Police across the country continue to pull drivers over for one reason, then choose to search their vehicle for an entirely different reason—if it smells like pot. But it isn’t holding up in court as justification for probable cause. A Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, one of several ruling affirming the decision, suggests police in the state will be barred from citing cannabis odor alone as reason to search a vehicle.
The 5-2 decision in State v. Torgerson rules that cannabis odor is insufficient to constitute probable cause for police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. The 26-page opinion was written by Justice Anne McKeig and explained the reasons why odor cannot constitute probable cause.
In Litchfield, Minnesota in July, 2021, Adam Lloyd Torgerson was driving a car that had a light bar on its grill with more lights than are permitted under state law. A cop saw his car and determined that Torgerson might have an equipment violation. Police say the vehicle’s grill had more auxiliary driving lights than are permitted under Minnesota law under an obscure rule.
The officer pulled him over and said he smelled pot, asking Torgerson if there was any reason for the odor. Torgerson said there was not. A second officer arrived and was alerted about the smell. He agreed.
A subsequent search found meth and drug paraphernalia, and Torgerson was arrested and charged. While Torgerson happened to be in possession of meth and a pipe. The first officer searched the vehicle and found a film canister, three pipes, 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. But the officers failed to gather enough probable cause in order to legally search the vehicle, a court ruled.
Torgerson was with his wife and a child, so he was charged with possession of a meth pipe in the presence of a minor and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance after the unwarranted search of Torgerson’s vehicle. High Times covered the case in September 2023.
Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling
McKeig ruled that police lacked sufficient probable cause.
“The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his vehicle, holding that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle, alone, is insufficient to create the requisite probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement,” McKeig’s opinion summary reads.
“After a traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine paraphernalia in the presence of a minor and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance,” the opinion continues. “Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the odor of marijuana, alone, is insufficient to create the requisite probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence of medium-strength odor of marijuana, on its own, is insufficient to establish a fair probability that the search would yield evidence of criminally-illegal conduct or drug-related contraband.”
In an earlier ruling filed in the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals on Sept. 13, 2023, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that cannabis odor does not constitute probable cause to search a vehicle.
MinnPost reports that authorities are questioning whether odor can be used by police as justification to search vehicles and detain drivers.
Tom Gallagher is a cannabis advocate and a practicing defense attorney for 35 years. “It’s a recognition of a big change in marijuana law,” Gallagher told MinnPost. “In law school they talk about line-drawing, where do you draw the line type of problem? Now we know. We’ve drawn the line, finally.”
Similar cases impacted people in other states. An Illinois judge, for instance, ruled in 2021 that the odor of cannabis is not sufficient grounds for police to search a vehicle without a warrant during a traffic stop.
Daniel J. Dalton, Associate Judge of the 14th Judicial Circuit, issued a ruling in response to a motion to suppress evidence in the case of Vincent Molina, a medical cannabis patient arrested for cannabis possession last year.
In that 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.
Torgenson’s case highlights the legal grounds in which police can search a vehicle simply based on if it smells like pot. The rulings represent the rights of citizens when they are pulled over by police, even if there are hard drugs involved.
