VT: Odor of marijuana is probable cause, but it has to be directed to a particular person

Odor of marijuana is probable cause, but it has to be directed to a particular person. State v. Guzman, 2008 VT 116, 184 Vt. 518, 965 A.2d 544 (2008):

We agree that the odor of marijuana, detected by a trained and experienced police officer, can provide a reasonable basis to believe that marijuana is present. We also agree that the odor alone may not always be sufficient to arrest an individual. The facts of this case, however, fall well within the reasonable standard enunciated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

the odor of a controlled substance may provide probable cause to arrest when the odor is unmistakable and may be linked to a specific person or persons because of the particular circumstances in which it is discovered or because other evidence at the scene or elsewhere links the odor to the person or persons.

State v. Secrist, 589 N.W.2d 387, 394 (Wis. 1999).

Owner and operator of a boat off Puerto Rico had the ability to consent to toolbox on the boat that was given to one of the passengers to deliver in PR. This was apparent authority. “The containers were not locked, nor were they identified as Carrasco’s personal property.” Defendant’s suppressed confession could be used to impeach him when he testified. United States v. Carrasco, 540 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.