OH8: Smell of marijuana on the person did not justify an entry

Smell of marijuana on a person did not justify a search of the house defendant was staying in as a guest. State v. Evans, 2008 Ohio 5253, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4402 (8th Dist. October 9, 2008).*

IAC claim fails where defendant cannot show that the suppression motion not filed would fail. State v. Taylor, 2008 Ohio 5238, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4412 (9th Dist. October 8, 2008).*

Affidavit did not just show that defendant was a drug dealer and relying on that alone to show nexus. Here, there was more. United States v. Feagan, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80014 (E.D. Tenn. July 1, 2008)*:

It is not necessary for this Court to conclude that the Sixth Circuit has established a firm rule that if reliable information indicates a defendant is a drug dealer, then probable cause always exists to search the drug dealer’s residence. The affidavit in this case presents more. The affidavit establishes Defendant’s involvement in an ongoing and continual operation, not a discrete drug transaction. Defendant’s argument that there is no evidence of a connection between his residence and his “generalized drug dealing” also fails because the argument minimizes the additional fact that a law enforcement officer articulated his belief, based on experience and training about the trends, methods and habits of drug dealers, that certain evidence of drug trafficking is typically maintained in the homes of drug dealers. Given the background and experience of TFO Wigley, and the information provided in his affidavit about the trends, habits and methods of drug dealers, it was entirely reasonable for the issuing magistrate to conclude Defendant, as a drug dealer engaged in continual and ongoing illegal drug operations, would possess fruits or instrumentalities of drug trafficking in his residence.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.