State v. Stevenson, 321 P.3d 754

Stevenson was stopped for a turn-signal violation before entering an intersection, based on the officers’ view of an inadequate 100-foot signaling rule.
After Stevenson exited the vehicle, officers detected a very strong odor of alcohol emanating from inside the car.
Detective Gill stuck his head into the vehicle and also smelled a very strong odor of alcohol inside, suggesting a spilled alcohol container.
The officers detained Stevenson without consent to search for an open container, believing probable cause existed based on the odor alone.
In the vehicle, officers found drug paraphernalia and a large bottle of wine; a subsequent search incident to arrest yielded methamphetamine.
Stevenson was charged with possession of methamphetamine, and the district court denied suppression, later affirmed by the Court of Appeals before this court reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to search for an open container based on the odor of alcohol alone?	Stevenson	State	No; odor alone did not constitute probable cause.

State v. MacDonald, 253 Kan. 320 (1993) (odor of marijuana can establish probable cause to search a vehicle)
State v. Ibarra, 282 Kan. 530 (2006) (odor alone may justify further investigation but not a search)
State v. Bickerstaff, 26 Kan. App. 2d 423 (1999) (odor combined with other facts can establish probable cause to search)
Wigginton, 142 Idaho 180 (2005) (probable cause is a flexible, practical standard based on totality of circumstances)
Sanchez-Loredo, 294 Kan. 50 (2012) (clarifies limits on suppression issues and cross-appeals)
State v. Jefferson, 297 Kan. 1151 (2013) (probable-cause analysis for vehicle searches; totality standard)
State v. Edgar, 296 Kan. 513 (2013) (look to whole picture, including favorable outcomes of field sobriety)