MN: GFE does not apply to after search changes in law that were obviously coming

“The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a warrantless vehicle search based solely on the smell of marijuana that occurred before we issued our opinion in State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 2023), which held that the odor of marijuana alone is insufficient to create probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” (Syllabus) For nearly 30 years, it was telegraphed that marijuana smell alone wasn’t always going to be enough. State v. Douglas, 2025 Minn. LEXIS 720 (Dec. 24, 2025) (4-3):

The State argues that we should expand our decision in Lindquist to include the circumstances here because suppressing the evidence found during the search of Douglas’s vehicle would have no deterrent value. We disagree.

We have stated that the purposes of the exclusionary rule in Minnesota include deterring police misconduct and other unlawful government conduct, as well as preserving judicial integrity and providing a remedy for violations of the Minnesota Constitution. See Malecha, 3 N.W.3d at 575, 577 & n.4; cf. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 446–47 (1974) (stating the primary rationale for the federal exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct). We also recognize that police work is difficult and the line between a constitutional and an unconstitutional search is not always clear. Nonetheless, the right to be free from unreasonable and warrantless government intrusion is one of the most fundamental protections our constitution guarantees to Minnesotans. We reiterate the longstanding constitutional rule that law enforcement should assess whether probable cause exists for a warrantless search after considering the totality of the circumstances in each case. See Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d at 173. We conclude that the rule we adopt today will serve to encourage those who train police officers to focus those officers on assessing the totality of the circumstances in each unique case rather than trying to suss out of our case law single, per se justifications for searches that may not otherwise be permissible under the totality of the circumstances.

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Nexus, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.