In what circumstances would a deputy have provided probable cause for a search without the consent of an appellant?

That is the case here. The deputy testified he smelled and saw what he believed to be marijuana in appellant's car, which prompted him to ask appellant if he could search the car. In his briefs, appellant has pointed to no evidence he could have developed in the trial court that would contradict the deputy's testimony, which furnished probable cause for the search independent of appellant's consent, as we will explain. In oral argument, appellant's counsel said he would have asked the officer how he knew the substance he saw and smelled was marijuana. We are not persuaded the officer would have provided any testimony to defeat probable cause. Thus, we may address this ground as an alternative rationale to validate the search. (See People v. Gorak (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1039 [raising probable cause for automobile search for first time on appeal].)