166 Md. App. 230 - State v. Harding’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Any question as to whether the odor of marijuana alone can provide a police officer probable cause to search a vehicle was dispelled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 482 , 105 S.Ct. 881 , 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985), where Justice O’Connor wrote for the Court: “After the officers came closer and detected the distinct odor of marijuana, they had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband.” To similar effect, see Ford v. State, 37 Md.App. 373, 379 , 377 A.2d 577 (“knowledge gained from the sense of smell alone may be of such character as to give rise to probable cause for a belief that a crime is being committed in the presence of the officer”), cert. denied, 281 Md. 737 (1977). See also United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (smell of mash whiskey); Seldon v. State, 151 Md. App. 204, 232 , 824 A.2d 999 (odor of cocaine, if believed, would have established probable cause), cert. denied, 377 Md. 114 , 832 A.2d 206 (2003); Mullaney v. State, 5 Md.App. 248, 257 , 246 A.2d 291 (1968) (“That the smell of distinctive odors can constitute evidence of crime and of probable cause is well settled.”), cert. denied, 252 Md. 732 (1969); Andrea L. Ben-Yosef, Annotation, Validity of Warrantless Search of Motor Vehicle Based on Odor of Marijuana-State Cases, 114 A.L.R.5th 173 , 189 (2003) (“The majority of courts have found that the odor of marijuana alone supplies the probable cause for a warrantless sea”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 237 Md. App. 661 - Lewis v. State · 174 Md. App. 434 - Wilson v. State

2. “The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile ... is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. Just as probable cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Md. App. 434 - Wilson v. State