Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better.

> The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition.

so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant.

> Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time

Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used flock to find a pattern of coming/going over the state line. I'm guessing they stationed someone nearby to wait for a flock alert and arrest him.

The following is total speculation on my part: The police are including the "Based on prior flock hits, the vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there." to build probable cause for searching the car and finding the marijuana.

Otherwise the only PC is: "He declined consent to search his vehicle. However, DeputyKowalski informed him he would be conducting a search of his vehicle due to the odor of marijuana".

Maybe the olfactory skills of officers are so dubious that courts need more facts than just an odor? That'd be my guess.

direct link to the complaint (it's also embedded in the article) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671...

▲

mixdup 7 hours ago | parent [-]

They don't need probable cause to search his vehicle if he had a warrant. They can search his car because they are arresting him and towing the vehicle

▲

cogman10 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> They don't need probable cause to search his vehicle if he had a warrant.

Incorrect. Warrants have to be specific. An arrest warrant is not a general search warrant (in fact, general search warrants aren't legal). You don't lose your rights because a cop is arresting you.

Now, what can happen (and probably would happen) is the cops can take a drug sniffing dog to the car when it goes to impound and while the owner isn't there and claim "Oh, the dog signaled on the car so we searched it".

▲

c22 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's called an "Inventory Search": https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/tra...

	▲	cogman10 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Alright, thanks. I was unaware of this exception.

▲

jimt1234 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cops have used the "odor of marijuana" for years as probable cause to search vehicles. AFAIK the courts have generally supported it.

	▲	cogman10 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It depends on the federal district you are in. It also can depend on the state you are currently in. For example, in the 3rd district in New Jersey the odor is not enough because MJ is legal in NJ. Looks like for this specific case odor is enough. [1] [1] https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Ar...