Opinion
No. 25066.
Decided March 22, 1971.
Interlocutory appeal from ruling denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress as evidence quantities of marijuana recovered from his person.
Ruling Affirmed.
1. ARREST — Defendant — Smoking Rolled Cigarette — Passing It — Smell Marijuana Smoke — Butt — Tested — Officers — Recovery — Proper. Where officers saw defendant smoking rolled cigarette and passing it among two friends, smelled telltale odor of marijuana smoke, and then saw defendant flip cigarette away when officers approached, and same "butt" was retrieved and tested as marijuana, held, under the circumstances, officers had probable cause to arrest defendant, since facts and circumstances within knowledge of arresting officers were sufficient in themselves to warrant man of reasonable caution in belief that an offense was being or had been committed; hence, marijuana recovered from defendant's person following arrest was admissible.
Interlocutory Appeal from the District Court of Larimer County, Honorable Dale E. Shannon, Judge.
David L. Wood, District Attorney, L. Duane Woodard, Deputy, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie Rogers, State Public Defender, Edwin L. Felter, Jr., Deputy, Don L. Nelson, Deputy, for defendant-appellant.
This is an interlocutory appeal of a trial court ruling denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress as evidence quantities of marijuana recovered from his person. The appeal is frivolous and deserves little comment.
The defendant contends that the seizure of the cigarettes was illegal because his arrest was not based upon probable cause. We disagree. There is little doubt that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant and that the contraband was seized incident thereto. The officers saw the defendant smoking a rolled cigarette, passing it among two friends. Such sharing is common-place among "pot" smokers according to the experience of the officers. The officers smelled the telltale odor of the marijuana smoke; the defendant flipped the cigarette away when the officers approached. This "butt" was retrieved and tested as marijuana.
This court has reviewed the standards required for establishing probable cause to arrest on numerous occasions in the past, and most recently in the case of People v. Weinert, 174 Colo. 71, 482 P.2d 103. Adhering to the principles enunciated in the cases reviewed by Weinert, we hold that the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers were sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense was being or had been committed.
The ruling of the trial court denying the motion to suppress is affirmed.