The Extended Traffic Stop and the K-9
At 2210 hours, Officer Ramirez stops a sedan for a registration sticker that expired 47 days ago. The driver says he just bought the car and has a bill of sale but no insurance card. The passenger stares straight ahead and says nothing. Ramirez smells a strong odor of burnt marijuana and sees two air fresheners clipped to a vent. The driver's hands tremble, and he gives two different home addresses within five minutes. The stop has lasted nine minutes; Ramirez has not yet written a citation. A K-9 unit is six minutes away. Ramirez asks the driver for consent to search, and the driver says, "No, I want to go."
1. May Officer Ramirez lawfully extend the stop to wait for the K-9 unit? Explain the constitutional rule and apply it to these facts.
Read the worked answer
Under Rodriguez v. United States, a traffic stop may not be extended beyond the time reasonably required to complete the stop's mission-checking the license, registration, and insurance and writing the citation-unless the officer develops reasonable suspicion of separate criminal activity. The expired registration and missing insurance are traffic matters that should be addressed promptly. Ramirez cannot extend the stop merely to wait for a dog.
However, the totality here-burnt marijuana odor, two air fresheners, trembling hands, inconsistent addresses, and a passenger who will not engage-can support reasonable suspicion of drug activity. If the court accepts the odor as reliable, the extension is justified. But after Texas legalized hemp, some Texas courts have questioned whether odor alone establishes probable cause or reasonable suspicion because hemp smells the same. Ramirez should articulate every fact, not just the odor, and should not rely on the K-9 sniff as a substitute for reasonable suspicion during an unlawfully extended stop.
2. Does the odor of burnt marijuana by itself give probable cause to search the car in Texas? How should Ramirez handle that legal uncertainty?
Read the worked answer
Texas law is unsettled on this point. Marijuana remains illegal in Texas, and many Texas courts have historically held that the odor of burnt marijuana supplies probable cause. After the 2019 hemp legislation, however, some courts and prosecutors have reasoned that odor alone cannot distinguish marijuana from legal hemp, so it may not be enough by itself. The safer analytical position is that odor is a strong factor but should be corroborated by other facts: fresh smoke, visible residue, admissions, paraphernalia, or a canine alert.
Ramirez should avoid treating the odor as an automatic search warrant. He should document the strength and freshness of the odor, what exactly he smelled, and any other observations. If he searches on odor alone, he risks suppression in a jurisdiction that follows the hemp rationale. If he waits, he must still have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop.
3. Assume Ramirez develops probable cause and searches. What is the lawful scope of the search, and may he search the passenger's purse?
Read the worked answer
Under the automobile exception, probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle permits a search of the passenger compartment and containers that could hold the contraband. Under Wyoming v. Houghton, the search may extend to belongings belonging to passengers if those belongings are capable of concealing the object of the search. A purse could conceal marijuana, so it may be searched if probable cause covers the whole vehicle.
The trunk may also be searched if the object could reasonably be there. Ramirez may not, however, conduct a strip search or search a person's body without separate legal authority. He should search no more intrusively than necessary, document what was found and where, and preserve the chain of custody. If the search is based only on odor and the jurisdiction rejects odor-alone probable cause, all evidence may be suppressed.