No. 13926
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1978
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
TIMOTHY J . SCHOENDALLER a n d
BEN01 SCHULTZ I
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
H o n o r a b l e R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
J o h n P. Moore, County A t t o r n e y , C u t Bank, Montana
L a r r y E p s t e i n a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , C u t Bank,
Montana
For Respondent :
Werner a n d N e l s o n , C u t Bank, Montana
James C. N e l s o n a r g u e d , C u t Bank, Montana
Aronow, A n d e r s o n , B e a t t y & L e e , S h e l b y , Montana
B r u c e W. Moerer a r g u e d , S h e l b y , Montana
Submitted: March 2 , 1978
Decided :
- 2 1978
,>. n\; .
F i l e d : ,\Iti
2 :99Q
31&-
erk
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
The S t a t e o f Montana a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e
~ i s t r i c C o u r t , G l a c i e r County, s u p p r e s s i n g a l l e v i d e n c e
t
o b t a i n e d i n t h e s e a r c h o f a n a u t o m o b i l e o p e r a t e d by Benoi
S c h u l t z and o c c u p i e d by Timothy S c h o e n d a l l e r . The S t a t e
f u r t h e r a p p e a l s from t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s -
missing criminal charges a g a i n s t Schoendaller.
On t h e e v e n i n g o f F e b r u a r y 4 , 1977, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y
8 : 5 5 p.m., two on-duty Cut Bank c i t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , r i d i n g
t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r p a t r o l c a r , o b s e r v e d two v e h i c l e s s t o p p e d
i n t h e l a n e s of t r a f f i c on a s t r e e t i n t h e C i t y of Cut Bank.
The o f f i c e r s d i r e c t e d t h e v e h i c l e s t o t h e s i d e of t h e r o a d
and approached t h e d r i v e r s . One of t h e v e h i c l e s was d r i v e n
by S c h u l t z , accompanied by S c h o e n d a l l e r and a f e m a l e j u v e n i l e .
O f f i c e r LaBane t o l d S c h u l t z t h e v e h i c l e s were s t o p p e d
f o r v i o l a t i n g a Cut Bank c i t y o r d i n a n c e which p r o h i b i t e d
" s t o p p i n g i n t h e m i d d l e of t h e s t r e e t " t o t a l k . While
s t a n d i n g b e s i d e t h e open d r i v e r ' s window of t h e S c h u l t z
v e h i c l e , O f f i c e r LaBane d e t e c t e d t h e odor of m a r i j u a n a and
incense. Based on t h i s d e t e c t i o n t h e o f f i c e r d i r e c t e d t h e
o c c u p a n t s t o e x i t t h e a u t o m o b i l e and e n t e r t h e r e a r s e a t of
t h e p o l i c e p a t r o l c a r . O f f i c e r LaBane t h e n r e q u e s t e d O f f i c e r
Babb t o p l a c e h i s head i n t h e window of t h e S c h u l t z a u t o -
m o b i l e t o s e e i f he c o u l d d e t e c t t h e o d o r of m a r i j u a n a .
Upon o b t a i n i n g O f f i c e r Babb's c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t h e t o o
d e t e c t e d t h e o d o r of m a r i j u a n a , O f f i c e r LaBane r e q u e s t e d
S c h u l t z ' s p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h t h e a u t o m o b i l e . When permis-
s i o n was d e n i e d , O f f i c e r LaBane proceeded t o s e a r c h t h e
automobile. M a r i j u a n a , m e l l a r i l p i l l s and d r u g smoking
p a r a p h e r n a l i a were found i n t h e r e a r s e a t of t h e a u t o m o b i l e .
A h a s h i s h p i p e was found on t h e f l o o r b e s i d e t h e f r o n t
passenger s e a t . O f f i c e r LaBane r e t u r n e d t o h i s p a t r o l c a r
and f o r m a l l y a r r e s t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s and f e m a l e j u v e n i l e ,
based upon t h e e v i d e n c e c o n f i s c a t e d i n h i s s e a r c h . A
wrecker was d i s p a t c h e d t o p i c k up t h e c a r and i t was impounded
a t the police station. Upon a r r i v a l a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n ,
O f f i c e r Babb conducted a body s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t s which
d i s c l o s e d a " w h i t e r o c k " m a r i j u a n a p i p e found i n t h e p a n t s
p o c k e t of S c h o e n d a l l e r .
