The State v. Kazmierczak, 331 Ga. App. 817

Officers performed a knock-and-talk at Kazmierczak’s home after a complaint of marijuana manufacturing; they were invited to the garage and then into the house by the resident (the defendant’s mother).
Officers smelled a strong/overwhelming odor of raw marijuana in the garage and even stronger odor upon entering the residence.
Officers did not search before obtaining a warrant; the affidavit for the warrant relied solely on the officers’ detection of the marijuana odor and their training/experience.
A magistrate issued a search warrant; execution of the warrant uncovered several hundred grams of marijuana, two plants, and grow-related equipment.
The trial court granted Kazmierczak’s motion to suppress, ruling that odor alone cannot establish probable cause for a search warrant; the State appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that odor of raw marijuana can be the sole basis for a warrant if the affidavit establishes the officer’s qualifications, the odor’s source, and that the officer was lawfully at the location.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether odor of marijuana alone can establish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant for a residence	State: odor detection by trained officers provides probable cause to issue warrant	Kazmierczak: odor alone insufficient; precedent requires additional corroborating facts	Held: Yes — odor alone may suffice if affidavit shows officer qualified to recognize odor, odor’s location, and lawful presence when detected
Whether prior Georgia appellate rulings forbidding odor-alone warrant bases remain valid	State: prior rulings were incorrect and should be corrected	Kazmierczak: prior cases properly applied totality-of-circumstances analysis; should not be overruled	Held: Court overruled or disapproved interpretations (noting Pando is overruled to extent it held odors can never be sole basis); other cases distinguished or disapproved to extent they announced a per se rule against odor-alone warrants

State v. Palmer, 285 Ga. 75 (Ga. 2009) (standards for magistrate probable-cause determination and appellate review)
Clare v. State, 135 Ga. App. 281 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975) (odor may be considered and can support a warrant)
State v. Folk, 238 Ga. App. 206 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (odor of marijuana supported warrantless automobile search)
Patman v. State, 244 Ga. App. 833 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (odor sufficient in some contexts; distinguished vehicles from homes)
Shivers v. State, 258 Ga. App. 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (odor on a person did not establish emanation from the home)
State v. Pando, 284 Ga. App. 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (court overruled to extent it held odors can never alone justify a search warrant)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1948) (odors may be highly persuasive evidence and can justify a warrant)
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (probable-cause standard for automobile exception equals that for issuance of a warrant)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (warrantless automobile searches based on facts that would justify a warrant are reasonable)
McClain v. State, 267 Ga. 378 (Ga. 1996) (officer’s inference that items sought are at place to be searched requires only a fair presumption)