Florida appeals courts have sharply limited when police can search cars based solely on the odor of marijuana, marking one of the most significant shifts in the state’s search-and-seizure law in decades.
In an October 1, 2025, en banc decision in Darrielle Ortiz Williams v. State, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the “plain smell” of cannabis by itself no longer establishes probable cause for a warrantless search. The court pointed to Florida’s legalization of medical marijuana and hemp—and the fact that legal and illegal cannabis products smell the same.
“For years, if an officer said, ‘I smell marijuana,’ that was effectively a green light to search a vehicle,” said one Tampa-area defense attorney summarizing the ruling. But the Second DCA held that, because cannabis is no longer automatically illegal under Florida law, odor alone cannot make it “clearly or immediately apparent” that a crime is being committed, a key requirement for the plain-smell doctrine.
The decision brings the Second DCA in line with the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which reached a similar conclusion in Baxter v. State in 2024. In Baxter, the court concluded that “smell of marijuana alone cannot create probable cause” after statutory changes “eliminated the main pillar supporting the ‘plain smell’ doctrine,” and emphasized that courts must instead look to the “totality of the circumstances.”
Together, the rulings mean that in large swaths of Florida—from the Tampa Bay region to parts of Central Florida—officers may not justify a vehicle search solely on the scent of cannabis. Smell still matters, but it must be combined with other indicators, such as impaired driving, visible contraband, or incriminating statements.
News organizations and legal commentators have described the shift as a major recalibration of police powers. Public radio outlet WUSF reported that the appeals court “backed away” from the plain-smell doctrine, citing Florida’s medical marijuana program and hemp laws as reasons the odor of cannabis no longer reliably signals criminal conduct.
Defense-focused groups quickly highlighted the decision’s impact. NORML, a national cannabis reform organization, noted that the Second DCA’s ruling means officers in its jurisdiction “may no longer initiate motor vehicle searches solely based on smelling cannabis.” Several Florida law firms have since published advisories telling motorists that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer enough to justify a search—but warning that other facts can still tip the balance back toward probable cause.
The underlying legal landscape changed in stages. Voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing medical marijuana, and in 2019 lawmakers passed a hemp bill that removed hemp and certain medical cannabis from the statutory definition of “cannabis.” Those reforms created a basic problem for courts: if the same smell can come from legal hemp, a medical patient’s lawful product, or illegal marijuana, odor alone no longer distinguishes lawful from unlawful conduct.
Despite the shift, the rulings do not legalize marijuana possession or impaired driving. Officers can still investigate suspected DUI based on cannabis, and they remain free to act when smell is coupled with other evidence of a crime. The decisions instead raise the bar for warrantless intrusions, reinforcing protections under the Fourth Amendment and Florida’s own constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches.
The Second DCA certified a question of “great public importance” to the Florida Supreme Court, effectively inviting the justices to decide whether the new standard should apply statewide. Until then, Florida drivers—especially medical marijuana patients and hemp users—find themselves with stronger protections in some regions than others, even as a thin haze of uncertainty still hangs over how every traffic stop will play out.