State v. Tillman, 2022 Ohio 4341

On April 23, 2021, law enforcement stopped Tillman for traffic violations after observing suspicious driving; deputies smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana coming from his vehicle.
Officers ordered occupants out, and a search uncovered vacuum‑sealed bags of marijuana in the trunk, marijuana edibles, a bag in the driver’s door pocket, and a marijuana cigarette in the center console.
Tillman was indicted on May 6, 2021 for third‑degree felony possession and trafficking of marijuana and a forfeiture specification.
Tillman moved to suppress the evidence (challenging the warrantless search) and moved for pre‑approval of funds for an expert to testify that hemp and marijuana odors are indistinguishable.
The trial court denied both motions, finding the officers (qualified by experience) detected the odor and that hemp’s identical odor does not defeat probable cause; Tillman pled no contest and was sentenced to 3 years community control, fines, license suspension, and forfeiture.
On appeal, Tillman argued (1) the search lacked probable cause (or supported only a minor misdemeanor) and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying expert funding; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless vehicle search was supported by probable cause based on odor and admissions	Officers, qualified by experience, smelled raw marijuana; that odor (and Tillman’s admission about marijuana in the door) provided probable cause under the automobile exception	Odor could have been legal hemp (indistinguishable); therefore no probable cause for a felony search or only probable cause for a minor offense	Affirmed: Odor of marijuana detected by qualified officers gives probable cause to search; indistinguishability from hemp does not negate probable cause while marijuana remains illegal; admission reinforced probable cause
Whether trial court erred in denying pre‑approval of funds for an expert to testify that hemp and marijuana odors are indistinguishable	State: trial court properly exercised discretion; it accepted arguendo that hemp and marijuana smell the same and concluded expert not needed because case law still allows odor‑based searches	Expert was necessary under Ake/Mason framework to show reasonable probability it would aid the defense and that denial would render the hearing unfair	Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion. Trial court accepted indistinguishability and reasonably found Ake/Mason factors not met, so expert funding not required

State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2000) (smell of marijuana by a person qualified to recognize it supplies probable cause to search a vehicle)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression motions; deference to trial court fact findings)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (due process may require state‑funded expert assistance for indigent defendants in limited circumstances)
State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (Ohio 1998) (Ohio test for pre‑approval of expert funds: reasonable probability expert would aid defense and denial would produce unfair trial)
State v. Withrow, 194 N.E.3d 804 (Ohio 2022) (holding that hemp and marijuana sharing an odor does not defeat probable cause while some forms of marijuana remain illegal)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 218 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for appellate review of discretionary rulings)