(FOX 2) - Police in Michigan can no longer use the smell of marijuana to establish probable cause that a crime is being committed.
Big picture view:
Siding with a lower court ruling, the 5-1 decision marks a major shift in police policy when it comes to how they approach the early stages of investigations.
The case stems from a Detroit man's arrest in October 2020 when, during a routine compliance check, a police officer observed the smell of marijuana coming from a vehicle.
The officer asked the man if he had been smoking marijuana, which he denied. They asked him to exit the vehicle, put him in handcuffs and patted him down.
Another officer observed a black handgun under the front passenger seat, leading to the man's arrest and being charged with carrying a concealed weapon, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
However, a trial court ruled that because the handgun was not visible at the time that police said they could smell marijuana.
Dig deeper:
In their opinion, the state supreme court sided with both the appeals court and the trial court that first heard the case, ruling that since marijuana is legal for purchase and use in Michigan, just its smell is not a sign of something illegal happening.
"Given that the (Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act) generally decriminalized the adult use of marijuana, the smell of marijuana is no longer necessarily indicative of unlawful activity," the opinion read.
Because the gun was not discovered in plain view, the arresting officer's justification for having the individual step out of the vehicle due to the smell of marijuana did not amount to probable cause.
In arguing the case, the prosecution cited a court case from 2000 that gave police sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle due to the smell of marijuana.
But in their latest ruling, five justices said the smell of marijuana alone was no longer sufficient.
"Instead, the appropriate rule is that the smell of marijuana is one factor that may play a role in the probable-cause determination. Because the officers in this case lacked probable cause, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply," the justices wrote.
And even if the smell of weed did give the officers reasonable suspicion to detain the man, the trial court did not do anything wrong when it concluded the gun was discovered during a search based on the smell of marijuana - not because it was in plain view.
"A warrantless search must be based on probable cause, and the smell of marijuana is insufficient to support probable cause," the justices continued.