{"id":62093,"date":"2025-10-09T11:09:20","date_gmt":"2025-10-09T16:09:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=62093"},"modified":"2025-10-09T11:09:20","modified_gmt":"2025-10-09T16:09:20","slug":"fl2-vehicle-searches-based-on-mj-smell-occurring-before-change-in-law-valid-by-gfe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=62093","title":{"rendered":"FL2: Vehicle searches based on MJ smell occurring before change in law valid by GFE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

While the smell of cannabis is no longer justification for a vehicle search, searches prior to the date the law changed are valid under the good faith exception. Williams v. State<\/a>, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7538 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 8, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe evidence submitted at the evidentiary hearing established two independent bases to justify the stop and subsequent detention. First, the car was caught traveling 15 miles per hour over the speed limit; and second, there was reasonable suspicion Murray was trafficking drugs\u2014reasonable suspicion that justified the initial stop and that quickly ripened into probable cause once the drug dog alerted positively in under three minutes.\u201d United States v. Murray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199111 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 29, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For search incident, \u201cthe test here is an objective one. What the officers actually thought or believed is irrelevant. The question is whether the facts show that an offender could access the cooler here, not whether the officers actually believed or feared he would. Thus, defendant’s own conclusions that Investigator Soppe and Captain Steil must not have been in fear for their safety or certain that they would find evidence inside the cooler are unavailing following this Court’s de novo view of the law.\u201d United States v. Parker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198997 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While the smell of cannabis is no longer justification for a vehicle search, searches prior to the date the law changed are valid under the good faith exception. Williams v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7538 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51,35,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-plain-view","category-reasonable-suspicion","category-search-incident"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=62093"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62094,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62093\/revisions\/62094"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=62093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=62093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=62093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}