Doughty determined that Ms. Teunis was not intoxicated or otherwise impaired, the stop should have ended. Defendant’s argument is without merit. This Court has “repeatedly held that the odor of marijuana alone can provide probable cause to believe that marijuana is present in a particular place.” United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 2004). Therefore, “when marijuana is believed to be present in an automobile based on the odor emanating therefrom, we have found probable cause to search the automobile.” Id.; see also, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 193, 198 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding probable cause justifying a vehicle search when an officer “smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle”); United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 422 (4th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Corporal Doughty smelled the odor of burned
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 defendants suspect activity in the trunk and passenger compartment of his car immediately after he engaged in an apparent drug sale established probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs and drug money holding that officer who smelled burning marijuana while approaching defendants vehicle stopped for tail light violation had probable cause to search for contraband holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle