State v. Mansour, 2016 Ohio 755

Mansour was convicted in Mason Municipal Court of possession of marijuana after a bench trial.
Feb. 13, 2014: Trooper Hutchinson stopped Mansour on State Route 42 for speeding; Mansour was traveling northbound while the trooper traveled southbound.
A strong odor of marijuana was detected from Mansour’s vehicle; Mansour denied possession and allowed search of his person and vehicle.
A partially burnt joint, described as cold to the touch, was found under the gearshift; it contained 0.027 grams of marijuana and was sent to the crime lab.
Mansour moved to suppress the joint; the trial court denied suppression; magistrate convicted Mansour of marijuana possession but not speeding; the speed finding relied on lack of established speed testimony and no judicial notice of the radar.
Mansour appealed on four assignments of error challenging suppression, the stop, credibility of the trooper, and confrontation rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression: was the search justified by probable cause from odor?	Mansour: trooper lacked qualification to detect odor; no exigent circumstances; Robinette not satisfied.	Mansour: no valid search without warrant as odor alone insufficient without proper qualifications/exigent circumstances.	Probable cause established; odor plus trooper’s experience sufficed.
Whether the stop was valid given conviction on speeding was not established	Mansour: stop tainted by lack of speed evidence; fruit of the poisonous tree.	Mansour: stop based on probable cause; suppression not required.	Stop supported by probable cause; suppression not required.
Confrontation rights regarding introduction of the marijuana joint	Mansour: joint not produced or admitted; right to confront witnesses violated.	Mansour: officer testimony suffices to prove identity of substance; Maupin supports witness testimony for substance identity.	Confrontation rights not violated; officer testimony sufficient to prove substance identity.
Credibility and qualification of the trooper; sufficiency of evidence for possession	Mansour: trooper credibility and qualification to recognize odor; contradictions undermine conviction.	Mansour: odor recognition supported by training/experience; corroboration not required.	Trooper qualified; odor alone enough to establish probable cause; conviction upheld.

State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (odor of marijuana by qualified officer permits warrantless search under automobile exception)
State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (2006) (odor in passenger compartment supports probable cause for search, not for trunk)
State v. Maupin, 42 Ohio St.2d 473 (1975) (identity of substance may be proven by officer testimony without introducing the substance)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (2011) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination in appellate context)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements; cross-examination rights)