Officer who failed to mention smelling marijuana in his reports was disbelieved by the trial court, and suppression had to be affirmed on appeal

The trial court’s suppression of the evidence was sustained in this case because the officer testified that he smelled marijuana during defendant’s traffic stop, and that justified the search of defendant’s car. But, on cross, he admitted that he never mentioned it in any of his five reports or to other officers. The trial court’s order suppressing the evidence on the officer’s credibility was not clearly erroneous. State v. Hamilton, 227 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. App. 2007).

Minnesota declines to grant probationers greater rights under the state constitution. There was reasonable suspicion, and the search was valid under Knights. Defendant made no showing that the federal constitutional protection here was inadequate. “The Supreme Court’s decision in Knights does not appear to be a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions or a retrenchment on its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with respect to probation searches. Moreover, we are not convinced that federal precedent inadequately protects our citizens’ basic rights and liberties. Accordingly, we decline Anderson’s invitation to deem the search of his residence unreasonable under the Minnesota Constitution.” State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn. 2007).*

Officers had a search warrant for defendant’s house and vehicle. After the raid, they saw a co-defendant’s car illegally parked outside and used a flashlight to see small quantities of marijuana on the console. State v. Beavers, 2007 Ohio 2915, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2698 (8th Dist. June 14, 2007):

The Euclid detective explained that Beavers’ car was parked illegally on a public street. The detective shone his flashlight in the car and saw marijuana and marijuana cigarettes in plain view on top of the console in Beavers’ car. This alone gave the detective probable cause to seize the marijuana. The issue is whether the detective had probable cause to further search the trunk of the car. After a review of the record, we find three separate justifications for the search of Beavers’ car. Each alone supports probable cause.

The police had no probable cause or other justification to search defendant’s dorm room for further identification evidence, so the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence. Also, the inevitable discovery doctrine would not save the search because the state could not show that the investigation was progressing such that the evidence would be found anyway. Commonwealth v. Jones, 2007 PA Super 181, 928 A.2d 1054 (2007).*