In this matter, the court considers whether the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after a search of the vehicle defendant was operating following a traffic stop. When the officer approached defendant's vehicle, he noticed a burnt smell of marijuana emanating from it. The officer did not intend to search the vehicle at that point. However, after the dispatcher informed the officer defendant had an outstanding warrant necessitating defendant's arrest, and the officer smelled a perceptible odor of raw marijuana on defendant's person as they sat together in the patrol car, the officer decided to search the vehicle.
The court concludes that the officer's testimony regarding the odors established probable cause for the subsequent search of the vehicle. In addition, the finding of probable cause arose in unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances. There were not two stops as argued by defendant. The discovery of the warrant and new smell emanating from defendant's person permitted the officer to continue the investigation. The search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as articulated in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015). The court affirms the order denying defendant's suppression motion.