You are here: / / THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE...
,

THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, granting defendant’s suppression motion and vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, determined the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), which prohibits the search of a vehicle based solely on the odor of marijuana, applied to defendant’s case, even though the statute had not been enacted at the time of the search. The statute had been enacted at the time of the suppression hearing:

On this appeal, we are tasked with answering a question left open by the Court of Appeals in People v Pastrana (41 NY3d 23, 29 [2023] …) — namely, whether Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a), enacted as part of the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (hereinafter MRTA), applies to a post-enactment suppression hearing concerning a pre-enactment search. * * *

… Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) — enacted as part of the MRTA — provides that “in any criminal proceeding including proceedings pursuant to [CPL] 710.20 . . . , no finding or determination of reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed shall be based solely on evidence of . . . the odor of cannabis” … . CPL 710.20 pertains to motions to suppress evidence. By this comprehensive and present tense language, Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) expressly limits a suppression court’s authority to base a probable cause finding solely upon evidence of the odor of marihuana without regard to when the vehicle search occurred. * * *

… [T]his provision is directed at the present evidentiary findings of a court, “and no real question of retroactive effect on past conduct or events is presented” … . Since Penal Law § 222.05 (3) (a) was in effect at the time of the suppression hearing and the suppression court’s probable cause finding was based solely upon the fact that the trooper smelled the odor of marihuana emanating from the vehicle, that determination was erroneous as a matter of law … . People v Martin, 2025 NY Slip Op 03842, Third Dept 6-26-25

Practice Point: Here the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) was deemed to apply to the evidence which can be considered at a probable-cause-to-search-a-vehicle hearing. Therefore there was no need to apply the statute retroactively where the search was pre-enactment but the suppression hearing was post-enactment.

 

You might also like
Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL DIVERSION TO A DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM.
Self-Insured Employer Not Entitled to Offset Workers’ Compensation Benefits by the Amount Claimant Received in a Third-Party Settlement
COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET.
Letters Between Attorney and City Re: Fees Did Not Create Unilateral Contract
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO QUESTION PLAINTIFF’S CAR HYDROPLANED AND SLID INTO DEFENDANT’S LANE, DEFENDANT INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOW LONG PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS IN DEFENDANT’S LANE BEFORE IT WAS STRUCK (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW REQUIRES UTILITY COMPANIES TO COMPENSATE... DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHICH WAS BEING CHASED BY...