Opinion ID: 1133555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the search of the vehicle was in violation of federal and state constitutions requiring the fruit of the search to be excluded from evidence.

Text: ¶ 14. Blissett asserts that since the search did not fall into any recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, the marijuana seized in the search should have been suppressed. [1] ¶ 15. However, police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle as thorough as a magistrate could authorized by warrant. Fleming v. State, 502 So.2d 327, 329 (Miss.1987) (quoting Roby v. State, 419 So.2d 1036, 1038 (Miss.1982)); see also United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (stop of vehicle based on probable cause justifies a search of every part of a vehicle that may conceal the object of the search). ¶ 16. Blissett was following a vehicle too closely and changing lanes without signaling. The rental agreement showed that Blissett was not an authorized driver and that the vehicle was overdue for return. It was therefore reasonable for the officer to detain Blissett until he could determine whether the car was stolen. Further, a strong, overpowering odor of unburned marijuana has been held to be probable cause to conduct a search. Hart v. State, 639 So.2d 1313, 1315 (Miss.1994); Boches v. State, 506 So.2d 254, 264 (Miss.1987); Fleming, 502 So.2d at 329. Therefore, even without Blissett's consent, which is disputed, there was sufficient proof through the smell of marijuana to give probable cause to search of the vehicle. Blissett's contention that the evidence must be suppressed is without merit.