For years, officers in Florida’s Second District could search a vehicle based solely on the smell of marijuana. The assumption was simple: if it smelled like cannabis, it was probably illegal, and that was enough to open the doors and start searching. That changed with Williams v. State, a 2025 en banc decision from the Second District Court of Appeal, which squarely confronted how much Florida’s cannabis laws have evolved.
Over the last decade, the Florida Legislature and Congress created several categories of cannabis-related products that are lawful to possess: medical marijuana for qualified patients, hemp products with very low THC, and other regulated forms. None of these distinctions can be detected through smell alone. A police officer walking up to a car cannot tell, just by odor, whether the cannabis they smell is an illegal controlled substance or lawful hemp or medical marijuana.
What the Court Decided
The court held that the odor of marijuana, standing alone, is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause to search a vehicle.
The Second DCA recognized that reality and receded from its earlier precedent, including Owens v. State. The court brought cannabis cases back in line with the usual Fourth Amendment rule: courts must look at the totality of the circumstances. Odor can still be one factor, but it cannot be the entire basis for a vehicle search. Officers now need something more—such as admissions, visible contraband, signs of impaired driving, or other facts suggesting illegal possession.
What This Means for Tampa Bay Cases
This is a practical shift for cases arising out of Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Polk, Hardee, Highlands, DeSoto, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. For defense lawyers, the case is an important tool when filing motions to suppress in situations where the search was based only, or almost entirely, on the odor of marijuana. For everyday people, the decision is a reminder that constitutional protections are not frozen in time. When the Legislature changes what is and is not a crime, the way courts evaluate searches has to adjust as well.
One More Thing Worth Noting
The court ultimately affirmed the revocation of Mr. Williams’ probation—not because the search was lawful under the new rule, but because officers relied in good faith on binding appellate precedent that existed at the time of the search. Going forward, though, the rule has changed. In the Second DCA, smell alone no longer opens the door to a full search of a vehicle. The court also certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court, so further guidance at the highest level may be coming.
Read the full opinion: Williams v. State, No. 2D2023-2200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
How Sanchez Vaughn Trial Lawyers Can Help
If you were stopped and searched in the Tampa Bay area and the officer’s justification was the smell of marijuana, Williams v. State may be the key to suppressing that evidence. At Sanchez Vaughn Trial Lawyers, we file motions to suppress and challenge unlawful searches in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and surrounding counties every day. Contact us to find out whether the search in your case can be challenged under this new standard.