STATE v. LADMIRAULT (2026)

Writ granted. Detection of the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle provides officers with probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle. State v. Arnold, 11-0626 (La. 4/27/11), 60 So. 3d 599, 600 (per curiam); State v. Allen, 10-1016 (La. 5/7/10), 55 So. 3d 756 (per curiam). The scope of the warrantless search of a vehicle is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted, but rather, is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe it may be found. That is, 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. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 570, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 1986, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2173, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); State v. Lacrosse, 19-599 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/7/20), 2020 WL 88838, *3 (unpublished) (the smell of marijuana provided the officer with sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the entire vehicle, including the trunk and backpack located therein). Further, the fact that the exact object of the search is not found does not vitiate probable cause to search. See State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La. 1/16/08), 976 So. 2d 109, 122 (“Determination of probable cause ․turns on a completely objective evaluation of all the circumstances known to the officer at the time of his challenged action.”); United States v. Reed, 882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1989) (“the presence or absence of probable cause to search is not determined by what the search does or does not ultimately reveal”).

In this case, after detecting the odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant's lawfully stopped vehicle, the officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the entire vehicle, including any containers therein capable of concealing evidence of narcotics. The fact that no marijuana was found is immaterial to the initial determination of probable cause. The district court committed legal error in holding that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for only a limited search and in factoring the result of the search into the probable cause determination.

Considering the district court's legal error in analyzing the issues presented, and considering the particular facts of this case demonstrate the fentanyl was seized during a lawful search of the vehicle, the State's writ is granted and the district court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this per curiam.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

PER CURIAM

Griffin, J., dissents and would deny. Guidry, J., dissents and would deny. Hughes, J., concurs in the result.