Court Opinion

ID: 9634271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:08:01.287732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:05.227698
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                                 OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00203-CR

                                             Larry ISAAC,
                                               Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                    From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
                                        Trial Court No. 8195
                            Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 16, 2023

AFFIRMED

           This appeal concerns the similarity in appearance and smell of hemp, a legal substance,

and marijuana, an illegal substance. Appellant Larry Isaac challenges whether officers can still

rely on their training and experience and sense of sight and smell to establish probable cause for

marijuana possession since hemp has become legal and is easily confused for marijuana.

Specifically, he challenges a search of his car that was based on the sight and smell of alleged

marijuana, which led an officer to find methamphetamines. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
                                                                                               04-22-00203-CR

                                               BACKGROUND

        On January 16, 2021, between 8 and 9 a.m., Patrolman Ramirez of the Kendall County

Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to Love’s Truck Stop in Comfort regarding a man who had been

parked at a pump (Number 15) for about an hour. The caller, who was the store’s manager, said

the man was wandering around the store and appeared to be under the influence of something.

When Patrolman Ramirez arrived at the gas station, he located pump 15, saw a car that matched

the caller’s description, and pulled in behind it. Patrolman Ramirez walked up to the car and

knocked on the driver’s window. There was a man inside, and he was reclined back in his seat.

The man looked up at Patrolman Ramirez. His back window was rolled down about six inches,

so Patrolman Ramirez addressed the man through the window gap. He asked for the man’s

identification and watched as the man reached toward the center console. At the center console,

Patrolman Ramirez saw what appeared to be two marijuana joints, which the man picked up and

placed between the center console and the passenger seat.

        Patrolman Ramirez testified that he was familiar with the appearance and smell of

marijuana joints from his training and experience, 1 and that these joints matched in both

appearance and smell. 2 He asked the man, who was later identified as Appellant Larry Isaac, to

step out and stand near the back of the car.

        Patrolman Ramirez noticed that Isaac moved slowly; he described the movements as

sluggish and lethargic. He also noticed that Isaac’s eyes were glassy. Patrolman Ramirez patted

Isaac down for weapons and searched his pockets. He placed Isaac in his patrol car and then

1
  He testified that he had been in law enforcement for ten years and commonly arrested individuals for marijuana
possession.
2
  He also testified that he was unfamiliar with hemp and would be unable to distinguish it from marijuana.

                                                     -2-
                                                                                     04-22-00203-CR

searched Isaac’s car for any contraband.        He found a small bag of what appeared to be

methamphetamines in the driver’s side door pocket.

       Isaac was later charged with and convicted of possession of methamphetamines. He now

appeals.

                                      STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion….”

Furr v. State, 499 S.W.3d 872, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43,

48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). “If the ruling of the trial court is correct under any applicable theory

of law, we will sustain its ruling.” Id. (citing Arguellez v. State, 409 S.W.3d 657, 662–63 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2013)).

                     PROBABLE CAUSE AND ISAAC’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

A.     Parties’ Arguments

       Isaac argues that since hemp has become legal and because it looks and smells the same as

illegal marijuana, the distinctive odor and appearance of marijuana have become unusable

identifiers to detect the contraband. As a result, he argues that there was insufficient probable

cause in his case to support a lawful search of his car. He argues that the trial court abused its

discretion by denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause.

       The State argues that Patrolman Ramirez properly relied on his knowledge and the facts

available to him to determine that Isaac probably possessed illegal drugs. The State concludes that

Patrolman Ramirez met the probable cause requirement to lawfully search Isaac’s car. It argues

that the trial court correctly denied Isaac’s motion to suppress.

                                                 -3-
                                                                                       04-22-00203-CR

B.         Law

           Despite Isaac’s argument that industrial hemp is now legal 3 and indistinguishable from

marijuana without a lab test, marijuana remains illegal, 4 and the probable cause standard for police

to detect it remains the same: “Probable cause ‘exists when reasonably trustworthy facts and

circumstances within the knowledge of the officer on the scene would lead a man of reasonable

prudence to believe that the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime will be

found.’” Hyland v. State, 574 S.W.3d 904, 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (citing Washington v.

