UT: Too many air fresheners was RS

Overwhelming number and odd collection of air fresheners is reasonable suspicion. State v. Richards, 2009 UT App 397 (December 31, 2009):

¶1 This appeal presents the issue of whether a police officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot so as to justify the investigatory detention of Defendant Heather Richards when the officer was confronted with the overwhelming smell of air fresheners and saw multiple odor masking agents such as orange rinds, Lysol, and Armor All. We conclude that the odd combination of odor masking agents and strong smells emanating from defendant’s vehicle are objective facts that gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that
Defendant was involved in drug trafficking.

Dealing with prior authority that both sides argued supported their case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that an apparent hand-to-hand drug deal in a high crime area at night was probable cause for a stop. The officer’s experience alone is not enough. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 604 Pa. 198, 985 A.2d 928 (2009):

Because we have determined that a police officer’s experience may be fairly regarded as a relevant factor in determining probable cause, and due to the presence of additional factors in support of Officer Ortiz’s conclusion that he was witnessing a drug transaction, we find no error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that probable cause was present in this case. We do not base our decision solely on Officer Ortiz’s experience and the connection he articulated between that experience and what he observed. We also rely on the fact that the transaction at issue occurred in the nighttime hours, on the street, in a neighborhood that the police department selected for the “Operation Safe Streets” program. We conclude that the Superior Court properly upheld the denial of suppression in this case and properly affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Dissent 1; Dissent 2.

Defendant got off a highway to avoid a ruse checkpoint, and she did not signal her turn until after she stopped. This was a violation of Nebraska law and that justified her stop. United States v. Adler, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28755 (8th Cir. December 31, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.