Probable cause from a vehicle is all that is required for a search; no separate exigency inquiry is required

The smell of raw marijuana by two police officers during a traffic stop was probable cause to believe the vehicle contained marijuana. Probable cause + vehicle = power to search. No separate inquiry of exigency is required. McKenney v. State, 2007 WY 129, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 139 (August 9, 2007).*

Odor of burnt marijuana reasonably believed to have been coming from defendant’s apartment justified a warrantless exigent entry on probable cause. Washington v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 762 (Ky. App. 2007)* (unpublished). Comment: The best way to hide bad law is in unpublished opinions. The fact somebody is smoking marijuana inside a home should hardly give sufficient authority to the police to cross the threshold and even break the door to gather up what is likely a small quantity of the offending weed. This is just overkill.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging defendant’s stop and frisk because, by all accounts, it would have been found consensual. People v. Starnes, 374 Ill. App. 3d 132, 871 N.E.2d 815 (2d Dist. 2007).*

Reasonable suspicion existed for defendant’s stop based on surveillance of a pay telephone commonly used to arrange drug deals, and defendant used the telephone and was seen apparently dropping off drugs to cars as they came by. State v. Etherington, 2007 Ohio 4097, 172 Ohio App. 3d 756, 876 N.E.2d 1285 (2d Dist. 2007).*

Defendant’s stop was valid, and during the stop, he was told to keep his hands on the wheel, but he kept reaching down. When he was gotten out of the vehicle, he was nervous, his voice was shaky, and his hands were shaking. A patdown revealed a “lump in Leaks’ pocket and suspected it was narcotics. These cumulative facts gave the officer reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to further investigate.” State v. Leaks, 2007 Ohio 4060, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3705 (8th Dist. August 9, 2007).*