Welcome to the forum and good observation 
I'd think too that it's a hint that something stinks or there's a stinking rat.
Probably 'slightly' far fetched, the air freshener: I thought about this article with the focus on investigation and assumption:Air freshener smell supports drug probe: court rules Drug-runners sometimes use masking agents to conceal contraband, court notes
CBC News
Posted: Jun 3, 2011 7:45 PM CST
The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan says a strong smell of air freshener in a vehicle is a good enough reason for police officers to investigate for drug-running.
The court's ruling, published last week, concerned charges against an Ontario man who was stopped for speeding just outside of Moose Jaw, Sask., on Dec. 13, 2006.
RCMP officers testified in the case that the driver was nervous, there were lots of empty food and drink containers in the man's truck and a very strong odour of air freshener was emanating from the cab.
A sniffer dog named Levi was brought over and police discovered 3.6 kilograms of marijuana wrapped up and tucked inside sleeping bags stored in a truck box.
'Air freshener is often used by those transporting drugs to mask the smell of the contraband.'—Appeal court judge Gene Anne Smith
The trial judge threw the case out saying the police had no right to bring their sniffer dog in based on what they observed.
The trial judge said everything the officers noted could have an innocent explanation: many people get nervous around police, travelers often eat and drink in their vehicles and discard containers, and air freshener is a common product.
The judge said the officers were wrong to launch into an investigation based on assumptions about what the man may have been up to. "A hunch is not good enough, even though, in hindsight, the police were right," the trial judge said in her decision. She said the driver had a right to privacy and the officers violated that right, so the drug evidence was thrown out and the case fell apart.
Crown appeals
The Crown prosecutor appealed and the Court of Appeal ruled the trial judge was wrong. A new trial was ordered.
"[T]he trial judge erred by imposing an unduly high standard in evaluating the facts relied upon by the investigating officers," appeal court Justice Gene Anne Smith wrote in the decision.
Smith said the observations of the officers did not have to support a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, only that they should probe further.
She said the "almost over-powering smell of air freshener" was particularly worthy of further examination.
"Air freshener is often used by those transporting drugs to mask the smell of the contraband," Smith noted. "An innocent use of a very strong masking agent, while possible, is improbable."
Smith said considered alone it may not add up to much but combined with everything else the officers saw it justified bringing in the sniffer dog.
There was no word on when a new trial would take place or if the defence would appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login
