{"id":1934,"date":"2008-05-28T07:18:04","date_gmt":"2008-03-31T13:24:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-31T13:24:08","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1934","title":{"rendered":"General odor of marijuana around a group of men not RS as to any; defendant&#8217;s grant and then withdrawal of consent not a factor in RS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Officer encountered a group of men standing around, and the odor of burnt marijuana was surrounding them. The officer lacked any reasonable suspicion to patdown the defendant based on the odor alone. The defendant first consented to a search of his person and then withdrew it, and that could not be considered reasonable suspicion. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.2dca.org\/opinion\/March%2028,%202008\/2D06-4092.pdf\">Robinson v. State<\/a>, 976 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. App. 2d DCA 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We conclude that there was no probable cause to support the warrantless search of Robinson&#8217;s person which yielded the firearm and the marijuana. The fact that Robinson was standing with a group of men surrounded by the odor of burned marijuana was insufficient to supply more than a &#8220;mere suspicion&#8221; that Robinson was in possession of marijuana. The fact that Robinson initially consented to a search of his person and then withdrew that consent did not give the officer probable cause to search for marijuana.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant service member&#8217;s refusal of consent to search his computer was binding as to removing him and then asking his wife under <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=04-1067\"><em>Randolph<\/em><\/a>. He was confronted with allegations that child pornography was found in his former quarters on a base in England, and he was detained after he refused consent. He was no potential objector under the government&#8217;s theory because he unequivocally refused consent. The search was otherwise saved, however, by a search authorization obtained from a proper official. United States v. Sanders, 66 M.J. 529 (A.F. Ct. App. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1934\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}