State v. Li

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. JUNJIE LI

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. ZHONG KUANG

C.A. Nos. K2-2019-0513A, K2-2019-0513B

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Kent

May 10, 2021

For Plaintiff: David Bonzagni, Esq.

For Defendant: John L. Calcagni, III, Esq. S. Joshua Macktaz Esq.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

DECISION

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

PROCACCINI J.

There is a growing movement across the United States to either decriminalize or legalize the possession and use of recreational and medical marijuana.^[1] This trend is evidenced by the numerous states that have chosen to legalize marijuana decriminalize marijuana, and not surprisingly tax the sale of marijuana which resulted in over two billion dollars in revenue in 2019.^[2]Presently, seventeen states including the nearby states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Maine as well as the District of Columbia have fully legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult use.^[3] Additionally, twenty-seven states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption and thirty-six states have also chosen to implement comprehensive medical marijuana programs.^[4] In addition, "Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington are developing their own unique structures to collect tax revenue, and license and regulate marijuana cultivation facilities and retail shops."^[5] The push towards decriminalization or legalization "has been based, at least in part, on the perception that marijuana is a harmless drug, criminal possession cases are not worthy of prosecution, the war on drugs has led to unnecessary incarceration, and the regulation of the marijuana industry leads to increased tax revenues."^[6]

While Rhode Island currently falls into the decriminalization category, there is proposed legislation currently before our Legislature that would legalize marijuana possession and tax marijuana sales.^[7] This proposed bill would authorize individuals to possess one ounce of marijuana in their homes as well as transport one ounce of marijuana in sealed containers in their vehicles.^[8] If this legislation is enacted as law, we will most likely see a rise in the already increasing number of traffic stops where the odor of marijuana is detected in motor vehicles.

Due to the growing trend to either decriminalize or legalize the possession and use of recreational and medical marijuana, many state courts have been confronted with the question of how this trend impacts Fourth Amendment principles associated with motor vehicle stops. In answering this question, many state courts have chosen to rework their Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures stays intact. For example, Massachusetts has decided that "the odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot reasonably provide suspicion of criminal activity to justify an exit order." Commonwealth v. Cruz, 945 N.E.2d 899, 910 (Mass. 2011). Additionally, Maryland has determined that "[a]rresting and searching a person, without a warrant and based exclusively on the odor of marijuana on that person's body or breath" violates a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. Lewis v. State, 233 A.3d 86, 101 (Md. 2020). Furthermore, Vermont has decided that the "odor of marijuana is a factor, but not necessarily a determinative factor, as to whether probable cause exists." Zullo v. State, 205 A.3d 466, 502 (Vt. 2019). If our Legislature legalizes marijuana, our courts, like those in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Vermont, will have no choice but to decide how our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence will comport with the legalization of marijuana. See State v. Terzian, 162 A.3d 1230, 1239 (R.I. 2017) ("the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness").

Thus, this Court is mindful of the growing trend to either decriminalize or legalize the possession and use of recreational and medical marijuana and how this trend impacts Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Changing societal perceptions of marijuana as well as increasing governmental acceptance of legalization inform the Court's view in its analysis of the issues presented.

Defendants Junjie Li (Li) and Zhong Kuang (Kuang)-collectively Defendants-move to suppress evidence that was obtained during a search of Kuang's vehicle on May 25, 2019. The Defendants argue that the evidence obtained from the vehicle should be suppressed because the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged, and in the alternative, that the search of the vehicle and subsequent seizure of evidence was done without probable cause. Conversely, the State of Rhode Island (State) maintains that there was reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop and that the search of Kuang's vehicle was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and therefore, the evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. For the reasons discussed herein, this Court grants the Defendants' motions to suppress.

I Facts^[9] and Travel

This matter arises from events that occurred on May 25, 2019, the Saturday of Memorial Day Weekend. Rhode Island State Trooper Justin Andreozzi^[10] (Andreozzi) was assigned to monitor northbound traffic on Route 95 North from a fixed post located in the median under the Austin Farm Road overpass in the Town of Exeter.

