By Paloma Sifuentes
MODESTO, CA – A Stanislaus County Superior Court judge here late last week took under consideration until the next court date defense arguments that police unlawfully obtained evidence in a vehicle search after a routine traffic stop.
The accused, represented by defense attorney Thomas Knutsen, was stopped by a police officer on Sept. 10, 2021 for a minor window tint violation.
The police officer who pulled over the vehicle “for front window tint, vehicle code violation” testified at a pretrial that as he approached the vehicle he “smelt an odor emitting from the car, burnt marijuana, as if someone had been smoking.”
The officer said he also was told by “dispatch” that the driver had a suspended license, and called for more units.
The officer said the accused told him he had not been smoking marijuana but his passengers were, and based on this information the officer detained the accused; the other passengers were also detained, and the vehicle searched.
Defense Attorney Knutsen asked the officer if he personally found remnants of smoked marijuana, and the officer said he did not. He did admit there was no evidence of other criminal activity and the accused fully cooperated.
The officer did say they found currency on the passengers, including some in a backpack, which the officer admitted was a “closed container” and not subject to search.
The prosecutor insisted there was probable cause to search the vehicle because of the window tint vehicle violation, and the license of the driver was suspended. The prosecution argued there was “subjective reasoning” such as the window tint and the smell of burnt marijuana and a suspended driver’s license that made the search legal.
The defense argued “the detention of the vehicle based on tinted windows is insufficient,” noting tinted windows do not equate illegality and there are certain requirements to tinted windows.
Knutsen referred to the 1988 case of People v. Butler, where tinted windows “does not provide a basis of onward detention that can be had.” And the court indicated that “without articulable facts that the window tint is illegal, the detention rests on a type of speculation that may not support an investigative stop.”
The defense also maintained the odor of marijuana was insufficient to justify a probable cause search and refers to a number of cases where the mere fact of an odor of marijuana emitting from a motor vehicle “does not provide probable cause.”
Knutsen argued “the prosecution showed no evidence that the petitioner was impaired, no evidence the petitioner drover erratically before the stop and no evidence the investigating officer (found) the open container before the car was searched, and I think that case lands on all fours with respect to this particular alleged probable cause search.”
Attorney Knutsen stated that there is no evidence or probable cause that the arrest of the two passengers was lawful, or that the search of the vehicle was also done legally. He noted the officer said he conducted the inventory search based on a policy in writing. However, this policy was not provided in court.
Knutsen also argued the law the prosecution is relying upon states that “it prohibits that person while driving a motor vehicle, so that suggests to me that the prohibition of having a lit marijuana cigarette in the car is a prohibition against the driver, nothing in that section says and/or passenger.”
Judge Jeff Mangar said he will review the arguments of both sides and set the next hearing date for March 16.
