Marijuana Odor Alone Is Not Probable Cause to Search a Person
Posted in Constitutional Rights,Fourth Amendment on June 22, 2025
In a significant decision shaping the limits of police authority in marijuana-related stops, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in United States v. Outlaw, No. 24-2114 (May 28, 2025), that the smell of marijuana alone does not give police probable cause to search or arrest a vehicle occupant, absent specific evidence tying the odor to that person.
🧭 Factual & Procedural Background
On Dec. 31, 2020, Newark officers in unmarked cars approached a parked Audi with tinted windows, engine running, and—crucially—the smell and visible smoke of burning marijuana inside.
Detective Castro conducted a traffic stop, ordered the driver, Abdul Outlaw, out of the car, and performed a pat‑down. He discovered a firearm (with a defaced serial number) and 3.6 g of raw marijuana. Outlaw was arrested.
The District Court granted Outlaw’s motion to suppress, concluding that while the vehicle stop was lawful, there was no probable cause to search Outlaw’s person.
⚖️ Third Circuit Decision
The Third Circuit affirmed suppression. It recognized a critical legal distinction:
Odor of marijuana alone may justify searching a vehicle, but does not provide probable cause to search or arrest an individual, unless there’s specific linkage to that person.
Here, both driver and passenger were present, and no individualized signs—such as smell on breath/clothing or signs of intoxication—connected the odor or smoke to Outlaw himself.
The Court distinguished cases where probable cause was found because (1) the defendant smelled of marijuana when alone or in proximity, or (2) accompanying evidence suggested usage. None applied here.
📝 Key Takeaways & Implications
1. Scope of Marijuana-Odor Stops
The Court clarifies that while marijuana odor allows vehicle searches, it does not automatically justify arresting a person in the vehicle absent additional individualized evidence.
2. Shoring Up Constitutional Protections
This ruling underscores that probable cause must be particularized—tailored to a person—not inferred broadly from the surrounding circumstances, safeguarding against authority overreach.
While the marijuana odor justified a vehicle search, it did not justify the search or arrest of a person inside the car unless officers had:
Specific observations linking the odor to that person (e.g., smell on clothing, visible use)
Individualized suspicion, not generalized assumptions
3. Guidance for Law Enforcement
Officers must gather more: e.g., smoking visible on a person, odor on clothing/breath, or behavioral cues before arresting for personal possession.
Without such indicators, obtaining evidence via search incidental to arrest may be suppressed.
State College criminal defense attorney Jason S. Dunkle has successfully obtained the suppression of evidence in various cases, from a warrantless entry into a home for a DUI arrest to a warrantless search of a home. Defense attorneys are responsible for holding law enforcement accountable and making sure that they do not violate the rights of U.S. citizens.
For a free case review, contact JD Law by email or leave a message at (814) 689-9139. Email is the preferred method of communication, as phone calls are directed to voicemail due to the high volume of spam and unsolicited calls.