NJ: Smell of mj in the passenger compartment doesn’t justify search of trunk or engine compartment

Where the officer smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment and searched for it finding nothing, a search of the engine compartment and trunk was excessive under the automobile exception. From the syllabus : “Expanding the search to the engine compartment and trunk went beyond the scope of the automobile exception. Although the trooper smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment of the car, his initial search yielded no results and provided no justification ‘to extend the zone of the … search further than the persons of the occupants or the interior of the car.’ State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 14-15, 414 A.2d 1327 (1980). As a result, the seized evidence should be suppressed.” State v. Cohen, 2023 N.J. LEXIS 658 (June 22, 2023).

Judicial deception can’t be used to get a search warrant, the Franks equivalent in civil cases. Stephens v. Arizona, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108353 (D.Ariz. June 22, 2023)* (recognizing rule).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that the officers acted under objectively reasonable exigent circumstances to enter Boyd’s home out of concern for the safety of the two missing juveniles. Thus, under the emergency aid exception, officers lawfully entered Boyd’s home.” State v. Boyd, 2023-Ohio-2079 (2d Dist. June 23, 2023).*

Defendant cannot show prejudice from defense counsel not attacking the search warrant for lacking probable cause where there was probable cause. Mumford v. State, 2023 Del. LEXIS 194 (June 22, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.