State v. Dudley, 2012 Ohio 960

Officer observed excessive window tint; could not see into car and stopped it for tint as it turned onto Broadway.
odor of burnt marijuana detected near the stopped vehicle; driver was believed to be a woman but occupant was a man.
Dudley provided license, allowed a pat-down; no weapons found; LEADS check showed no warrants.
Dudley admitted marijuana possession and produced a baggie; police detained him for further investigation.
A second search of Dudley revealed a bag of crack cocaine in his coat pocket after he admitted marijuana possession; Dudley was cited for window tint but marijuana and cocaine were not initially charged.
Trial court suppressed evidence obtained after the LEADS check; State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the tint stop justify further detention?	Dudley	Dudley	Stop for tint valid; but suppression reversed later.
Did the marijuana odor provide probable cause to search?	State	Dudley	Odor provided probable cause to search the vehicle and detain for further investigation.
Was the subsequent search of Dudley’s person permissible after admission?	State	Dudley	Probable cause supported search of Dudley for narcotics; cocaine seized.
Was the suppression of post-LEADS evidence proper?	State	Dudley	Trial court erred in suppressing; reversal on basis of probable cause.
Is the evidence admissible following the arrest sequence?	State	Dudley	Evidence admissible; remand for proceedings.

State v. Taylor, 114 Ohio App.3d 416 (Ohio 2d Dist. 1996) (odor of marijuana creates reasonable suspicion or probable cause for search-related actions)
State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2000) (odor of marijuana establishes probable cause to search a vehicle)
State v. Johnson, 186 Ohio App.3d 648 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2010) (strong odor of marijuana creates suspect detention; probable cause required for search)
Fairborn v. Orrick, 49 Ohio App.3d 94 (Ohio 2d Dist. 1988) (articulable suspicion does not permit unlimited intrusions)