Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 223–233 | Cite as

Marijuana Odor Perception: Studies Modeled from Probable Cause Cases

  • Richard L. Doty
  • Thomas Wudarski
  • David A. Marshall
  • Lloyd Hastings
Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects American citizens against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Although law enforcement officials routinely rely solely on the sense of smell to justify probable cause when entering vehicles and dwellings to search for illicit drugs, the accuracy of their perception in this regard has rarely been questioned and, to our knowledge, never tested. In this paper, we present data from two empirical studies based upon actual legal cases in which the odor of marijuana was used as probable cause for search. In the first, we simulated a situation in which, during a routine traffic stop, the odor of packaged marijuana located in the trunk of an automobile was said to be detected through the driver's window. In the second, we investigated a report that marijuana odor was discernable from a considerable distance from the chimney effluence of diesel exhaust emanating from an illicit California grow room. Our findings suggest that the odor of marijuana was not reliably discernable by persons with an excellent sense of smell in either case. These studies are the first to examine the ability of humans to detect marijuana in simulated real-life situations encountered by law enforcement officials, and are particularly relevant to the issue of probable cause.

marijuana psychophysics law olfaction magnitude estimation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Doty, R. L. (1975). An examination of relationships between the pleasantness, intensity, and concentration of 10 odorous stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 17, 492-496.Google Scholar
  2. Doty, R.L. (1995). The Smell Identification Test TM administration manual (3rd ed.). Haddon Heights, NJ: Sensonics, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Doty, R. L., Shaman, P., Applebaum, S. L., Giberson, R., Siksorski, L., & Rosenberg, L. (1984). Smell identification ability: Changes with age. Science, 226, 1441-1443.Google Scholar
  4. Doty, R. L., Shaman, P., & Dann, M. (1984). Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: A standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiology and Behavior, 32, 489-502.Google Scholar
  5. Draper, v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959).Google Scholar
  6. Hemphill, J. K., Turner, J. C., & Mahlberg, P. G. (1980). Cannabinoid content of individual plant organs from different geographical strains of Cannabis sativa L. Journal of Natural Products, 43, 112-122.Google Scholar
  7. Hood, L. V. S., & Barry, G. T. (1978). Headspace volatiles of marijuana and hashish: Gas chromatographic analysis of samples of different geographic origin. Journal of Chromatography, 166, 499-506.Google Scholar
  8. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  9. Marks, L. E. (1988). Magnitude estimation and sensory matching. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 511-525.Google Scholar
  10. Moskowitz, H. R., Dravnieks, A., Cain, W. S., & Turk, A. (1974). Standardized procedure for expressing odor intensity. Chemical Senses and Flavour, 1, 235-237.Google Scholar
  11. Ross, S. A., & El Sohly, M. A. (1996). The volatile oil composition of fresh and air-dried buds of Cannabis sativa. Journal of Natural Products, 59, 49-51.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, R. S., Doty, R. L., Burlingame, G. K., & McKeown, D. A. (1993). Smell and taste function in the visually impaired. Perception and Psychophysics, 53, 649-655.Google Scholar
  13. Turner, J. C., Hemphill, J. K., & Mahlberg, P. G. (1980). Trichomes and cannabinoid content of developing leaves and bracts of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany, 67, 1397-1406.Google Scholar
  14. United States of America v. Ronald J. Boger, 755F. Supp. 333 (1990).Google Scholar
  15. United States of America v. Deborah, Ellis, 15F. Supp. 2d 1025 (1998).Google Scholar
  16. United States v. Harris, 31F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
  17. United States of America v. Keven C. Reilly, 875F. Supp. 108 (1994).Google Scholar
  18. United States of America v. Norris, Shates, 915F. Supp. 1483 (1995).Google Scholar
  19. Van Langenhove, H., & Schamp, N. (1989). Encyclopedia of environmental control technology (Vol. 2, pp. 935-963). Houson: Gulf Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Doty
    • 1
  • Thomas Wudarski
    • 1
  • David A. Marshall
    • 1
  • Lloyd Hastings
    • 1
  1. 1.Smell and Taste CenterUniversity of Pennsylvania School of MedicinePhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations