Pot smell does not justify probable cause for vehicle searches, Minnesota court confirms

When Minnesota police search a vehicle based solely on the smell of weed, they cannot justify searching a vehicle even if evidence of other suspected crimes is found. Even after the Minnesota Supreme Court twice appealed a lower court decision to suppress the evidence, he agreed, and the dismissal of his charges remains.

In a ruling filed September 13 in the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed that the odor of cannabis does not constitute probable cause to search a vehicle.

The case has been going on for two years. On July 5, 2021, just before 10 p.m., a Litchfield police officer stopped a car because of an obscure local law: the light bar mounted on the vehicle’s grille had more auxiliary running lights than allowed by Minnesota law. The officer asked the driver, Adam Lloyd Torgerson, for his driver’s license and registration. Torgerson, his wife and child were in the vehicle. The officer stated that he smelled grass and asked Torgerson if there was a reason for the smell, which he initially denied. But police found much more than just weed.

A replacement officer was called in. The couple denied possession of marijuana, but Torgerson admitted to smoking pot in the past. The second officer stated that the smell of weed gave them probable cause to search the vehicle and ordered them to exit the vehicle. The first officer searched the vehicle and found a film canister, three tubes and a small plastic bag in the center console. The plastic bag contained a white powder and the film canister contained meth, which was confirmed in a field test.

Torgenson was charged with possession of a meth pipe in the presence of a minor and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance following the unreasonable search of Torgerson’s vehicle.

The police are not allowed to do that, several courts have decided

However, the search had one major problem: the police were not looking for a meth pipe. They searched his car only because they could smell weed, and the meth and paraphernalia were a surprise to everyone. Still, they had no reason to search the vehicle. The man’s charges were later dismissed after the district court found that the odor of cannabis alone was not a sufficient basis to search the vehicle, regardless of what other drug paraphernalia they found.

The state appealed the case, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was appealed a second time, this time to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which agreed with the lower court’s decision.

“This search was justified only by the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle,” the Minnesota Supreme Court said in its decision. “Torgerson attempted to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing that the odor of marijuana alone was insufficient to establish the necessary probable cause to search a vehicle under the motor vehicle exemption. The district court granted Torgerson’s motion, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the complaint. The state appealed. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s suppression order. “Because we conclude that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle alone is not sufficient to establish the requisite probable cause to search a vehicle under the motor vehicle exemption from the search requirement, we affirm.”

These are fundamental human rights that apply regardless of whether a person is a drug addict or not.

Other states do exactly the same thing regarding pot smell as a probable cause

An Illinois judge ruled in 2021 that the smell of cannabis was not sufficient reason for police to search a vehicle during a traffic stop without a search warrant.

14th Judicial District Associate Judge Daniel J. Dalton issued a ruling in response to a motion to suppress evidence in the case of Vincent Molina, a medical cannabis patient who was arrested last year for cannabis possession.

In this case, Molina was arrested despite the decriminalization of small amounts of cannabis in Illinois in 2019 with the passage of the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act.

In some states, the issue of probable cause and cannabis has been defined by proposed legislation.

Last April, the Maryland House of Representatives passed a bill that would reduce penalties for public cannabis use and prohibit police from using the smell of cannabis as a basis for searching a person or car. Under Maryland’s House Bill 1071, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from using the odor of raw or burnt cannabis as probable cause to search a person or vehicle.

The rulings represent citizens’ rights when stopped by police, even when hard drugs are involved.