Opinion ID: 1965440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: People v. Taylor

Text: In People v. Taylor , the four-justice majority rejected the claim that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to provide probable cause to conduct a search of a motor vehicle without a warrant. Rather, the majority indicated that the smell of marijuana was but one factor to consider in the totality of the circumstances. In a key passage, the majority stated: The [ Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 466, 76 L.Ed. 951 (1932)] Court stated: Prohibition officers may rely on a distinctive odor as a physical fact indicative of possible crime; but its presence alone does not strip the owner of a building of constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search. [ Id. at 6, 52 S.Ct. 466.] Later, in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948), the Court reiterated that Taylor held only that odors alone do not authorize a search without warrant. If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance, this Court has never held such a basis insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant. Indeed it might very well be found to be evidence of most persuasive character. Because the United States Supreme Court has held that odor alone is not sufficient to authorize a search of a building without a warrant, we hold that odor alone is not sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle. Rather, as these cases indicate, odor should be but one factor to consider in a totality of the circumstances. [454 Mich. at 592-593, 564 N.W.2d 24 (emphasis added).]