The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision that significantly limits the scope of police searches involving vehicles where the smell of marijuana has been detected. The ruling, which fundamentally changes how law enforcement can interact with citizens in the context of recreational marijuana use, shows the societal shifts following the legalization of adult-use marijuana in Michigan in 2018.
From Probable Cause to Contextual Analysis
The case focused on whether the smell of marijuana alone could be enough for law enforcement to justify a warrantless vehicle search. Previously, under the 2000 precedent established in People v. Kazmierczak, the odor of marijuana was considered enough to justify such a search. The recreational legalization of marijuana under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) in 2018 brought outdated laws into question, raising doubts about whether the smell of marijuana still inherently suggests illegal activity.
The recent ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court arose from People v. Armstrong, a case where a suspect was detained after officers claimed to smell marijuana coming from a parked vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle, police discovered a firearm under the passenger seat, leading to criminal charges. The defense argued that the search violated Fourth Amendment rights, as the odor of marijuana alone no longer equates to evidence of criminal activity. Agreeing with this argument, the court ruled 5-1 in favor of the defendant, ultimately overturning the earlier Kazmierczak standard.
Justice Megan K. Cavanagh, writing for the majority, clarified, “The appropriate rule is that the smell of marijuana is one factor that may play a role in the probable-cause determination.” This shows a logical move, after the legalization of recreational marijuana, away from blanket assumptions and toward a more evidence-based approach in determining the legal justification for searches.
Legal Foundations and the MRTMA’s Influence
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision builds on established Fourth Amendment principles that protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment requires that authorities support search warrants—or applicable exceptions—with probable cause, which cannot rely on a single factor alone.
When Michigan voters approved the MRTMA in 2018, they decriminalized the personal possession, use, and cultivation of marijuana for adults over 21 years old within specific limits. Under this framework, many scenarios that may have once been indicative of illegal behavior are now lawful.
For instance, the mere presence of marijuana odor might result from someone exercising their legal right to consume it in permitted circumstances, such as at home. The Supreme Court noted that this undermines using scent as a standalone indicator of criminality.
Justice Cavanagh explained in the opinion that while additional elements—such as visible signs of intoxication, public consumption, or evidence of a crime—could still lead to lawful searches, the mere smell of marijuana is no longer a reliable or sufficient metric for establishing probable cause.
Oh No! Police Have to Adjust to Legal Marijuana in Michigan!
Some critics, including law enforcement officials, have expressed concerns about how the ruling introduces more complexity into on-the-ground decision-making. For instance, Midland County Prosecutor J. Dee Brooks, according to WEMU, officers may struggle to navigate these less-defined boundaries in real time, especially with marijuana still prohibited in certain situations, like public consumption or driving.
“I think you’re getting into some fine-line distinctions that they’re being called on to make,” Brooks said, bringing up concerns over how to enforce traffic laws when someone’s suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana.
“They’re going to have to change their practices if they smell marijuana on the street, if they smell marijuana while driving past someone’s house or someone’s parked car. This is really going to restrain unconstitutional police practices across the state,” said Lawyer Ramis Wadood with the ACLU of Michigan.
Exceptions and Remaining Questions in the Law
Despite the ruling’s clarity on its main point, certain situations remain unresolved. The Supreme Court stated that certain scenarios still prohibit marijuana possession and use. Consuming marijuana while operating or occupying a vehicle, for example, remains illegal. This means the ruling does not fully eliminate the possibility of vehicle searches based on marijuana odor; it merely requires the presence of additional factors that suggest probable illegal activity.
Justice Brian Zahra, the lone dissenter in this case, argued this in his opinion. He argued that the record in People v. Armstrong did not adequately determine whether other factors—beyond marijuana odor—might have supported probable cause for the search. Zahra suggested sending the case back to a lower court to clarify the role that additional evidence might have played.
What This Ruling Means for Michigan Marijuana Users
For residents of Michigan, this decision highlights the evolving dynamics of rights and responsibilities in the post-legalization era. Individuals can now feel a stronger shield against invasive searches, knowing that marijuana odor alone is not enough to justify infringing on their private property. However, this does not mean complete immunity; even though marijuana is fully legal in Michigan, it can still lead to legitimate legal consequences.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision is a key chapter in reconciling marijuana’s legalized status with constitutional protections. Still, the broader implications of this ruling will take time to materialize. Law enforcement agencies will need to adapt their procedures, and new cases may arise to test the limits of this precedent, especially as marijuana laws continue to evolve nationally.
For now, this ruling serves as a reminder that legal reforms demand parallel shifts in enforcement practices and protections. By requiring police to consider multiple factors rather than relying on outdated assumptions, Michigan’s judicial process helps ensure that individual rights remain at the forefront.
