Court Opinion

ID: 9527126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:27:44.825776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:35.154639
License: Public Domain

Blair Moody, Jr., J.
(concurring). I share Justice Levin’s view that whether the odor of burned marijuana alone provides probable cause for an arrest or search ultimately depends upon the circumstances of each case on an ad hoc basis.
In the instant case, however, such analysis is not required. None of the parties seriously contend that the seizure of the cigarette package containing the four hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes was legal. Therefore, the subsequent search of defendant’s automobile and the seizure of the additional controlled substances was also illegal. The trial judge should have suppressed this evidence as a fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471; 83 S Ct 407; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).
It is submitted that while the officer’s detection *330of the odor of burned marijuana may have prompted his original inquiry and led to the defendant’s admission and arrest, it is rather farfetched to assert that the odor alone prompted the subsequent search of the automobile. Clearly, one cannot ignore the fact the initial illegal seizure and arrest played a significant role in the officer’s subsequent decision to search the automobile.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals for this reason.
Fitzgerald, J., concurred with Blair Moody, Jr., J.