State v. Chapman, 2019-Ohio-3339, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3422 (7th Dist. Aug. 20, 2019)
Turning to the facts in this case, there is no question that Hyra’s alert established probable cause to search the automobile. In its response to the motion to suppress before the trial court, the State advocated the adoption of the bright line rule announced by the Tenth Circuit in Anchondo, supra, that a canine alert on a vehicle, like the odor of burning marijuana in Moore, supra, establishes probable cause for a warrantless search of both the vehicle and its occupants.
We choose instead to adopt the sound reasoning of the other Ohio appellate districts that have considered this issue, and we hold that a canine alert alone is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a full search of the occupants in a vehicle, but may be considered as one factor in the probable cause determination. Further, upon de novo review, see Ornelas, supra, and having considered the totality of the circumstances leading up to the search of Appellant’s shoes in this case, we find that probable cause did not exist for the search.
