Whether the 'plain smell doctrine' remains valid for establishing probable cause when cannabis odor no longer necessarily indicates illegal activity

No question identified. : Mr. Burney submits the following in support of his request: 1. Mr. Burney was charged under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) for possessing 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine with an intent to distribute. The charge arose from a traffic stop for a window tint violation and for following too closely. The state trooper who stopped the vehicle searched it based on the smell of burnt cannabis and Mr. Burney’s statement that he had smoked earlier. After pulling up the carpet, searching the internal framing of the door, and tearing out the framing around the gear shift, the trooper found methamphetamine. No cannabis was found. 2. Mr. Burney filed a motion to suppress. He argued that such an intrusive search was beyond the scope of any probable cause the trooper had. He argued that was particularly so, as the trooper testified that that there is no distinction in smell between legal and illegal versions of cannabis. 3. The Sixth Circuit disagreed. Relying on one of its own recent cases, it held that “the mere fact that [the defendant] cowld have possessed [legal] hemp did not negate the officers’ reasonable ground for believing [the defendant] possessed [illegal] marijuana.”