issues there is a canine search which could probably because he gave voluntary consent is good so that it didn't quite turn on that issue but the court and hayden and you're right it's unpublished but the court did say that the district court credited the officers testimony that he smelled marijuana at the outset testimony that also provided so in addition to that the dog the officers with probable cause to search the entire car including the truck and any other compartments that sounds like it's more than coming pretty close oh no it certainly is right and there are a variety of other factors that would lead counsel to withdraw that circumvents counsel's anders reeve actually didn't include the trunk but it's cited cherry  was the passenger compartment wasn't drunk and mostly again was the interior of the call and there is a contents consent to search so we haven't squarely addressed it we may have a good idea of where it's going but i think that marijuana device probably cause to believe that somebody has been using marijuana in that car and so we can search any part of that car that might contain and i guess i don't have a lot of experience with smelling marijuana smoke coming from it but i do have it with cigarette smoke and if i smell cigarette smoke coming from a car is there a fair probability that i look in that person's trunk will i find out the dense of cigarette smoke this is all sort of  intuition you know what's our intuition about that the probability of that happening to me that probability seems very low because that a cigarette are legal so and that may be the critical distinction you know i guess i  draw upon the experience that we see in cases where we we have small amounts of marijuana which is i think all that the smell of burnt marrow we don't think we smell marijuana this person must be drunk we think they've got contraband  but in most cases where do we find the marijuana it's almost always in their pocket as in i think is most be it's in the center console glove compartment and this is part of you know we only get the cases that not sufficient to establish that level of probable cause you'd be it gets to reasonable suspicion it certainly suggests that somebody might have some in the passenger compartment because that's that's where you know this this there the search of the interior of the vehicle the interaction between the officer of the defendant with regard to expression of relief cetera followed by the officer then taking the key to open the tru or is that probability argument that you're offering exclusive of the facts that are presented well i think this is one of the areas of the th amendment where we sort of have categorical rules the debate is do we have a categorical rule saying this gives probably cause to search the entire car including the trunk or do you need something else and i think that as a categorical rule the smell of burnt marijuana by itself does not provide smell marijuana it's limited to the passenger and that that's the rule now there may be you know i don't see anything about this case that would provide probable cause to believe there's something there there are these you know  think on the reasoning with but you know a lot of cases that if we have probably cost to believe this person is transporting marijuana and it's why wouldn't we have probable cause to believe there might be marijuana elsewhere because that's the inference for making if  person has smoked marijuana in his car he must have done the somewhere else in the car so i you know i think maybe that inference then supports probable cause for the passenger can his personal use that he certainly could have it on and certainly justifies a search of his person it just seems to me that the probability that you're going to find evidence of marijuana possession in the trunk of somebodies car is just too  that interested me for legal perspective from a theoretical perspective what i found difficult and looking at that is really what type of rule is the th circuit provided because it says t rated evidence is more just quote personal use edition of personal use marijuana flakes maybe a burger joint etc does that allow you to get the truck and it's just it's not clear to be able to apply that standard and ask a law enforcement officer lawyer to look for more of what what is that more and what what really i found most problematic with the th circuit view is it's almost hearkening back to we have certain compartments and close containers that can be searched during a vehicle search and there are others that can't it's back to the days of chadwick and sanders and robins and let me give you that that compartment in the back of the s u v has d no more are no more no more or no less likely to contain marijuana than a trunk of a vehicle and yet under the th circuit's reasoning the law enforcement officer would be perfectly able to go into that recess compartments you the but not the trunk of a car and yet both of them are out of reach by that driver or we can even hide it more in that recess compartment of the s is locked again under the ten circuits reasoning that law can be broken and it can be searched because it's within the compartment passenger compartment and just i don't think there is a means of distinguishing about there being a canine really the th circuit ruling does not or gives nothing more than de minimus at most constitutional game let's take this case that had officer that made the stop had smelled marijuana but and searched the passenger compartment didn't find any more but at the same time it also called a canine who showed up with his handler and that canine then alerted on the car we don't know if that canines alert is confirmatory of the smell of burnt marijuana the smell of some other drug or a combination of both but i am fairly certain this assuming that canine is well trained that this court would affirm a search of the trunk based on that canines alert and so that the de minimus constitutional again is that i mean that canine  communicate why smell burnt marijuana we just know that alerted that would be enough to get into the trunk and i think it should be the same rule whether it's fresh marijuana or burp marijuana smelled by the by an officer because again he could just that it's on page nine of his testimony from june th he seemed relieved and had a smile on his face and then the prosecutor asked them what to do and he said i asked how do you get charged and then described  they didn't respond he looked shocked and so you know they had that too i mean even under the tents thank you something more that goes back to how what is that standard what is this something fair probability analysis i think there are fair probability that it's a legal amount but there's also a fair probability that it's an illegal limit and we're not talking about certainty or preponderance we're talking about fair probability  wrong as the simple possessions barred by federal law well it is but it's it's authorized by the state of illinois i mean i suppose this is a discussion that will need to be fully briefed you know i mean it's fascinating where this is going to go i don't know if it's going to lead to prosecutions or not you know simple possession of marijuana within the federal prosecutions that you know i mean i don't start choice right but i think the idea that i'm pushing back against is this idea is if there's a fair probability that it is legal and there's a very probability that is not authorized with is there probably because i don't i don't think there is i think you have to have something more than just well i don't know so i'm going to search and we certainly don't have to decide that question for  mind to it and even if you do is that probable cause of a crime that exact question exactly but you know if if it's no longer considered contraband and do we have different intuitions about where people hide because