On F e b r u a r y 8, 1977, d e f e n d a n t s were c h a r g e d i n j u s t i c e
c o u r t , G l a c i e r County, f o r t h e misdemeanor c r i m e of c r i m i n a l
p o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b s e -
quently granted t h e S t a t e leave t o f i l e Informations charging
defendants. On F e b r u a r y , 23, 1977, t h e G l a c i e r County
attorney f i l e d Informations charging defendants with t h e
c r i m e of c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s ( a q u a n t i t y
of m a r i j u a n a weighing less t h a n 6 0 g r a m s ) , a misdemeanor i n
v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 54-133, R.C.M. 1947. Defendants e n t e r e d
p l e a s o f n o t g u i l t y and e n t e r e d m o t i o n s t o s u p p r e s s a l l
e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d by t h e p o l i c e w i t h o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t .
The c a u s e s were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e of h e a r i n g t h e
motions t o s u p p r e s s .
On A p r i l 6 , 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t conducted a h e a r i n g
on t h e motions t o s u p p r e s s . B r i e f s i n s u p p o r t of and i n
o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n s t o s u p p r e s s were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e
D i s t r i c t Court. On J u l y 11, 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d
i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and o r d e r g r a n t i n g
S c h u l t z ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s on t h e g r o u n d s :
" * * * The s e i z i n g o f f i c e r , by h i s t e s t i m o n y and
c o n d u c t , d i d n o t have r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e
t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e a u t o m o b i l e o f f e n d e d a g a i n s t
the law. Therefore, probable cause s u f f i c i e n t
f o r a s e a r c h , s e p a r a t e from p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r
an arrest, d i d n o t e x i s t . "
On t h e same day, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s of
f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and o r d e r g r a n t i n g S c h o e n d a l l e r ' s
motion t o s u p p r e s s and motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e same grounds
and added:
" * * * To b r i n g a charge a g a i n s t t h e defendant
h e r e i n , more t h a n mere p r e s e n c e i n t h e p l a c e
where a s e a r c h i s made w i t h o u t f u r t h e r proof of
probable cause i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y an
arrest. "
The S t a t e r a i s e s two i s s u e s f o r review:
1. Whether a p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s d e t e c t i o n of t h e odor of
m a r i j u a n a emanating from i n s i d e a n a u t o m o b i l e i s s u f f i c i e n t
p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h of t h e a u t o m o b i l e
and t h e s u b s e q u e n t a r r e s t of t h e o c c u p a n t s on t h e b a s i s of
evidence seized i n t h e search?
2. Whether t h e p r e s e n c e of S c h o e n d a l l e r i n t h e a u t o -
m o b i l e c o n s t i t u t e d s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r (1) h i s
a r r e s t on t h e b a s i s of e v i d e n c e s e i z e d i n t h e w a r r a n t l e s s
s e a r c h of t h e a u t o m o b i l e and ( 2 ) t h e s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h of
h i s p e r s o n a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n and t h e s e i z u r e of e v i d e n c e ?
The law of s e a r c h and s e i z u r e i s c o d i f i e d as C h a p t e r 7 ,
T i t l e 95, Revised Codes of Montana. S e c t i o n 95-701, R.C.M.
1947, s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s :
" S e a r c h e s and seizures--when a u t h o r i z e d . A
s e a r c h of a p e r s o n , o b j e c t o r p l a c e may be made
and i n s t r u m e n t s , a r t i c l e s o r t h i n g s may be
s e i z e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
t h i s c h a p t e r when t h e s e a r c h i s made:
"(a) A s an i n c i d e n t t o a lawful a r r e s t .
" ( b ) With t h e c o n s e n t of t h e a c c u s e d o r
of any o t h e r p e r s o n who i s l a w f u l l y i n pos-
s e s s i o n of t h e o b j e c t o r p l a c e t o b e s e a r c h e d ,
o r who i s b e l i e v e d upon r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o be i n
such l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n by t h e p e r s o n making
t h e search.
" (c) By t h e a u t h o r i t y of a s e a r c h
warrant.
" ( d ) Under t h e a u t h o r i t y and w i t h i n
t h e s c o p e of a r i g h t of l a w f u l i n s p e c t i o n
g r a n t e d by law."
