Officer Sniffs Out Conviction in North Dakota Hotel – How Does Marijuana Odor Validate a Warrant?
Earlier this year in United States v. Tate, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a drug conviction after officers traced the smell of marijuana to a hotel room and obtained a search warrant. The defendant, Leonard Tate, argued that officers lacked probable cause and exceeded the scope of their warrant. But federal courts found that the combination of marijuana odor, along with other suspicious details, provided enough probable cause to uphold the validity of the search warrant.
In August 2022, a Bismarck police officer walked through a hotel as part of a routine patrol. The officer smelled marijuana near the entrance and followed the scent through the hotel. He sniffed door to door until he identified Room 118 as the source, confirming that the smell wasn’t coming from any nearby rooms. A hotel employee told the officer that Room 118 was rented to Leonard Tate, who had presented a Michigan ID when checking in. The officer recognized Tate’s name from prior investigations and knew he had a criminal history involving drugs and firearms. Lastly, the officer discovered that Tate had specifically requested a room with a safe and had just extended his one-day stay at the hotel.
The officer applied for a search warrant, noting that drug traffickers often use hotels, extend stays day to day, and store drugs, firearms, or cash in safes. He also outlined his training, experience, and confidence in identifying the marijuana smell. A judge signed the warrant that evening, and officers searched the room the next morning. Inside the safe, they found nearly 2,900 fentanyl pills, over $15,000 in cash, firearm parts, and drug-related items. Tate was arrested and charged with serious drug trafficking and firearms offenses.
Tate filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming the officer lacked probable cause and officers exceeded the warrant’s scope. The district court denied the motion, and Tate later pled guilty. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit sided with the government. The court ruled that the smell of marijuana, Tate’s background, his travel pattern, and details related to the hotel safe, all provided sufficient probable cause under the totality of the circumstances. The court also rejected Tate’s argument that officers needed canine-level training to follow the scent, finding that the officer’s experience and training were enough to support his identification of the marijuana odor. The court also held that seizing items from the safe did not exceed the warrant’s scope, as their incriminating nature was immediately apparent.
The Eighth Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Tate reinforces that the odor of marijuana, when combined with other important clues, can support a valid finding of probable cause. Furthermore, it confirms officers can identify common odors like marijuana without a canine. As the court made clear here, it is well within an officer’s constitutional bounds to sniff out common odors and obtain a warrant based on the totality of the circumstances.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense lawyer and DWI attorney in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Lawyer Woodbury, Criminal Defense Attorney Minnesota, DWI Lawyer Minneapolis.