## Facts

- A Napa County deputy approached Strasburg’s parked car at a gas station without blocking it, using emergency lights, or drawing a weapon.
- When Strasburg opened the driver’s door, the deputy immediately smelled marijuana; Strasburg admitted he had just been smoking marijuana.
- Strasburg said he had a medical-marijuana card, but the deputy did not ask to see it.
- Strasburg produced a bag he said contained about three-quarters of an ounce of marijuana; the deputy then saw a second small bag in plain view and received it as well.
- Strasburg again offered to show his medical-marijuana card; the deputy declined and proceeded to frisk Strasburg and search the car.
- The search uncovered approximately 23 additional ounces of marijuana and a scale.
- Strasburg was charged with misdemeanor possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, moved to suppress the seized marijuana, lost the motion, entered a no contest plea, and appealed the suppression ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether a person’s claimed status as a qualified medical-marijuana patient under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) precludes probable cause or otherwise bars a warrantless vehicle search supported by marijuana odor and related observations.
2. Whether the CUA can be used to suppress evidence obtained from an otherwise lawful search, rather than being raised as a defense to prosecution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and the judgment.
- The court held that the CUA provides a limited defense to prosecution and does not immunize a person from reasonable investigation or search.
- The deputy had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana, Strasburg’s admission of recent use, the presence of marijuana produced from the car, and additional marijuana seen in plain view.
- Any CUA protection went to a potential defense at trial and did not invalidate the search or require suppression of evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The CUA confers limited immunity from prosecution for qualified patients; it does not repeal marijuana prohibitions or create complete immunity from enforcement activity.
- A claim of medical-marijuana status does not, by itself, negate probable cause derived from objective facts suggesting a marijuana offense.
- Probable cause to search a vehicle may be supported by the odor of marijuana combined with admissions and observation of marijuana.
- The CUA functions as a substantive defense to be litigated in the criminal case and is not a rule that generally bars investigation or requires suppression of evidence from a lawful search.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a vehicle search based on marijuana odor and related observations, ruling that the Compassionate Use Act does not prevent officers from conducting reasonable searches supported by probable cause and does not provide a basis to suppress evidence; it is a defense to be raised against prosecution.


People v. Strasburg, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2007)