MD: Odor of ether alone not PC

“We shall hold that the totality of the circumstances do not provide a concrete reason to associate the odor of ether with criminal activity or contraband, and, accordingly, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the petitioner.” Bailey v. State, 412 Md. 349, 987 A.2d 72 (2010).

Search would be bad under Gant, but suppression not required because of inevitable discovery. United States v. Stotler, 591 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2010):

To all this, we add a final point. The inevitable discovery doctrine holds that even an illegally seized item need not be suppressed if the government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers would have discovered it by lawful means. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984). See also United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2009). If the police had not searched Stotler’s pickup when they did, the evidence would have undoubtedly been discovered a little later. Obviously, with Stotler in custody, he was not going to be allowed to get in his truck and drive away. Also obviously, the arresting officers would not have allowed the truck to just sit on the street after Stotler was carted away. What they would have done, in all likelihood, was impound the truck and have it towed away. An inventory search would have naturally followed; the evidence would have been inevitably discovered.

Search warrant for defendant’s premises was supported by probable cause. United States v. Cabinett, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123162 (D. Minn. November 6, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.