Court Opinion

ID: 9507068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:18:06.370228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:14.541678
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HARRISON
dissenting:
I dissent. This Court has twice in the recent past dealt with cases considering whether the odor of marihuana constitutes probable cause for arrest and search. State v. Hull, (1971), 158 Mont. 6, 487 P.2d 1314; State v. Bennett, (1972), 158 Mont. 496, 493 P.2d 1077. While in Hull the officers had been notified that a pot party was in progress, a fact not present in the instant case, one of the controlling factors in this Court’s affirming the conviction was the aroma of burning or burnt marihuana emanating from the residence. There, like here, nor marihuana or hashish was visible when the officers went into the home.
In Bennett, the officers smelled the marihuana when they entered the apartment building, and before going upstairs to the apartment occupied by the defendants. While Hull and Bennett differ factually from the instant case, I believe they have until now stood for the proposition that the odor of burning or burnt marihuana gives officers probable cause to search and arrest.
California, in an opium case, found sufficient cause to search and arrest in People v. Bock Leung Chew, (1956), 142 Cal.App.2d 400, 298 P.2d 118. Also California, in a case where the smell of marihuana odors ccame from a hotel room, the court upheld a conviction. Vaillancourt v. Superior Court for County of Placer, 273 Cal.App.2d 791, 78 Cal.Rptr. 615 (1969).
In Arizona the court allowed the search of an automobile trunk from which a “very faint” odor of marihuana was detected. State v. Zamora, (App.1977), 114 Ariz. 75, 559 P.2d 195, 197. This case, like the one before us, was an automobile case and I would adhere to the rule established there, that:
“* * * The odor of marihuana is in itself enough to provide probable cause to initiate a search. * * * Nor is there any requirement that it be a strong odor.”
Police officers have to use not only good judgment in handling *384cases of this type, but must rely much on their three senses — sight, smell and hearing. To limit them to sight and hearing, and not smell will, in my opinion, make their difficult task even more difficult.
I would overrule the District Court and reinstate the State’s criminal charge.