The search was triggered by the sweet smell of marijuana

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.

Wilkins challenged his conviction following the discovery of unregistered firearms in his vehicle, which resulted from a warrantless search conducted by police under the “automobile exception”, a legal doctrine permitting law enforcement to search a car without a warrant when there is probable cause to believe it holds evidence of illegal activity.

The case of Wilkins brought to light the complexities surrounding the legality of searches prompted by the odor of marijuana under Michigan law.

Previously, the scent of marijuana could establish probable cause for a search; however, the enactment of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act has altered this dynamic.

The court explored whether the mere presence of the marijuana odor remains sufficient to justify a search, particularly in light of the law permitting adults to possess small quantities of marijuana.

The appellate court emphasized that for any search to be considered lawful, the smell of marijuana must be accompanied by additional suspicious circumstances that could substantiate probable cause for locating contraband.

The case draws comparisons to similar rulings like People v. Armstrong, where Michigan courts have reconsidered the application of the automobile exception in light of the state’s evolving marijuana laws.

The key issue in both cases is whether the odor of marijuana, when combined with other factors like deception by the driver, is enough to support a warrantless search.

The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.

Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.

However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.

The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.

Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.

However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.

Here is the link to the court document 

Similar Cases

Several similar cases have dealt with the legality of warrantless vehicle searches based on the smell of marijuana, especially in light of evolving marijuana laws:

People v. Armstrong (2023): In this case, Michigan courts reexamined the use of the automobile exception in light of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).

The court ruled that while the smell of marijuana could still contribute to probable cause, it must be accompanied by other suspicious factors to justify a search. This case closely mirrors Wilkins, where the search was based on marijuana odor but also raised questions about unregistered firearms found during the search​.

People v. Kazmierczak (2000): Previously, Michigan courts held that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

However, this decision was later overruled in part due to changes in marijuana laws. This case laid the groundwork for discussions like those in Wilkins, where courts must determine if the presence of marijuana (legal in small amounts) is enough to justify a search​(

People v. Moorman (2020): In this case, a police officer smelled marijuana during a traffic stop. The defendant denied having marijuana, which, combined with the smell, gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant’s behavior, along with the odor, justified the search, similar to the arguments presented in Wilkins. The ruling was based on the idea that such behavior suggests illegal possession beyond the legal limits​

As always… Follow the money. If you can.

More Posts