Background
Ocean City police stopped two vehicles in separate incidents for equipment violations. In each case, officers smelled cannabis and learned before searching that all occupants were under 21. The searches uncovered firearms; in Trotter’s vehicle, officers also found a small bag of cannabis.
Jaylen Ahnarie Sudler and Tizonn Roemello James Trotter each moved to exclude the evidence, arguing that Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure § 1-211 prohibited searches based on cannabis odor. The Circuit Court for Worcester County denied their motions, and each appellant was convicted on an agreed statement of facts of possessing a firearm while under 21. The Appellate Court of Maryland consolidated their appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed. It held that § 1-211 prohibits a vehicle search based solely on the odor of cannabis, but does not prohibit a search supported by cannabis odor plus another factor. Here, officers also knew that every occupant was under 21, and Maryland law makes cannabis possession unlawful for a person under 21.
The court emphasized the statutory word “solely,” reasoning that it means to the exclusion of all else or without another basis. Although the legislative history showed concern about racial disparities in cannabis-related enforcement, that history did not override the statute’s plain language. The General Assembly’s rejection of a proposed under-21 amendment also carried limited weight and could have reflected a view that the existing language already permitted such searches.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1-211 bars a vehicle search when cannabis odor is the sole basis for the search.
- Cannabis odor combined with officers’ knowledge that all vehicle occupants are under 21 falls outside that statutory prohibition.
- Because the searches did not violate § 1-211, its exclusion provision did not require suppression of the firearms.
Why It Matters
This reported decision provides Maryland’s first appellate guidance on applying § 1-211 when officers smell cannabis and also know the vehicle’s occupants are under 21. It establishes that the statute is not a categorical ban on searches involving cannabis odor; the decisive question is whether an additional lawful basis supports the search.
The court addressed only the statutory exclusion issue presented on appeal, not whether the searches violated the Fourth Amendment.