The f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e d e m o n s t r a t e a c l e a r a b s e n c e o f
e i t h e r s e a r c h and s e i z u r e i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t ,
consent o r search pursuant t o a v a l i d search warrant. Thus,
t h e q u e s t i o n becomes whether t h e i n s t a n t s e a r c h and s e i z u r e
i s a u t h o r i z e d under s u b p a r a g r a p h ( d ) , " * * * within the
s c o p e o f a r i g h t of l a w f u l i n s p e c t i o n g r a n t e d by law."
The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t l o n g ago announced t h e
r u l e of law a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h and s e i z u r e
of an automobile:
"On r e a s o n and a u t h o r i t y t h e t r u e r u l e
i s t h a t i f t h e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e w i t h o u t a
w a r r a n t a r e made upon p r o b a b l e c a u s e , t h a t
i s , upon a b e l i e f , r e a s o n a b l y a r i s i n g o u t of
c i r c u m s t a n c e s known t o t h e s e i z i n g o f f i c e r ,
t h a t an automobile o r o t h e r v e h i c l e c o n t a i n s
t h a t which by l a w i s s u b j e c t t o s e i z u r e and
d e s t r u c t i o n , t h e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e a r e v a l i d .
The F o u r t h Amendment i s t o b e c o n s t r u e d i n
t h e l i g h t of what w a s deemed a n u n r e a s o n a b l e
s e a r c h and s e i z u r e when i t was a d o p t e d , and
i n a manner which w i l l c o n s e r v e p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t s a s w e l l a s t h e i n t e r e s t s and
r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s .
" * * * I n c a s e s where t h e s e c u r i n g of a
w a r r a n t i s r e a s o n a b l y p r a c t i c a b l e , i t must be
u s e d , and when p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t
and i s s u e d a f t e r j u d i c i a l a p p r o v a l p r o t e c t s t h e
s e i z i n g o f f i c e r a g a i n s t a s u i t f o r damages. I n
c a s e s where s e i z u r e i s i m p o s s i b l e e x c e p t w i t h o u t
w a r r a n t , t h e s e i z i n g o f f i c e r a c t s u n l a w f u l l y and
a t h i s p e r i l u n l e s s he c a n show t h e c o u r t p r o b a b l e
cause." C a r r o l l v . United S t a t e s , ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 267
U.S. 132, 1 4 9 , 1 5 6 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543,
549, 552.
C a r r o l l and i t s progeny c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h t h e r i g h t
t o s e a r c h a n a u t o m o b i l e and s e i z e e v i d e n c e from t h e r i g h t t o
arrest:
" * * * The r i g h t t o s e a r c h and t h e v a l i d i t y
o f t h e s e i z u r e a r e n o t dependent on t h e r i g h t t o
a r r e s t . They a r e d e p e n d e n t on t h e r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e
t h e s e i z i n g o f f i c e r h a s f o r b e l i e f t h a t t h e con-
t e n t s of t h e a u t o m o b i l e o f f e n d a g a i n s t t h e law."
267 U.S. 158, 159.
See a l s o : Chambers v . Maroney, ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 399 U.S. 42, 90
S.Ct. 1975, 26 L ed 2d 419; Coolidge v. N e w Hampshire,
( 1 9 7 1 ) , 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L ed 2d 564.
W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s i n i t i a l d e t e n t i o n
of d e f e n d a n t s . S c h u l t z was i n v i o l a t i o n of a Cut Bank c i t y
o r d i n a n c e when h e s t o p p e d h i s v e h i c l e i n t h e s t r e e t f o r t h e
p u r p o s e of c o n v e r s i n g w i t h t h e d r i v e r of a n o t h e r v e h i c l e ,
s i m i l a r l y blocking t h e s t r e e t . The c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n i s
whether t h e o f f i c e r ' s d e t e c t i o n of t h e o l d o d o r of i n c e n s e
and m a r i j u a n a smoked sometime i n t h e p a s t emanating from
t h e automobile i s s u f f i c i e n t probable cause f o r O f f i c e r
LaBanels e n t r y i n t o t h e a u t o m o b i l e , l a c k i n g any e x i g e n t
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , f o r t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h of t h e a u t o m o b i l e
and t h e s u b s e q u e n t a r r e s t of t h e o c c u p a n t s on t h e b a s i s of
evidence seized i n t h e search.
I n S t a t e v . Spielmann, C h r i s t e n s o n , ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont.
