OH9: With smell of MJ, car doesn’t have to be searched before the dog does its work

The smell of marijuana coming from the car was sufficient to call for a drug dog to sniff the car. The officer wasn’t required to search the passenger compartment before the dog sniff. State v. Ross, 2016-Ohio-7082, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 3941 (9th Dist. Sept. 30, 2016).

Defendant’s argument that the drug dog’s failure to alert on the passenger compartment of the car dissipated the alleged probable cause was not preserved for review where a different argument was made to the trial court. State v. Demint, 2016 Ida. App. LEXIS 111 (Sept. 28, 2016).*

“[T]here is no meaningful evidence on the record suggesting that the Kannapolis police fabricated anything in support of an arrest warrant.” Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising it. Pittman v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133576 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2016).*