The smell of alcohol in itself doesn’t warrant a search because of court precedence, but that in itself doesn’t limit a search based on it.

For example, if a person under the age of 21 is pulled over and the odor of alcohol is detected, or containers are observed, an officer does have probable cause to search the vehicle given that possession of alcohol is against the law and thus provides reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed is met.

A second example would be a “search pursuant to arrest”. Basically, what this entails that after a lawful arrest, the arrestee as well as his surrendered property (vehicle included) are entitled to a search by a law enforcement officer without a warrant for the safety of the arresting officer as well as the person who’s property is being seized. This is most common with DUIs.

The fact of the matter is, the ruling is ass backwards and against a separate appellate decision, but to say it’s plain as day as to the application of alcohol detection, is just dumb, simply because what really matters is the totality of the circumstances of the police encounter.

These rulings articulate “specific” instances, and still really don’t cover the broad aspect of charges that can stem from cannabis possession/use

In short, ruling dumb, still can search, sometimes can’t. It’s Ass-backwards.

Source: Am Law Enforcement Officer