp-derived products throughout Wisconsin–some observers have questioned the continued viability of Fourth Amendment rules permitting intrusive law enforcement action when officers smell what they believe to be THC. However, because THC remains illegal under Wisconsin law, these arguments fail in light of well-settled Fourth Amendment principles.

State v. Quaheem O. Moore, 2021AP938-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/21/22; reversed 2023 WI 50; case activity (including PFR, Response, and briefs)

Issues presented (from State’s PFR):

1. Did the court of appeals correctly read State v. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387 (1999), to establish a standard of evidence for search and arrest based on the odor of a controlled substance that is more demanding than the constitutional standard of probable cause?

2. Did police have probable cause to search Moore incident to arrest under the totality of the circumstances, which included a “strong” odor of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle of which Moore was the sole occupant?

State v. Nicholas A. Conger, 2022AP844, 12/14/22, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A cop stopped Conger’s vehicle for a broken high-mounted stop lamp. On approaching the vehicle, the officer would testify, he smelled intoxicants. He asked Conger what he was smelling, to which Conger replied “Probably the pot.” Conger then turned over a small amount of cannabis and an open can of Mike’s Hard Lemonade to the officer. He also said he’d had some alcohol. The officer asked Conger to perform field sobriety tests; Conger agreed and was ultimately arrested for, charged with, and convicted of operating with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood.

State v. Quaheem O. Moore, 2021AP938-CR, District 4, 7/28/22 (not recommended for publication), state’s petition for review granted 12/21/22; reversed 2023 WI 50; case activity (including briefs)

Police stopped Moore for speeding and, after detecting the odor of what the officer believed to be marijuana, searched Moore. (¶¶2-9). Distinguishing State v. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387 (1999), the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s suppression order, holding that the odor of marijuana, by itself or coupled with other information, did not provide probable cause to arrest Moore and search him incident to arrest.

State v. Katelyn Marie Leach, 2019AP1830-CR, 4/16/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

Leach pled “no contest” to 2nd offense operating a motor vehicle with a restricted substance. She  moved to suppress evidence that she gave an officer after he told her that (a) if she only had paraphernalia or a small amount of marijuana she would just receive a municipal citation, and (b) he was going to search her regardless.

State v. Alpesh D. Shah, 13AP2755, District 1, 9/9/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police officers’ observations of Shah and his driving supplied probable cause to arrest Shah for operating with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.

State v. Timothy M. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (1999), reversing, 218 Wis.2d 508, 582 N.W.2d 37 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Secrist: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding:

The issue presented to the court is whether the odor of a controlled substance may provide probable cause to arrest,

State v. Michael Wilson, 229 Wis.2d 256, 600 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wilson: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding:

Ison lacked probable cause to arrest Wilson when he refused to allow Wilson to use the bathroom because at that time, Ison could not identify Wilson as the source of the marijuana odor emanating from the basement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that “the odor of a controlled substance provides probable cause to arrest when the odor is unmistakable and may be linked to a specific person or persons because of the circumstances in which the odor is discovered or because other evidence links the odor to the person or persons.”State v.

State v. Mata, 230 Wis.2d 567, 602 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Mata: Daniel P. Murray.

Issue: Whether the police had probable cause to search the passenger of a stopped car, based on the odor of “raw” marijuana.

Holding: The odor of marijuana was sufficiently linked to the passenger to justify the search.

The police stopped a car because it didn’t have a front plate.