We may not second-guess counsel's trial strategy. ( People v. Simms (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 299, 316 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 1].) Finally, to paraphrase People v. Gann (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 814 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 502], defendant brought about his situation and no attorney could be expected to extricate him by magic. Trial counsel did all he could with the facts he had to work with.
Upon searching the vehicle and finding the marijuana, the officers were clearly justified in placing the occupants under arrest. ( People v. Nichols, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 173; People v. White (1969) 71 Cal.2d 80, 82-83 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 208, 453 P.2d 600]; and People v. Gann (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 812-813 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 502].) Having arrested the appellants, the officers were justified in continuing the search as an incident of that arrest.
In that situation, if Wibe was lawfully in the position from which he smelled the marijuana and had not been a party to the opening of the door which released the odor of marijuana, there existed probable cause to arrest the possessors if they were present. ( People v. Bock Leung Chew, 142 Cal.App.2d 400 [ 298 P.2d 118]; People v. Gann, 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 812-813 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 502]; People v. Legg, 258 Cal.App.2d 52 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 541].) However, neither probable cause to believe a felony was being committed, nor probable cause to arrest, alone or in combination, justifies a failure to observe the requirements of Penal Code, section 844.
(1) The odor of marijuana justified the officer's belief that marijuana was in the house. ( Vaillancourt v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 791 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 615]; People v. Gann (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 811 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 502].) The fact that defendant opened the door and acknowledged that he lived there supported the belief that he was jointly or constructively in possession of any narcotics which were inside.
) We therefore conclude that the officers did have probable cause to effect an arrest. (See, People v. Gann (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 812 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 502]; People v. Barcenas (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 405 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 419].) [2] As to the occupancy of the room, the test of whether the officers may enter a dwelling to make an arrest is dependent upon the reasonableness of their belief in occupancy.
The fact that the smoke was produced by burning marijuana rather than ordinary tobacco was within the expertise of the officers. ( People v. Gann, 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 812-813 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 502].) One officer then asked defendant to get out of the car, which defendant did.
Defendant did not raise the issue of a knock-notice violation at the suppression hearing and thus the issue has been forfeited. (People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130; People v. Gann (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 813.) Defendant argues, however, that this court may reach the merits, because the issue is a question of law based on undisputed facts.
The officers thus had legal cause to arrest the offenders. (People v. Nichols, supra; People v. Layne, 235 Cal.App.2d 188, 193, 45 Cal.Rptr. 110; Vaillancourt v. Superior Court, 273 Cal.App.2d 791, 797, 78 Cal.Rptr. 615; People v. Gann, 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 812-813, 73 Cal.Rptr. 502.) Assuming however, that they did not, at that time, have cause to arrest the occupants of the car, the officers, having smelled the burning marijuana in the car, were justified in searching it since they had reasonable and probable cause to believe that the search would produce either the instrumentality of, or evidence of the crime.