, ,

Michigan Supreme Court Rules Marijuana Smell No Longer Sufficient Reason for Police Search

Michigan Supreme Court Rules Marijuana Smell No Longer Justifies Police Search

In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to search a vehicle. The 5-1 decision overturns a 25-year-old precedent and comes as a result of the legalization of recreational marijuana in Michigan in 2018.

According to the court, the smell of marijuana is now just one factor that may play a role in determining probable cause, and a warrantless search must be based on more than just the scent of the drug. The decision was written by Justice Megan Cavanagh, who was joined by four other Democratic-nominated justices and Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, a Republican appointee.

The ruling stems from a 2020 case in which police officers conducted a parole compliance check in Detroit and observed a Jeep Cherokee parked on the side of the street. One of the officers claimed to have smelled the scent of burning marijuana coming from the vehicle, and after asking the occupants if they had been smoking marijuana, they were asked to exit the vehicle. A handgun was then discovered under the front passenger seat, leading to the defendant’s arrest and charges.

The court ruled that because the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act aims to decriminalize the use and possession of marijuana, the smell of the drug is no longer indicative of criminal activity. Instead, it could simply indicate that the person possesses a legal amount of marijuana, has recently used it legally, or was in the presence of someone else who used it.

While the court emphasized that marijuana use and possession are still not legal under all circumstances, the decision marks a significant shift in the way police can search vehicles in Michigan. The ruling also leaves open the possibility that other evidence, such as the presence of a handgun, could still be used to justify a search.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brian Zahra argued that the lower courts erred by failing to consider whether the handgun could have been discovered in plain view, regardless of the smell of marijuana.