|
The Supreme Court and the Sense of Smell
The Supreme Court has long recognized the value of an officer's sense of smell in detecting the possible commission of a crime or identifying evidence of a crime. In 1932 the Court held that "prohibition officers may rely on distinctive odors as a physical fact indicative of a possible crime."17 Likewise, the distinctive odor of burning opium detected by an affiant qualified to recognize it was a sufficient basis on which a magistrate could issue a warrant.18 And a qualified officer's detection of the smell of fermenting mash in a location was a "very strong" factor in establishing probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.19
The Supreme Court has said that the standard for probable cause cannot, and should not be, defined with precision or quantification. Whether it exists depends on the specific facts and variables of each circumstance. Officers must rely on each of their five senses, plus a good dose of common sense and knowledge that comes from experience, in determining when probable cause exists. Likewise, they must be able to articulate and explain each of the facts they took into account, and why each fact or circumstance contributed to their conclusion that probable cause existed so as to justify a search or seizure. And it helps if they have a good sense of smell.
|