\u201cThe Officers testified the smell of marijuana can remain in the area, or linger on clothing or other items, after marijuana is removed from the area, before or after it has been smoked. \u2026 It can also be difficult to detect whether a smell is of raw or burnt marijuana if both smells are in the same location, but regardless, the smell of marijuana is still present. \u2026 Even Defendant’s expert conceded it was possible the Officers could have smelled burnt marijuana in their proximity to the vehicle. \u2026 Therefore, regardless of whether the Officers specifically observed raw or burnt marijuana, it was certainly reasonable the smell was emanating from the vehicle at the time the Officers noted same, giving them probable cause for the search.\u201d United States v. Harris, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147948 (D.N.J. Aug. 23, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut the affidavit referenced multiple witness statements, the gun recovered from his associate’s home, and video evidence. Even if this did not \u2018push this warrant past the probable cause goal line,\u2019 \u2026 there was enough information in the affidavit such that the officers’ reliance was not \u2018entirely unreasonable,\u2019 Proell, 485 F.3d at 431.\u201d And the good faith exception applies. United States v. Dankemeyer, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22152 (8th Cir. Aug. 23, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was a passenger released at the scene. Another officer arrived and essentially ordered him to stay. There was no justification for that seizure. Budimir v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 243 (Aug. 23, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe Officers testified the smell of marijuana can remain in the area, or linger on clothing or other items, after marijuana is removed from the area, before or after it has been smoked. \u2026 It can also be difficult to … Continue reading