Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 1991, 114 L.Ed.2d 619, 634 (1991) ; State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App.1997). Under the automobile exception, police may search an automobile when they have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband or evidence of a crime.
The probable cause developed by the odor of marijuana did not limit the search to any specific area of Kent's vehicle, but instead gave the officer the right to search every part of the vehicle that may conceal marijuana. Ross, 456 U.S. at 825; State v. Anderson, 154 Idaho 703, 706-708, 302 P.3d 328, 331-333 (2012); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 864, 934 P.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1997); Gonzales, 117 Idaho at 520, 789 P.2d at 208. "The smell of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless search."
The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App. 1997). Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Where a ruling in a criminal case is correct, though based upon an incorrect reason, it still may be sustained upon an alternative theory. State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App. 1997); State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96, 102, 685 P.2d 837, 843 (Ct.App. 1984). The alternative theory need not have been raised before the trial court.
The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App.1997). The automobile exception is specifically established and well-delineated.
The officer's determination of probable cause must be based on objective facts which would be sufficient to convince a magistrate to issue a warrant under similar circumstances. Ross , 456 U.S. at 808, 102 S.Ct. 2157 ; State v. Murphy , 129 Idaho 861, 864, 934 P.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1997). In Wyoming v. Houghton , 526 U.S. 295, 302, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999), the Supreme Court held that, when there is probable cause to search for contraband in an automobile, it is reasonable for officers to search the containers in the automobile without showing individualized probable cause for each container.
Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 1991, 114 L.Ed.2d 619, 634 (1991) ; State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App.1997). The automobile exception is specifically established and well-delineated.
Neither test depends on the individual officer's subjective thoughts nor upon the bases previously offered by the state to justify the stop. Deen v. State, 131 Idaho 435, 436, 958 P.2d 592, 593 (1998) (reasonable suspicion); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863–64, 934 P.2d 34, 36–37 (Ct.App.1997) (probable cause). Thus, in determining whether a traffic stop constituted a lawful seizure, courts freely apply relevant law to the objective facts presented, unconstrained by law enforcement's reasoning.
Neither test depends on the individual officer's subjective thoughts nor upon the bases previously offered by the state to justify the stop. Deen v. State, 131 Idaho 435, 436, 958 P.2d 592, 593 (1998) (reasonable suspicion); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863–64, 934 P.2d 34, 36–37 (Ct.App.1997) (probable cause). Thus, in determining whether a traffic stop constituted a lawful seizure, courts freely apply relevant law to the objective facts presented, unconstrained by law enforcement's reasoning.
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983). If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 864, 934 P.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1997). The Idaho Supreme Court has held that an alert by a reliable, trained canine indicating the presence of drugs is sufficient to create probable cause for a search.