{"id":6010,"date":"2011-09-11T13:39:59","date_gmt":"2011-09-12T00:03:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-09-11T13:39:59","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6010","title":{"rendered":"OH2: Small quantity of marijuana in passenger compartment alone not cause for search of trunk"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A small quantity of marijuana in the passenger compartment is not reason to search the trunk. More is required. Here, defendant\u2019s actions provided it. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2011\/2011-ohio-4476.pdf\">State v. Griffith<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 4476, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 3708 (2d Dist. September 2, 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p> [*P20]  The Fourth Amendment limits searches to places where evidence of criminal activity is likely to be found. Farris stands for the proposition that the odor of burnt marijuana in a vehicle&#8217;s passenger compartment, standing alone, doesn\u2019t present a likelihood that the vehicle&#8217;s trunk contains marijuana. The point of distinction is whether the character or nature of drugs found \u201cin plain view\u201d (or smell) in the passenger compartment presents a likelihood that the vehicle\u2019s trunk contains drugs or other contraband, such that a search of the trunk is justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.<\/p>\n<p> [*P21]  In Farris, \u201c[n]o other factors justifying a search beyond the passenger compartment were present.\u201d Farris identified one of those other potential factors to include \u201ccontraband within the passenger compartment.\u201d That precise factor was present here. In addition, the officer first saw Defendant in a parking lot which, in the officer\u2019s experience, has seen \u201can increase in drug activity.&#8221; (T. 9). Coupled with that, Defendant&#8217;s pattern of driving after he saw the officer was evasive, possibly suggesting that he had reason to avoid contact with the officer. California v. Hodari D. (1991) &#8230;. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6010\">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-6010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6010","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=6010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}