At approximately 11:16 a.m., Andreozzi observed a black Ford Taurus sedan, bearing a New York registration, traveling northbound in the right traffic lane. As the vehicle approached Andreozzi's traffic post, he observed that the front seat passenger was sleeping and not wearing his seatbelt. As a result, Andreozzi entered the highway and attempted to catch up with the vehicle so he could conduct a traffic stop related to a seatbelt violation. Once he was behind the Taurus, Andreozzi observed the front seat passenger look over his left shoulder at the cruiser and then put his seat belt on. Andreozzi then activated his emergency lights in the area of Weaver Hill.

Once the vehicle pulled over, Andreozzi exited his cruiser and approached the vehicle on the passenger side. As he approached the passenger side window, he observed two occupants-a male operator and a male passenger. Andreozzi spoke with the operator of the vehicle, who identified himself as Li, and explained the reason for the traffic stop.^[11] He then asked Li for his license registration, and insurance. Li told Andreozzi that the vehicle belonged to his uncle, Kuang, who was sitting in the passenger seat. Li further explained that he and Kuang were going to visit a friend in Chinatown in Boston for a couple of hours and then drive back to New York. He also stated that he was driving because his uncle became tired during the long ride between New York and Chinatown.

While conversing with Li, Andreozzi detected a slight odor of fresh marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle. He also noticed that Li began to exhibit nervous behavior. He specifically observed that Li's neck was pulsing, his chest was pounding, and that he began to perspire despite the mild outside temperature. Andreozzi also testified that Kuang's chest was pounding as well.

After obtaining the vehicle registration as well as Li and Kuang's licenses, Andreozzi requested Li to exit the vehicle and directed him to sit in the front passenger seat of his cruiser while he performed law enforcement checks. Andreozzi testified that he asked Li to exit the vehicle for several reasons-his safety, to separate the parties, and so he could ask questions without prolonging the stop. Andreozzi also testified that Li was not free to leave the passenger seat of his cruiser once he was placed there.

While Li was sitting in the cruiser with Andreozzi, Andreozzi called for backup and requested that Rhode Island State Trooper James D'Angelo (D'Angelo) report to the scene with his K-9, Chuck, who was trained in marijuana detection. Andreozzi then began to ask Li several questions while he performed law enforcement checks. Andreozzi asked Li separate questions about whether the vehicle contained any illegal contraband such as firearms, cocaine, and methamphetamines, to which Li replied no.^[12] Andreozzi then asked Li if the vehicle contained any marijuana. Li paused and did what Andreozzi described as a "target glance"^[13] at the vehicle. He then looked back at Andreozzi, and said he did not know what marijuana was and then replied no. Checks of the vehicle registration and the Defendants' licenses indicated that they were active and thus valid. Additionally, criminal history checks of both Defendants came back negative.

Once D'Angelo arrived at the scene, Andreozzi left Li in the front passenger seat of his cruiser and asked Kuang to exit the vehicle and stand in front of his cruiser in the breakdown lane. As Kuang exited the vehicle, Andreozzi detected an odor of fresh marijuana emanating from Kuang's clothing. D'Angelo brought Chuck to the front of the vehicle so he could perform an exterior sniff. D'Angelo guided Chuck to the front passenger headlight and then walked him counterclockwise around the vehicle. When Chuck arrived at the rear of the vehicle, he placed his nose on the trunk seal and then sat down, indicating the presence of a narcotic odor.

Andreozzi then proceeded to open the trunk of the vehicle. In the trunk, Andreozzi and D'Angelo observed five large laundry style bags containing a total of ninety-four (94) approximately one-pound vacuum sealed bags of suspected marijuana. Andreozzi and D'Angelo placed Li and Kuang into custody and transported them to the Hope Valley Barracks. Andreozzi also arranged for the vehicle to be towed to the Hope Valley Barracks.

Once the vehicle arrived at...