Marijuana Odor Perception: Studies Modeled from Probable Cause Cases

The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects American citizens against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Although law enforcement officials routinely rely solely on the sense of smell to justify probable cause when entering vehicles and dwellings to search for illicit drugs, the accuracy of their perception in this regard has rarely been questioned and, to our knowledge, never tested. In this paper, we present data from two empirical studies based upon actual legal cases in which the odor of marijuana was used as probable cause for search. In the first, we simulated a situation in which, during a routine traffic stop, the odor of packaged marijuana located in the trunk of an automobile was said to be detected through the driver's window. In the second, we investigated a report that marijuana odor was discernable from a considerable distance from the chimney effluence of diesel exhaust emanating from an illicit California grow room. Our findings suggest that the odor of marijuana was not reliably discernable by persons with an excellent sense of smell in either case. These studies are the first to examine the ability of humans to detect marijuana in simulated real-life situations encountered by law enforcement officials, and are particularly relevant to the issue of probable cause.     

In Modernism's Wake: Public Administration and Policy in the 21st Century

Hugh T. Miller, Postmodern Public Policy
Goktug Morcol, A New Mind for Policy Analysis: Toward a Post-Newtonian and Postpositivist Epistemology and Methodology
Michael W. Spicer, Public Administration and the State: A Postmodern Perspective     

Evaluation of iodine-benzoflavone and ruthenium tetroxide spray reagents for the detection of latent fingermarks at the crime scene

The performance of two spray reagents, iodine-benzoflavone and ruthenium tetroxide (RTX), was evaluated and compared with the conventional technique currently used at the crime scene, that is, powdering. Neither the spray techniques nor powdering were shown to be suitable for all surfaces and ages of marks tested. On some surfaces such as glass and treated wood, powdering was still the superior technique, whereas the spray techniques produced better development on wallpaper, vinyl, and brick. Sequencing work showed that RTX was incompatible with powdering and cyanoacrylate (with a rhodamine 6G stain). Iodine-benzoflavone can be used successfully either before or after powdering in a sequence; however, it was incompatible with cyanoacrylate. Two non-CFC formulations of iodine-benzoflavone using HFC4310mee and HFE7100 solvents were tested and shown not to be as effective as the original Arklone (CFC-113) formulation; however, the HFC4310mee solvent is recommended as the most suitable replacement solvent. Due to the expense of the commercial RTX spray, attempts at formulating a more cost-effective version were also carried out. A formulation was developed that gave comparable development to the commercial version but at a much cheaper cost, and with a shelf life of up to two months. Recommendations are presented for which techniques are suitable for different surfaces and ages of marks. Powdering was shown to be the best technique on all ages of marks tested on treated wood, glass, and also on marks aged three days and older on paint. Iodine-benzoflavone was the best technique on wallpaper, vinyl, brick, and raw wood. RTX was the best detection technique for fresh marks and marks aged up to one day on wallpaper and paint.