State v. Vennell, 359 P.3d 1255

Defendant was a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation; police later directed driver and passengers out to search the car.
An officer smelled a "strong odor of marijuana," which he perceived as strongest around defendant when defendant exited the vehicle.
Officer patted defendant down for weapons, asked for consent to search his pockets, and defendant — after stating he had marijuana in his pockets — consented.
Search of defendant’s pockets produced marijuana and methamphetamine paraphernalia; defendant moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful expansion of the stop.
Trial court found defendant was seized at the time of the consent, concluded the officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate based on the odor, and denied the suppression motion; defendant conditionally pled guilty and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize/investigate defendant	Officer’s smell of a "strong" marijuana odor justified investigating defendant for possession	Odor testimony lacked detail (amount, fresh vs. burnt); could not show suspicion of a criminal (vs. noncriminal/violation) offense	Court held subjective and objective reasonable suspicion existed based on the strong odor emanating from defendant; seizure lawful
Whether consent to search pockets was valid	State: consent was voluntary and not the product of unlawful seizure because seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion	Defendant: consent resulted from exploitation of an unlawful seizure and therefore invalid	Because seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion and consent was voluntary, court held consent valid
Whether reasonable suspicion requires an officer to articulate belief about amount/freshness of marijuana	State: no such requirement; reasonable suspicion is lower than probable cause and need not specify amount or freshness	Defendant: officer must specify amount or fresh vs. burnt to show a present criminal possession, not merely a past use or de minimis amount	Court rejected requirement to articulate amount/freshness; officer may reasonably infer illegal possession from a strong marijuana odor

State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (trial-court factual findings binding if supported)
State v. Watson, 353 Or 768 (infer trial-court findings consistent with ultimate conclusion)
State v. Acuna, 264 Or App 158 (smell of unburned marijuana supported reasonable suspicion)
State v. Johnson, 120 Or App 151 (distinct drug odor can support investigatory stop)
State v. Peterson, 164 Or App 406 (legal conclusions reviewed for error)
State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (consent vs. exploitation of unlawful stop)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (distinguishing stop from arrest)
State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (overruling in part on other grounds)