OH1: Smell of burnt MJ with nothing more doesn’t justify search of trunk

Smell of burning marijuana with no accouterments of drug usage or delivery didn’t justify a search of the trunk. There was no smell of raw marijuana. State v. Ulmer, 2020-Ohio-4689, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3582 (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2020):

[*P20] Contrary to the city’s argument, this is not a case where additional factors indicating drug activity were present to justify the search of the trunk. For example, Ruberg did not find drug paraphernalia, scales, or a large quantity of cash. See, e.g., State v. Braxton, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-03-019, 2020-Ohio-424, ¶ 18 (finding that the discovery of a prescription pill bottle and a cellophane wrapped oxycodone pill in the center console, in addition to the odor of burnt marijuana, provided probable cause to expand the search to the trunk); State v. Quaker, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-33, 2020-Ohio-2887, ¶ 26-28 (probable cause was established when the trooper saw raw marijuana shake in the car and felt large quantities of cash in defendant’s pockets, defendant provided an expired rental agreement, defendant was not the person named in the agreement, and no additional drivers were authorized to drive the car); State v. Whatley, 5th Dist. Licking No. 10-CA-93, 2011-Ohio-2297, ¶ 30 (officer found marijuana in the passenger compartment of the car in plain view, was given a false name by defendant, and the driver made an attempt to get into the trunk as she was walking toward the officer’s cruiser).

[*P21] Accordingly, we sustain the assignment of error because the officer did not have probable cause to search the trunk.

This entry was posted in Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.