State, 660 S.W.2d 533, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)); accord Ackenback v. State, 794 S.W.2d 567,

572 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref’d).

           Several courts around the United States in jurisdictions where hemp is legal and marijuana

remains illegal have arrived at the same conclusion that officers may still rely on the odor of

marijuana to establish probable cause to investigate marijuana possession. See State v. Moore,

991 N.W.2d 412, 417 (Wis. 2023); Moore v. State, 211 N.E.3d 574, 579–81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)

(citing United States v. Vaughn, 429 F. Supp. 3d 499 (E.D. Tenn. 2019); United States v. Boggess,

444 F. Supp. 3d 730 (S.D. W. Va. 2020)); State v. Teague, 879 S.E.2d 881, 896 (N.C. Ct. App.

2022); State v. Tillman, 203 N.E.3d 71, 77 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) (citing State v. Withrow, 194

N.E.3d 804, 810‒11 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022); Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218, 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

App. 2021). Some of them decline to address whether detecting marijuana’s distinctive odor alone

can still establish probable cause but conclude that it may still comprise part of the totality of the

circumstances in support of probable cause to investigate marijuana possession. See State v.

Johnson, 886 S.E.2d 620, 632 (N.C. Ct. App. 2023); Hatcher v. State, 342 So. 3d 807, 808–09

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022); State v. Parker, 860 S.E.2d 21, 29 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021).

3
    See Act of May 22, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 764, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 2085.
4
    TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121

                                                        -4-
                                                                                                     04-22-00203-CR

         Here in Texas, we are not the first court to address this issue. See Cortez v. State, No. 05-

21-00664-CR, 2022 WL 17817963, at *7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 20, 2022, pet. filed) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication). The Cortez court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s

motion to suppress, maintaining that a “strong odor of marijuana from a small enclosed area, like

a car, gives a peace officer probable cause to make a warrantless search of both the car and its

occupants”). Id. Like our sister court, we conclude that the odor of marijuana, as well as its

appearance, can at least be part of the totality of the evidence supporting probable cause to

investigate.

C.       Analysis

         Here, the totality of the circumstances provides more evidence than the odor and

appearance of marijuana alone that Isaac probably possessed illegal contraband. See Hatcher, 342

So. 3d at 808–09; Parker, 860 S.E.2d at 29. First, he was reported to police for behaving

suspiciously after he remained parked at a gas pump for an hour and wandered around the store in

a way that made the store’s manager believe he was under the influence of something. Next, he

left two joints in his center console, which he placed out of view when Patrolman Ramirez asked

him to produce identification. Patrolman Ramirez saw them and recognized them as marijuana

joints based on his training and experience. 5 When Isaac exited his car, he showed symptoms of

intoxication, including sluggish movements and glassy eyes.                      These facts and observations

together with the odor of marijuana emanating from Isaac’s car established probable cause for

Patrolman Ramirez to detain or arrest Isaac and to search his car. See Ackenback, 794 S.W.2d at

572. Based on this record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it

denied Isaac’s motion to suppress. We overrule Isaac’s first and second issues.

5
 In denying Isaac’s motion to suppress, the trial court stated, “I find that the deputy believed it was marijuana based
on his training and experience.”

                                                         -5-
                                                                                      04-22-00203-CR

                                 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

       Isaac follows his argument to its logical conclusion, arguing that the jury relied on illegally

obtained evidence to convict Isaac and that doing so was a violation of the law. He argues that

without illegally obtained evidence, there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Because we overruled Isaac’s first and second issues, we overrule his third issue as moot.

                                           CONCLUSION

       Despite the similar smell and appearance of hemp and marijuana, we conclude that there

was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause in this case based on the facts and observations

available to Patrolman Ramirez when he approached and spoke to Isaac at the Love’s Truck Stop

in Comfort. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Isaac’s motion to suppress. We further conclude that the jury did not base its decision to convict

on illegally obtained evidence, which effectively moots Isaac’s argument that his conviction must

have been based on insufficient evidence. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Publish

                                                -6-