{"id":201801,"date":"2026-05-10T15:52:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-10T22:52:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=201801"},"modified":"2026-09-17T07:11:43","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T14:11:43","slug":"colorado-courts-on-cannabis-k-9s-and-car-searches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=201801","title":{"rendered":"Colorado Courts on Cannabis, K-9s, and Car Searches"},"content":{"rendered":"

How Are Colorado Courts Handling Cannabis, K-9s, and Car Searches?<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Overview<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The Colorado Constitution, Amendment 64 legalizes possessing up to 1 ounce of marijuana by individuals aged 21 or over. Thus, adults in Colorado have a reasonable expectation of privacy in possessing the amount legal under State law. As a result, the Colorado Supreme Court held that probable cause<\/a><\/em> is required to deploy a K-9, trained to alert to marijuana, for an exploratory sniff. For a sniff of a vehicle exterior<\/em>, by a dog not <\/em>trained to alert to marijuana, the \u201ccritical question\u201d is whether the stop is prolonged, which requires reasonable articulable suspicion<\/em>. Placing a K-9 inside<\/em> a suspect\u2019s car, even if not<\/em> trained to alert to marijuana, is<\/em> a search requiring probable cause<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Protected Privacy Interest <\/strong>in Lawful Marijuana Possession under the Colorado Constitution<\/h3>\n

\u201cThe Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.\u201d By legalizing possession up to 1 ounce of marijuana, Colorado provides \u201ca state constitutional right not<\/em> guaranteed by the federal constitution.\u201d Acknowledging the reasonable expectation of privacy in lawful possession, the Colorado Supreme Court was the \u201cfirst court to opine [that] the sniff of a dog trained to detect marijuana in addition to other substances is<\/em> a search under a state constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Probable Cause<\/strong>: Required for Warrantless Search under the Automobile Exception<\/h3>\n

A \u201cwarrantless search is invalid unless it is supported by probable cause and is justified under one of the narrowly defined exceptions.\u201d Under the automobile exception<\/a><\/strong>, where \u201can officer has lawfully stopped a vehicle, and has probable cause to believe [it] contains evidence of a crime, then the officer may conduct a search of the car without first obtaining a warrant.\u201d Probable cause<\/strong> \u201cconsider[s] the totality of the circumstances to determine \u2018whether a fair probability exists that a search of a particular place will reveal contraband or evidence of a crime.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

People v. McKnight<\/em><\/strong> (2019): Colorado Supreme Court Holds that Probable Cause is Required Before<\/em> Deploying a K-9 Trained to Alert to Marijuana<\/h3>\n

Police observed a truck parked the wrong way in a one-way alley, with a man standing outside the vehicle. Officers followed the truck, which then parked in front of a home where police had found drugs nearly 2 months prior. No one got in or out of the truck nor the home for the approximate 15 minutes the driver remained parked there. When the truck made a U-turn without signaling, police initiated a traffic stop. Police \u201crecognized the passenger as someone who had used methamphetamine \u2018at some point in the past,\u2019 but he wasn\u2019t sure how recently.\u201d A K-9 trained to alert to marijuana was deployed, and indicated the presence of narcotics. Search revealed a pipe containing methamphetamine residue. The Court held there was no <\/em>probable cause, reasoning that the driver\u2019s \u201cdecision to park near the house tells us little, considering that almost two months had passed since drugs were found there,\u201d and at the time, \u201cno one exited the truck or the house.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court reasoned that \u201c(1) proximity to a house in which drugs had been found nearly two months earlier, and (2) the presence of [a passenger] who \u2018at some point\u2019 had used an illegal drug\u201d was in<\/em>sufficient for probable cause. The Court held: \u201cIn Colorado, law enforcement officers must have probable cause to believe that an item or area contains a drug in violation of state law before<\/em> deploying a drug-detection dog that alerts to marijuana for an exploratory sniff.\u201d<\/p>\n

People v. Bailey<\/em> <\/strong>(2018): Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Probable Cause to Search Based on Initial Alert by K-9 Not<\/em> Trained for Marijuana, in Conjunction with Other Circumstances<\/h3>\n

Police approached the defendant at a gas station after observing him go back and forth from his car to the convenient mart, as well as repeatedly move his vehicle to different locations at the gas station. Although the driver was initially free to go, his car battery was dead; thus, no<\/em> reasonable suspicion<\/a> was required yet, as he remained of his own volition. A K-9, not<\/em> trained for marijuana, sniffed the car exterior and gave an initial alert. Search revealed over 6 pounds of marijuana and \u201ca white powdery substance.\u201d The Court clarified that the sniff outside<\/em> the car was not <\/em>a search, but placing the K-9 inside <\/em>the vehicle was<\/em> a search, supported by probable cause. Although police \u201cdid not<\/em> notice any unlawful behavior,\u201d these facts created \u201ca legitimate inference of criminal activity\u201d under the totality of the circumstances:<\/p>\n