You are here: / / AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S...
,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED UPON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY HE WAS QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the traffic stop was proper (inoperable brake light) but the search of defendant’s person, based on the odor of marijuana, was not:

… [T]he officer’s testimony was insufficient to establish that there was probable cause for the search of the defendant’s person. As the law existed in 2020, “the odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, [was alone] sufficient to constitute probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, however, the officer did not testify that he had any training or experience in detecting the odor of marihuana … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. People v McLeod, 2025 NY Slip Op 01108, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Under the law as it was in 2020, the search of a person could be justified by the odor of marijuana, but only if the officer was qualified by training and experience to recognize the odor of marijuana. Here the officer did not testify he was qualified to recognize the odor of marihuana. Therefore, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted.

 

You might also like
PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM ‘STATUTORY RAPE’ TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
“Emergency Exception” to Rule Hospital Is Not Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Non-Employee Physicians Did Not Apply
Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
No Need to Demonstrate Detrimental Reliance to Recover for Misconduct by Notary Public 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING... SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS WHICH REPEAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT...