The Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that the smell of cannabis is sufficient to warrant a search

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that the smell of cannabis alone is a likely reason to warrant a police search, even though other products like hemp with similar smells are legalized. The conservative majority of the court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Marshfield, Wisconsin, police officers had reasonable probable grounds to search a defendant after detecting the smell of cannabis in the car he was driving and refused from excluding evidence found during the search without guarantee. The ruling overturns two lower court rulings that found the evidence obtained during the search was inadmissible because officers could not be sure whether they used marijuana, which is still illegal under Wisconsin state law, and Hemp, an agricultural crop legalized by the federal government, was scented with the Farm Bill 2018.

The court issued the decision Tuesday in the case of Quaheem Moore, a man who was pulled over by two police officers for speeding in Marshfield in 2019. In their report, officers state that while speaking to Moore, they noticed a strong smell of burnt cannabis emanating from the vehicle. When questioned about the smell, Moore told officers he owned a CBD vaporizing device, noting that the vehicle was a car his brother had rented.

Cannabis scent given as reason for search

Although they admitted smelling marijuana in Moore, officers cited the smell of cannabis coming from the car as the reason for searching the vehicle and Moore. Officers stated that during the search they found that Moore’s belt buckle appeared to be crooked and that upon closer inspection they discovered a bulge in his pants. Upon closer inspection, officers discovered a hidden pocket in the zipper of Moore’s pants, in which they discovered packets of fentanyl and cocaine.

Police then arrested Moore and charged him with possession of narcotics, although he was not charged with possession of marijuana. Moore’s attorneys argued that the officers had no probable cause for the search because officers did not detect a smell of marijuana on Moore and because CBD and hemp were legal as the smell of marijuana was indistinguishable. Therefore, the drugs found during the search should be excluded from the taking of evidence.

A district court judge and an appeals court agreed, ruling that the evidence found during the search was not admissible. Prosecutors appealed the verdicts, saying the lower courts erred in ruling the evidence inadmissible.

Decision overrides lower courts in Wisconsin

Disagreeing with the previous rulings, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions and ruled that the evidence obtained during the search could be used in court. In a majority opinion written by Judge Brian Hagedorn, the court’s conservative majority concluded that because Moore was the only person in the vehicle, police could reasonably assume that he was “probably associated with the illegal substance.” , which the officials had identified”.

The decision was based on a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that allowed police to arrest a driver for associating him with the smell of cannabis in the car he was driving. That ruling said that the “distinctive” smell of a controlled substance was evidence that a crime had been committed.

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal minority questioned the 1999 ruling and its relevance to Moore’s case, saying law enforcement officials had no hard evidence that the smell of cannabis was from Moore. They also noted that the earlier ruling was outdated and did not take into account the subsequent legalization of hemp and CBD.

“Officials who believe they are smelling marijuana from a vehicle may be just as likely to smell raw or smoked hemp, which does not constitute criminal activity,” Judge Rebecca Frank Dallet wrote in a dissenting opinion joined by two other judges.

After the Supreme Court ruling was released Tuesday, Moore’s attorney Joshua Hargrove warned that the decision could allow law enforcement to justify searches based on unreliable inferences without being held accountable in court.

“This statement could lead to more lawful citizens being arrested,” he said in a statement quoted by the Associated Press.