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.
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.
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.
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.