Opinion ID: 2975951
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Marijuana Odor

Text: Yarbrough’s final argument focuses on the odor of marijuana outside the home. Yarbrough argues that Officer Habel’s claim that he smelled marijuana is deficient in several respects. First, Yarbrough puts great stock in Officer Habel’s testimony that he cannot tell the difference between burnt and burning marijuana. We fail to understand the relevance of this 10 distinction. Marijuana, whether burnt or burning, is illegal and contributes to a finding of probable cause. Second, Yarbrough points out that no other officers testified to the smell of marijuana outside the residence. While this is true, it is of no consequence. Two other officers were with Officer Habel when he smelled the marijuana. Officer Moore never testified that he did not smell marijuana outside the residence; he simply never was asked. The other officer on the scene did not testify at all. Thus, contrary to Yarbrough’s assertions, Officer Habel’s testimony about the odor of marijuana was not contradicted by his fellow officers. And as we discussed in Elkins, the odor of marijuana at a residence contributes to a finding of probable cause. 300 F.3d at 659-60. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the corroboration of the tip, the presence of marijuana in the vehicle, and the odor of marijuana outside the residence, we find that the magistrate judge had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed to issue a search warrant. Accordingly, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.