State v. Arivett

“[T]he smell of marijuana generally no longer has the significance it once had as a basis for reasonable suspicion, in light of decriminalization. A strong odor can signal the presence of marijuana, but not necessarily the presence in a quantity that is illegal for persons 21 and older to lawfully possess.” State v. T.T., 308 Or. App. 408, 437 (2021).

Defendant was convicted in two judgments: one for 10 counts of second-degree encouraging child sex abuse, and one for conspiracy to export marijuana. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the extension of the traffic stop of the car in which he was a passenger was not supported by reasonable suspicion. “[T]he smell of marijuana generally no longer has the significance it once had as a basis for reasonable suspicion, in light of decriminalization. A strong odor can signal the presence of marijuana, but not necessarily the presence in a quantity that is illegal for persons 21 and older to lawfully possess.” State v. T.T., 308 Or. App. 408, 437 (2021). The Court held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The Court reasoned when considering the facts, in their totality, they did not provide objectively reasonable suspicion Defendant possessed unlawful amounts of marijuana. Reversed.