STATE v. GAUS

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fields

    2016 Ohio 3127 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    In cases where no testimony is adduced regarding an officer's training, experience, or qualifications in detecting and identifying the odor of marijuana, reviewing courts have held that suppression is proper when the sole basis for arrest is the smell or presence of marijuana. See State v. Bradley, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2003-CA-0040, 2003-Ohio-5914 (no evidence presented at the suppression hearing); State v. Gaus, 4th Dist. Ross No. 00CA2546, 2001 WL 1913831 (Mar. 21, 2001) (Same). State v. Mansour, 12th Dist. Warren No. 2015-06-051, 2016-Ohio-755.

  2. State v. Mansour

    2016 Ohio 755 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    In cases where no testimony is adduced regarding an officer's training, experience, or qualifications in detecting and identifying the odor of marijuana, reviewing courts have held that suppression is proper when the sole basis for arrest is the smell or presence of marijuana. See State v. Bradley, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2003-CA-0040, 2003-Ohio-5914 (no evidence presented at the suppression hearing); State v. Gaus, 4th Dist. Ross No. 00CA2546, 2001 WL 1913831 (Mar. 21, 2001) (Same). Such is not the case here.

  3. State v. Coston

    2006 Ohio 3961 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    In State v. Coston, 168 Ohio App.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-3961, the court held that "[t]he officer had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle upon smelling the marijuana, and since the officer was entitled to search every part of the defendant's passenger compartment that could conceal the marijuana, the officer was properly able to search under the floor mat where the gun was found."

    Id. at ¶ 26, quoting Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 734 N.E.2d 804, syllabus. {¶ 22} Lastly, appellee cites State v. Gaus (Mar. 21, 2001), Ross App. No. 00CA2546, 2001 WL 1913831, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that a law-enforcement officer improperly detained a driver and a passenger so that the officer could obtain a drug-sniffing dog to investigate drugs in a vehicle. The officer thought that she smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle.

  4. State v. Israel

    Appeal No. C-020342, Trial No. B-0200131 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2003)

    But to detain the occupant, the officer must demonstrate specific and articulable facts that, when considered with the rational inferences to be drawn therefrom, would justify a reasonable suspicion that the person detained is engaging in criminal activity. See State v. Gaus (Mar. 21, 2001), 4th Dist. No. 00CA2546. Id.