1 9 9 , 205, 516 P.2d 617, t h i s C o u r t c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l t h e
following d e f i n i t i o n of probable cause:
"One need n o t have e v i d e n c e which would j u s t i f y
conviction; probable cause e x i s t s i f t h e f a c t s
and c i r c u m s t a n c e s known t o t h e o f f i c e r would
w a r r a n t a p r u d e n t man i n b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e
o f f e n s e h a s been o r i s b e i n g committed. On t h e
o t h e r hand, p r o b a b l e c a u s e means more t h a n a
b a r e s u s p i c i o n , t h e l i n e between mere s u s p i -
c i o n and p r o b a b l e c a u s e 'must b e drawn by a n
a c t o f judgment formed i n t h e l i g h t of t h e
p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n and w i t h a c c o u n t t a k e n
of a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' " United S t a t e s v.
Thompson, ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) , 420 F.2d 536, 539.
The S t a t e h a s c i t e d some b o r d e r p a t r o l c a s e s which
i n v o l v e smoke and b u r n i n g m a r i j u a n a b u t t h e s e a r e e a s i l y
d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e by v i r t u e of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t i n g a t
n a t i o n a l b o r d e r s i n t e r m s of n a t i o n a l s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n . ~ u t
those lawfully within t h e country, e n t i t l e d t o use t h e
p u b l i c highways, have a r i g h t t o f r e e p a s s a g e w i t h o u t
i n t e r r u p t i o n o r s e a r c h u n l e s s a competent o f f i c i a l a u t h o r i z e d
t o search has probable cause f o r believing t h a t v e h i c l e s a r e
c a r r y i n g c o n t r a b a n d o r i l l e g a l merchandise. Carroll v.
U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a . The b o r d e r p a t r o l c a s e s a r e n o t p e r s u a s i v e
when a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i n l i g h t of
r i g h t t o p r i v a c y and s e a r c h and s e i z u r e p r o t e c t i o n s g u a r a n t e e d
by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e 1972 Montana
Constitution.
A d d i t i o n a l c a s e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by t h e S t a t e i n v o l v e s
w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s conducted a f t e r i n v e s t i g a t o r y o f f i c i a l s
under d i f f e r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s d e t e c t e d t h e o d o r of p r e s e n t l y
burning marijuana. Here, O f f i c e r LaBane t e s t i f i e d a t t h e
suppression hearing: " I asked f o r M r . Schultz's driver's
l i c e n s e and a t t h e same t i m e I s m e l l e d a s t r o n g o d o r of
m a r i j u a n a i n t h e c a r a l o n g w i t h t h a t of some i n c e n s e o r
something, and * * * ." O f f i c e r LaBane f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d
t h a t a l t h o u g h m a r i j u a n a h a s a v e r y d i s t i n c t i v e o d o r , he
c o u l d n o t d e t e r m i n e whether d e f e n d a n t s were smoking m a r i j u a n a
when t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s came upon them o r whether m a r i j u a n a
had been smoked i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e w i t h i n t h e p r e v i o u s hour
o r more. O f f i c e r LaBane d i d a g r e e t h a t t h e mere o d o r of
m a r i j u a n a m i g h t l i n g e r i n a n a u t o m o b i l e f o r more t h a n a day.
The p o l i c e conducted t h e i r w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h on t h e
b a s i s of "* * * a s t r o n g o d o r of m a r i j u a n a i n t h e c a r a l o n g
w i t h t h a t of some i n c e n s e o r something* * *" and l a c k i n g any
e x i g e n t circumstances, such perception f a l l s c l o s e r t o t h e
realm of b a r e s u s p i c i o n than probable cause. W e do n o t deny
p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t h e r i g h t t o r e l y on t h e i r s e n s e of s m e l l t o
confirm t h e i r observations. However, t o h o l d t h a t a n o d o r
a l o n e , a b s e n t e v i d e n c e of v i s i b l e c o n t e n t s , i s deemed e q u i -
v a l e n t t o p l a i n view m i g h t v e r y e a s i l y m i s l e a d o f f i c e r s i n t o
f r u i t l e s s i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y where t h e r e i s no c o n t r a b a n d .
There i s v e r y l i t t l e d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e
law i n t h i s m a t t e r . However, c l o s e q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t s i t s e l f
on t h e f a c t s i n v o l v e d . Again, t h i s C o u r t i s f a c e d w i t h a
c o l d r e c o r d , w h i l e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r d t h e e v i d e n c e and
had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e t h e demeanor and c o n d u c t of
each witness. A s a r e s u l t t h e law i n s t r u c t s t h i s C o u r t t h a t
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment comes t o u s w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n
of c o r r e c t n e s s and t h e S t a t e h e r e must overcome t h i s presumption
by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e . T h i s burden h a s n o t been
met.
