[mbarrett]

Even if the cop sees the card, is it probable cause for a search?

Comparing it to gun laws and interstate travel, a gun permit seen in a wallet probably wouldn't lead to a search if the driver simply said there is no gun in the vehicle.

Pot seems like it would be under more scrutiny in a red state than guns sadly.

[enjo]

The answer is a definite maybe. One common language definition of probable cause:

> An officer has probable cause for a search where the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that there was a likelihood that the object to be searched contained contraband or evidence of a crime.

In a state where medical marijuana is not legal the card might be interpreted to mean that there is a likelihood that the person in the car has pot on them. They can establish that this person uses marijuana (why else would they have the card), is unreasonable to think that they might not carry it with them?

I don't think there is a ton of case-law here. One notable instance happened in California. In People v. Waxler an officer approached a car that smelled of marijuana. The defendant in the case admitted to smoking pot, but produced a medical card making the claim that it was legal for him to do so. Interestingly the court ruled that even when a card was present the police still have probable cause to search as they are allowed to ascertain wether or not the marijuana was legally purchased from within the medical system and wether or not the suspect is not in possession of pot in excess of the medical limit.

While that is a state court ruling, you might expect similar logic is applied to states where medical pot isn't legal. In those cases the presence of of a card might be interpreted as probable cause. Since the odor of pot alone is enough for a search, any cop who sees a card is very likely to claim to smell it as well anyways. After all they're not going to get a lot of pushback on the claim if they have defacto evidence that you're using marijuana anyways.

[nedwin]

Interesting question. INAL but I would suggest it's not reasonable grounds for search.

Either way in this situation the defendant not only allowed the search but pointed out where to find the drugs.

[DLister]

Interestingly with guns if you have a concealed carry permit from state A that is accepted in state C but not in state B which you must pass through in transit between you can't be held liable for violating state B's gun laws as long as you are just passing through between point where your permit is valid. Thanks to the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA.

[Pinckney]

Concealed carry has nothing to do with it. You don't need a CC permit to take advantage of the FOPA safe passage provisions, and FOPA won't protect you if you're carrying on your person even if you have a CC permit valid at the endpoints. The firearms and ammunition need to be unloaded and not readily accessible from the passenger compartment.

[true_religion]

Isn't this because guns are legal at the federal level, and thus not allowing them to transit through a state would be a violation of interstate commerce?

[throwaway1230]

Does possession of a document merit "probable cause" that you used it for its purpose that very day?

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.