do not have enough information before us to determine whether the informant had a sufficient basis of knowledge for concluding that the occupants of the car were "smoking drugs." Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the informant's tip, by itself, supported a reasonable suspicion or probable cause determination. See id. Thus, we turn our attention to whether the observations of the investigating officer were sufficient to support reasonable suspicion and probable cause. B. Detection of "Cat Urine" Odor ¶18 Our courts have recognized that probable cause and, by extension, reasonable suspicion "may arise from an officer's sense of smell." Wright, 1999 UT App 86, ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 505 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, when an officer detects the h Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Minnick v. United States, 607 A.2d 519, 525
holding that an officer clearly had probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant based on the burning marijuana he smelled as he approached the car holding that an officer had probable cause to search bags in the trunk of the car when he opened the trunk and smelled a strong odor of methamphetamine holding that although search of passenger compartment was legal search of trunk was not holding that search was proper where a drug dog jumped into the open trunk of a car and keyed on a duffel bag after the suspect opened the trunk holding that sniff test of automobile trunk not a search requiring probable cause