M.D.Ala.: When a car search is based on smell of MJ, it doesn’t matter that none was found

When a search is based on the smell of burnt or fresh marijuana, it doesn’t matter that none was found. United States v. Powell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70597 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 13, 2025):

The Court finds it insignificant that no burnt marijuana or burnt residue was found in the vehicle; marijuana—though fresh—was found in the vehicle. See United States v. Brounson, 2016 WL 4472983, at *8-9 (N.D. Ga. May 23, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4472971 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2016) (“[T]he fact that no evidence was introduced that marijuana, burnt or otherwise, was found in the vehicle or on Defendants’ persons does not refute the officers’ testimony.” Further, “[t]he evidence … does not foreclose consideration that burnt marijuana might have recently been in the vehicle or in Defendants’ possession while in the vehicle.”); Salley, 341 F. App’x at 501 (noting credibility of testimony about odor of marijuana is a decision for the fact finder); United States v. Smith, 596 F. App’x 804, 805-07 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of suppression motion where probable cause was based, in part, on the officer smelling marijuana through halfway-open vehicle windows despite mistaken notation of “burnt marijuana” smell over fresh marijuana smell).

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.