I I think it's important because this is a trainee and if he thinks that if he isn't trained enough to know that he can't go into compartments or if the officer who's training him doesn't know that he can't go into compartments constitutionally, I would be concerned and I would like for him to read the law. Oh, I have [Music] I recently released the video that you're watching in the background now where officers stopped a vehicle for a window tent violation, then use the odor of burnt marijuana as probable cause to search the vehicle. There were a lot of people with YouTube law degrees commenting that it was an illegal search and that the case would be thrown out. There was also a person with an actual law degree who made similar comments on a similar case. This is Columbus Police Civilian Review Board member Mary Younger. Miss Younger is a retired defense attorney who worked for the public defenders office in Franklin County. During a recent civilian review board meeting, she suggested that officers who searched a vehicle based on the odor of burnt marijuana need to learn the law. Here is a clip of her saying as much. The focus officer in here I believe um went into the compartment in the automobile and and I when I read it, I couldn't figure out what the reason was for the officers to search the automobile. there was marijuana uh odor and they they even if they were smoking the marijuana, what would the reason have been that if so what it looks like here for um Mr. Tobias, just for your benefit, the only uh justification for doing a search was that the um marijuana was alleged to have smelled burnt. So instead of um just simply possession, which is not against the law, um the allegation was that he was smoking while driving. And so that and and I'm not sure if we can do this, but but he was training another officer in this particular situation here. So uh and that was the reason why they double searched this particular individual. And I'm thinking that if this focus officer is training someone and he is um not he does not know the search and seizure laws that even though this wasn't and I'm not sure if we can do this that's why I need your your your help here. uh that he should maybe be instructed to take lessons in the search and seizure law because he cannot be training individuals on the search and seizure laws if he is going to be searching automobile compartments without unconstitutionally illegally. In a moment, I'm going to direct you to the Columbus Police Legal Update. This is a document that is available online and I've already linked in the video description. Now, I would like to also point out to everyone listening that smoking marijuana in Ohio is legal, just like drinking alcohol. But also like alcohol, you cannot smoke while driving. If an officer smells alcohol coming from the passenger compartment of a vehicle, he can search that vehicle. The same can be said for marijuana. And here is what the courts have had to say about this. This legal update was provided for the Columbus Division of Police by the City Attorney's Office. These updates include recent court decisions and make officers aware of the most recent information while they're doing their job. The update from April 5th, 2024 has a case that is incredibly similar to the case that was in my YouTube video and the case that Mary Younger was complaining about. The case is United States versus Dunlap. It was heard in the US Southern District of Ohio in 2024. This case involves Columbus police officers, so it is incredibly relevant. In this case, officers stopped a vehicle for dark tinted windows, used the smell of burnt marijuana as probable cause to enter and search the vehicle, where they found a fanny pack containing crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentinyl. The occupants of the vehicle were charged and convicted. This was a federal case. So, the defendants appealed in federal court. In the legal update under the heading, "Was the warrantless search of the vehicle valid and supported by probable cause?" It reads, "Yes, the evidence seized from the subsequent search of the sedan was not suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree because the stop was valid and because the search was reasonable under the automobile exception." The automobile exception allows an officer to perform a warrantless search of a detained vehicle when the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity. When probable cause is present for the automobile exception, police may search any area of the vehicle in which evidence might be found. Here, the officer notified Mr. Dunlap and the driver that he smelled burnt marijuana. The driver confirmed that they had recently smoked marijuana. The smell of marijuana emanating from a vehicle and its occupants is sufficient to establish probable cause to search the vehicle. This search was proper. I mentioned before that the information provided to the officers as training material is also available online. There is no excuse for a retired attorney and member of the civilian review board for not knowing this information. She accused officers of not knowing the law. She needs to take a moment and look in a mirror. She also needs to learn the law. [Music] [Music]