30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Examples:<br />

Exceptions:<br />

This, however, does not relieve the officer of the necessity of<br />

obtaining a search warrant before looking for, <strong>and</strong> seizing, the<br />

source of the odor, absent exigent circumstances excusing the lack<br />

of a warrant. (Id. at p. 14 [92 L.Ed. at pp. 440-441].)<br />

Also, while seizure of a package from which the odor of marijuana<br />

is emanating may be lawful, a warrantless search of that package<br />

absent exigent circumstances is not lawful. (Robey v. Superior<br />

Court [Superior Court] (2011) 200 Cal.App.4 th 1.)<br />

<strong>The</strong> odor of opium coming from an apartment supplied sufficient<br />

probable cause to justify an entry, arrest <strong>and</strong> search of the<br />

apartment. (People v. Bock Leung Chew, supra,)<br />

Odor of marijuana smoke during a traffic stop justified the search<br />

of a vehicle. (People v. Lovejoy (1970) 12 Cal.App.3 rd 883, 887.)<br />

<strong>The</strong> “strong odor of fresh marijuana” on defendant’s person was<br />

held to be probable cause to believe defendant was in possession of<br />

the marijuana. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3 rd 788, 793, fn. 4.)<br />

<strong>The</strong> odor of marijuana emanating from two trucks at a private<br />

airstrip, under circumstances consistent with smuggling operations,<br />

was found to constitute probable cause to believe the trucks<br />

contained marijuana. (United States v. Johns (1985) 469 U.S. 478<br />

[83 L.Ed.2 nd 890].)<br />

<strong>The</strong> odor of beer noted during a traffic stop supplied probable<br />

cause to search the car for alcohol. (People v. Molina (1994) 25<br />

Cal.App.4 th 1038.)<br />

<strong>The</strong> courts in some jurisdictions feel that the odor alone, without<br />

other suspicious circumstances, may not be sufficient to establish<br />

probable cause. (See People v. Taylor (Mich. 1997) 564 N.W.2 nd<br />

24; odor of marijuana did not justify the warrantless search of a<br />

vehicle.)<br />

And Note: <strong>The</strong> courts uniformly have held that the odor of ether (a<br />

byproduct of the manufacturing process for some dangerous<br />

drugs), emanating from a particular location (e.g., a house or<br />

garage), is not probable cause to search for drugs.<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

417

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!