Florida drivers stopped by police are gaining a clearer constitutional boundary after a landmark ruling from the state’s Second District Court of Appeal: the smell of cannabis, by itself, no longer justifies a warrantless vehicle search.
In Williams v. State (Oct. 1, 2025), the appeals court—sitting en banc—held that “the plain smell doctrine can no longer establish probable cause based solely on the odor of cannabis.” The court’s core reasoning is straightforward: Florida’s legal landscape has changed so dramatically that an odor once treated as inherently suspicious is no longer a reliable marker of criminal contraband.
For decades, prosecutors leaned on a common-sense argument: if an officer smelled marijuana, it suggested illegal possession. But Florida now permits medical marijuana for qualified patients, and hemp is legal under state and federal law. Because legal hemp and lawful medical cannabis can be indistinguishable by smell, the court concluded that odor alone cannot make it “immediately apparent” that a crime is underway. As a result, cannabis odor becomes one factor—potentially important, but not sufficient on its own—within a “totality of the circumstances” analysis.
Local reporting underscored what that means in practice: officers can’t conduct a vehicle search only because they say they smell cannabis, absent additional facts supporting probable cause. The decision also flagged the issue for further statewide clarity by certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court about whether “plain smell” can still establish probable cause based only on cannabis odor.
For consumers—especially medical marijuana patients and hemp users—the impact is immediate and practical. The ruling reduces the risk that a routine traffic stop turns into a fishing expedition based solely on a subjective claim about odor. That matters because odor is inherently difficult to measure, easy to dispute, and vulnerable to inconsistent application. The court’s shift effectively raises the evidentiary bar: law enforcement must point to other objective indicators—such as visible contraband, admissions, inconsistent statements, or specific facts suggesting illegal possession or use—before searching.
But the decision is not a “free pass.” The court was explicit that cannabis odor can still contribute to probable cause when paired with other circumstances, and Florida’s impaired-driving and public-safety laws remain fully enforceable. In other words, the ruling narrows a search shortcut; it does not legalize unlawful possession, driving while impaired, or illegal consumption in a vehicle.
The broader takeaway for Florida consumers is a recalibration: cannabis-related enforcement during traffic stops must now look more like other contraband investigations—grounded in multiple facts, not a single sensory cue.
Learn More: Jacksonville Cannabis Enforcement: Penalties, Enhancements, and Common Pitfalls