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...