The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision limiting police search authority and clarifying the state's marijuana open container laws in *Sellers v. Superior Court*, handed down January 29, 2026.
Justice Liu, writing for the court, held that a small amount of loose marijuana scattered on the rear floor of a vehicle does not violate Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4), which makes it an infraction to have an "open container" of marijuana in a vehicle. The court further ruled that police officers lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless vehicle search based on the presence of loose marijuana alone.
The case arose from a traffic stop conducted by three Sacramento Police Department officers who pulled over driver Kayla Sepulveda for failing to stop fully behind the limit line of a crosswalk before turning through an intersection. Defendant Davonyae Sellers was seated in the front passenger seat.
During the stop, officers approached the vehicle and shined flashlights into the car, questioning the occupants about whether there was anything illegal in the vehicle, including marijuana or guns. Sepulveda denied having any contraband. A records check revealed no concerns, and both occupants were cooperative throughout the encounter.
The officers did not suspect Sepulveda of driving under the influence. However, they observed a rolling tray on the backseat and noticed loose marijuana scattered on the rear floor of the vehicle. These observations led to a warrantless search of the car.
The legal question centered on California's marijuana legalization framework, specifically Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4), which was enacted as part of the state's broader cannabis legalization effort. This provision makes it an infraction to possess an "open container" of marijuana in a vehicle, similar to laws governing open containers of alcohol.
The California Supreme Court's interpretation of this statute represents a significant clarification of police search authority in the post-legalization era. The court distinguished between actual open containers and loose marijuana, finding that scattered cannabis on a vehicle floor does not meet the statutory definition of an "open container."
The decision addresses the intersection of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures with California's evolving cannabis laws. Since marijuana legalization, courts have grappled with questions about when the presence of cannabis provides sufficient justification for vehicle searches.
The court's ruling limits law enforcement's ability to use the presence of loose marijuana as grounds for probable cause in vehicle searches. This represents a shift from earlier interpretations that might have given officers broader search authority based on cannabis-related observations.
The unanimous nature of the decision, with Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Streeter joining Justice Liu's opinion, signals strong consensus on the court about limiting police search authority in this context. Associate Justice Streeter, from the First Appellate District Division Four, was assigned to the case by the Chief Justice.
The case originated in Sacramento County Superior Court and proceeded through the Third Appellate District before reaching the state's highest court. The procedural path reflects the significance of the legal questions involved and the need for statewide clarity on marijuana open container laws.
Legal experts view this decision as part of California's ongoing effort to reconcile traditional law enforcement practices with the realities of legal marijuana use. The ruling provides clearer guidance to both police officers and cannabis users about what constitutes an open container violation.
The decision also has implications for criminal defense practice, as it establishes precedent that may be used to challenge vehicle searches conducted on similar grounds. Defense attorneys can now point to this ruling when arguing that loose marijuana alone does not provide probable cause for warrantless searches.
For law enforcement agencies across California, the ruling requires adjustment of training and protocols regarding marijuana-related vehicle stops. Officers must now consider whether observed cannabis constitutes an actual "open container" under the statutory definition rather than making broader assumptions about search authority.
The court's interpretation aligns with the broader policy goals of marijuana legalization, which sought to reduce criminal penalties for cannabis possession while maintaining public safety standards. The decision reflects a balance between allowing legal marijuana use and preventing impaired driving.
Looking forward, this ruling may influence how other states with legal marijuana interpret similar open container provisions. As more jurisdictions legalize cannabis, questions about vehicle searches and open container laws are likely to arise in other courts.
The *Sellers* decision establishes important precedent for California law enforcement and provides clarity for cannabis users about their rights during vehicle stops. The unanimous ruling demonstrates the court's commitment to clearly defining the boundaries of police search authority in the era of legal marijuana.