Driving with Marijuana

Proposition 64, passed on November 8, 2016, legalized the use of recreational marijuana in California. It went into effect on January 1, 2018. However, there are still limitations that residents of California need to know. First, it's illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana in California. In fact, it is considered a DUI and can result in jail time. It can also still be a crime to drive with marijuana in the car, even if not under the influence of it. The following precautions should be taken while driving with marijuana:

  • Do not drive with more than an ounce (28.4 grams), or more than 8 grams of concentrated cannabis. This is the legal amount that a person may possess in California, and driving with more than this may result in up to six months in county jail, a fine of $500, or both.
  • If driving with marijuana from the dispensary, keep it in a container. There are "open container" laws that apply to marijuana. This means that you must keep it in a sealed container at all times.
  • The container must be closed, and if opened, it must be resealed. According to California Vehicle Code 23222 (b), any receptacle containing cannabis products that has been opened or has loose cannabis flower not in a container is subject to a fine up to $100.
  • Regardless of the container, the safest place to keep the marijuana is the trunk of the car. This protects drivers from the fine even if the container is open or the seal is broken.

Watch my friend, David Shapiro, explain:

Citation:

- CA Health Code 11357

- CA Vehicle Code 23222 (b)

Related case summaries

People v. Busch
There was sufficient evidence that defendant had joint dominion and control over the marijuana located in the center console of the car. Defendant argued his conviction for possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana had to be reversed because of insufficient evidence that he exercised dominion and control over the marijuana. However, there was substantial evidence to support the inference that defendant, who was driving the car, had joint dominion and control with the passenger over the marijuana that was stored in the center console of the car. id: 21724
187 Cal.App.4th 150 (3rd Dist. 2010)

Related categories:

Drug Offenses (234)
People v. Wells
The trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct on the defense of unconsciousness where defendant was relying on the defense and there was evidence to support it.Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana causing injury. His theory of the case was that he crossed the yellow lines due to his low blood pressure which caused him to pass out. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct on his defense of unconsciousness where there was evidence to support it and defendant was relying on it. The error was prejudicial as it removed the primary defense from the jury’s consideration.id: 22650
204 Cal.App.4th 743 (3rd Dist. 2012)

Related categories:

Defenses, generally (Right to Present) (750)

About Pat Ford

Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.

Case of the Day

The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.

People v. Meza
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850
Case number B318310 (4/3/2023)

Related categories:

Exclusionary Rule, generally (good faith exception) (310)
Overbreadth/Staleness (368)