T h e r e f o r e we must c o n c l u d e t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t
have s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h t h e a u t o m o b i l e
d r i v e n by S c h u l t z . Evidence u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y s e i z e d
d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h was p r o p e r l y s u p p r e s s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t
Court. S i n c e t h e s u b s e q u e n t a r r e s t of S c h o e n d a l l e r and t h e
s e a r c h of h i s p e r s o n was t h e f r u i t of t h e u n l a w f u l s e a r c h
and s e i z u r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y s u p p r e s s e d e v i d e n c e
s e i z e d from S c h o e n d a l l e r and p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d S c h o e n d a l l e r ' s
motion t o d i s m i s s .
The o r d e r s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
motions t o s u p p r e s s and S c h o e n d a l l e r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s a r e
affirmed.
/
Justice
W Concur:
e
Chief J u s t i c g
4
I
Hon.' L. Cf; Gulbrandson, D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g i n t h e vacant s e a t
of t h e C o u r t .
M r . J u s t i c e John C . Harrison d i s s e n t i n g :
I dissent. This Court has twice i n t h e r e c e n t p a s t d e a l t
with cases considering whether t h e odor of marihuana c o n s t i t u t e s
probable cause f o r a r r e s t and search. S t a t e v. H u l l , (1971),
158 Mont. 6 , 487 P.2d 1314; S t a t e v. Bennett, (1972), 158 Mont.
496, 493 P.2d 1077. While i n Hull t h e o f f i c e r s had been n o t i f i e d
t h a t a pot p a r t y was i n p r o g r e s s , a f a c t n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e
i n s t a n t c a s e , one of t h e c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r s i n t h i s C o u r t ' s
a f f i r m i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n was t h e aroma of burning o r b u r n t
marihuana emanating from t h e residence. There, l i k e h e r e , no
marihuana o r hashish was v i s i b l e when t h e o f f i c e r s went i n t o
t h e home.
I n Bennett, t h e o f f i c e r s smelled t h e marihuana when they
e n t e r e d t h e apartment b u i l d i n g , and b e f o r e going u p s t a i r s t o t h e
apartment occupied by t h e defendants. -
While Hull and Bennett
d i f f e r f a c t u a l l y from t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , I b e l i e v e they have u n t i l
now stood f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e odor of burning o r b u r n t
marihuana g i v e s o f f i c e r s probable cause t o s e a r c h and a r r e s t .
C a l i f o r n i a , i n an opium c a s e , found s u f f i c i e n t cause t o
s e a r c h and a r r e s t i n People v. Bock Leung Chew, (1956), 142 Cal.
App.2d 400, 298 P.2d 118. Also C a l i f o r n i a , i n a c a s e where
t h e smell of marihuana odors came from a h o t e l room, t h e c o u r t
upheld a c o n v i c t i o n . V a i l l a n c o u r t v. S u p e r i o r Court f o r County of
P l a c e r , 273 Cal.App.2d 791, 78 C a l i f . Rptr. 615 (1969).
I n Arizona t h e c o u r t allowed t h e s e a r c h of ax automobile
trunk from which a "very f a i n t 1 ' odor of marihuana was d e t e c t e d .
S t a t e v. Zamora, (1977), 114 Ariz. 75, 559 P.2d 195, 197. This
c a s e , l i k e t h e one b e f o r e u s , was an automobile case and I would
adhere t o t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e , t h a t :
"* * * The odor of marijuana i s i n i t s e l f
enough t o provide probable c a u s e t o i n i t i a t e
a search. *** Nor i s t h e r e any requirement
t h a t i t be a s t r o n g odor. 11
P o l i c e o f f i c e r s have t o use n o t o n l y good judgment
i n h a n d l i n g c a s e s of t h i s t y p e , b u t must r e l y much on t h e i r
three senses - s i g h t , s m e l l and h e a r i n g . To l i m i t them t o
s i g h t and h e a r i n g , and n o t s m e l l w i l l , i n m o p i n i o n , make t h e i r
y
d i f f i c u l t t a s k even more d i f f i c u l t .
I would o v e r r u l e t h e D i s t r i c t Court and r e i n s t a t e t h e
S t a t e ' s criminal charge.