Search & seizure; Warrantless search; The automobile exception to the warrant requirement; Pennsylvania v Labron; Probable cause; Whether the odor of marijuana alone constitutes sufficient probable cause to support a search under the automobile exception; Whether the Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) superseded the holding in People v Kazmierczak; Terry stop; Terry v Ohio; The plain-view doctrine; People v Champion; Reasonable suspicion

Holding that the smell of marijuana alone no longer constitutes probable cause to support a search for contraband, as was the case in Kazmierczak, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress. He was charged with CCW, FIP, and felony-firearm after an investigatory search based on the smell of marijuana ultimately revealed a handgun. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress the introduction of the gun as evidence, finding: (1) defendant was seized, (3) the smell of marijuana alone did not establish probable cause, and (3) the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement did not apply. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding “the rule from Kazmierczak was superseded by the MRTMA because, given that the MRTMA generally decriminalized the adult use of marijuana, the smell of marijuana is no longer necessarily indicative of unlawful activity.” On leave, the court concluded that “Kazmierczak’s rule that the smell of marijuana, standing alone, is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is no longer viable in light of the enactment of the MRTMA. As applied in the present case, because the alleged basis for the officers’ search of the automobile was the smell of marijuana standing alone, the search was not constitutional under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” In addition, “even assuming that the police officers possessed reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate defendant based on the smell of marijuana,” the trial court did not err in holding “that the gun was discovered during a search based on the smell of burnt marijuana, not because it was seized while in plain view. A warrantless search must be based on probable cause and the smell of marijuana is insufficient to support probable cause.” 

Dissenting, Justice Zahra stated his belief that the “lower courts erred by failing to consider whether the handgun could have been discovered in plain view during a Terry stop. [Those] errors leave open the possibility that the smell of marijuana was not the only valid evidence supporting probable cause.” As such, he found “the facts of this case, as presented, do not allow us to revisit Kazmierczak.” He would vacate the lower courts’ judgments “and remand to the trial court for a new ruling on the motion to suppress under a correct understanding of the law.”