People v. Strasburg
California Court of Appeal
148 Cal. App. 4th 1052 (2007)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 permitted an individual with a doctor’s recommendation to obtain a medical-marijuana card allowing the individual to possess up to eight ounces of marijuana. Gabriel Reed Strasburg (defendant) and another individual were sitting in a parked car at a gas station when Deputy Sheriff Moseley approached the vehicle. Strasburg opened the driver’s door and Moseley smelled marijuana. Strasburg told Moseley he had a medical-marijuana card and admitted he had just been smoking marijuana. Moseley asked Strasburg if he had marijuana on his person or in the car, and Strasburg retrieved a bag containing three-fourths of an ounce of marijuana from the car and gave the bag to Moseley. Moseley saw another bag containing around two ounces of marijuana in the car in plain sight. Moseley asked Strasburg to get out of the car, frisked him, and searched the car. During the search, Moseley found another 23 ounces of marijuana and a scale. Strasburg was charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession. The trial court denied Strasburg’s motion to suppress, and Strasburg pleaded no contest and was sentenced to two years’ probation. Strasburg appealed the denial of the motion to suppress, arguing that Moseley lacked probable cause to search the car because Strasburg was allowed to possess marijuana under the act.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marchiano, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.