Exigency

In this archive episode, Dennis explains exigency in regards to a time-sensitive situation regarding contraband. Recorded on 12/01/2017. State V. Nishina (2003) - This allows an officer to conduct an immediate search relying on training and experience, when the officer had probable cause to believe that a suspect is in possession of illegal narcotics and the officer detects the odor of marijuana on the suspects clothing. The courts have ruled this exigent circumstances and ruled that if a search warrant was sought the contraband could very well be consumed, hidden, or sold by the time one was issued. Search like incident to arrest. The odor of marijuana does not create exigency to warrant the entry of a home. State v George Myers 2015 The smell of marijuana itself can suffice to furnish probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, the smell of marijuana gave Trooper Gore (Who is a police officer just like you) the right to arrest defendant for committing an apparent marijuana offense in his presence "'The "in presence" requirement . . . is satisfied by the trooper's use of his sense of smell in much the same manner as if he had used his sight or hearing or touch[.]'" In any event, subject to any pertinent defenses, possession of any quantity of marijuana is an offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4). “The distinctive odor of burnt . . . marijuana'" is evidence of such possession. “A strong odor is [not] required"; detection of the "characteristic" "smell of burnt marijuana, by a trained and experienced State Trooper, emanating from the passenger compartment of a legally stopped motor vehicle, created probable cause to believe that a violation of law had been or was being committed." The appropriate charge is 2C: 35-10a4 P.C. on complaint is odor of marijuana STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. GEORGE A. MYERS :: 2015 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia