IL: Trial court should have suppressed; officer said he smelled MJ but drug dog did not alert and another officer did not smell it

The trial court erred in not suppressing the defendant’s search. The officer’s testimony that he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle when he began talking to defendant was not credible. Also, the officer still sought consent to search the vehicle,* his testimony at two suppression hearings was inconsistent and another officer said he did not smell marijuana and his dog did not alert. Testimony that two drug dogs simultaneously misbehaved was suspect, and expert testimony that a videotape of the stop had been manipulated tainted all the police testimony. People v. Litwin, 2015 IL App (3d) 140429, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 707 (September 17, 2015).

* That alone should not mean that much because many officers seek consent even when they have probable cause, particularly of houses.