How have the courts interpreted observations of the police in the context of marijuana possession cases?

[22 Cal.App.3d 978] In Abt v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 418, at page 421, 82 Cal.Rptr. 481, at page 484, 462 P.2d 10, at page 12, the court ruled that 'The probability that a carton of brickshaped tinfoil-wrapped packages will contain marijuana is not sufficient to justify a

Page 651

In People v. Goodo (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 7, 304 P.2d 776, 'Officer Blankenship observed appellant was carrying a brown paper sack in his right hand in such manner that it could be disposed of rapidly. The officer testified that marijuana is usually carried in bulk in this kind of a sack but on two occasions, at least, he had observed it carried in a different fashion. The officer arrested appellant and seized the paper sack. It contained marijuana.' (Id. at p. 8, 304 P.2d at p. 777.) The court said: 'Were the observations of the police in this instance sufficient . . .? The answer to this question lies in the significance to be attached to the fact that appellant was observed emerging from his living accommodations with a brown paper sack in his right hand. It is, of course, a matter of common knowledge that such bags are constantly used by markets, grocery stores, drug stores, and similar commercial enterprises for convenient carrying of merchandise by their customers. Hence, practically every household has a supply of such bags at hand, and the members thereof naturally use them to carry a great variety of items, such, for example, as the children's lunches. This is common practice. And the usual manner of carrying such a bag is in the hand. In fact, there is no other convenient way to carry such a bag in the absence of suitable pockets, and particularly so where the package is too large for available pockets. It is, of course, obvious that marijuana may be carried in a can or other container, and the officer acknowledged that upon occasion this was done. It is therefore apparent that no incriminating significance can reasonably be attached to the fact that appellant was carrying a brown paper sack in his right hand.' (Id. at p. 9, 304 P.2d at p. 77.)