to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information, available to them that “might well elude an untrained person.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. at 750-51, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 694-95, 66 L.Ed.2d 621, 628-29 (1981)). Therefore, “the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level of probable cause” in order, to justify a search incident to an investigative detention. Id. (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). [¶ 16.] It is undisputed, that the officer in this case had a “specific and articulable suspicion of a violation,” justifying the initial stop. See State v. Vento, 1999 SD 158, ¶ 8, 604 N.W.2d 468, 470. See also SDCL 32- 5, 890 (<HOLDING>). • They were also traveling a known drug
holding in the context of vehicular searches that the fact that cm agent familiar with the odor of marijuana smelled such an odor emanating from an automobile  alone was sufficient to constitute probable cause for a subsequent search for marijuana holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper holding odor of burnt marijuana and drug dogs hit on car were sufficient to justify search holding that because marijuana has a distinct smell the odor of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement to search a vehicle or baggage