DeLeon’s property, (2) Charles Linedecker’s flat denial that he smelled or saw anything, and (3) Loren Brown’s statement that although he did not see marijuana in DeLeon’s shed and was not sure the Linedeckers had seen marijuana, he did smell growing marijuana. The district court’s order indicates that the warrant was issued in large part because Frank Sharp, a credible witness, stated that Frank and Charles Linedecker and Loren Brown told him they saw and smelled marijuana. But the complete warrant application makes clear that th 6 S.Ct. 794, 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976). We hold that a warrant cannot be based on the claim of an untrained or inexperienced person to have smelled growing plants which have no commonly recognized odor. Cf. United States v. Barron, 472 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920,
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 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 that the court of appeals properly concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from defendants vehicle constituted probable cause to search the vehicle 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 holding that officer who smelled odor of marijuana while approaching van validly stopped for failure to dim headlights had probable cause to search for contraband