People v. Smith
982 N.E.2d 234
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Louis M. Smith stopped for a cracked windshield; officer Briskman detects a slight, fresh cannabis odor from the vehicle.
- Briskman has substantial training in detecting cannabis odor and testified to numerous prior detections.
- Defendant refused consent to search; Briskman planned to call a K-9 unit and proceed with processing traffic citations.
- K-9 sniff occurred after Briskman started processing citations; dog alerted to the driver’s side.
- Search then revealed cannabis, a pipe, and tissues in a pill bottle under the driver’s seat; trial court suppressed the evidence.
- State moved to reconsider; appellate review is de novo for the ultimate legality, with factual findings reviewed for weight; result reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the odor of fresh cannabis establish probable cause to search a vehicle under Stout?”, | Stout allows odor-based probable cause without corroboration. | Stout involved burnt cannabis; odor of fresh cannabis should not be treated identically. | Yes; Stout applies to raw cannabis odor; corroboration not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stout, 106 Ill.2d 77 (Ill. 1985) (odor of cannabis can provide probable cause to search; corroboration not required; applicable to raw cannabis)
- People v. McDonough, 239 Ill.2d 260 (Ill. 2010) (review of suppression rulings; de novo as to legality of search)
- State v. Benson, 251 N.W.2d 659 (Neb. 1977) (odor of marijuana can furnish probable cause in some cases)
- United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1985) (governmental odors and probable cause; dictal guidance)
- United States v. Downs, 151 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 1998) (odor of marijuana as probable cause under certain foundations)