TX13: Even if hemp and MJ smell similar, smell is still PC

The Dallas Court of Appeals “concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle gave an officer probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants, even though the odor of marijuana is indistinguishable from the odor of hemp.” This court follows that. Outlaw v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6914 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg Aug. 28, 2025)

“Therefore, in addition to Agent Namey’s experience and explanation, the affidavit’s discussion of the facts about Mr. Waulk’s arrest, including the high-speed chase, the refusal to exit the vehicle, the gun in Mr. Waulk’s waistband, and the evidence recovered from the vehicle further provided Magistrate Judge Pesto, when considering the totality of the circumstances, with a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause to issue the warrant to search the cell phones found in the car.” There was also justification for a DNA warrant. On the totality, there was probable cause for arrest and a search incident. United States v. Waulk, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168183 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2025).*

“Because we have already determined that the warrant affidavit contained sufficient information to support a finding of probable cause even when ignoring the statements at issue, Dykes was not entitled to an article 38.23 instruction.” Dykes v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6884 (Tex. App. – Dallas Aug. 28, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.