Can Police Still Search Your Car Just Because It Smells Like Weed in Florida?(2025 Update)

If you’ve been pulled over in Florida and an officer says, “I smell marijuana,” your next thought is usually:

“Can they search my car now just because of that?”

For years, the answer was basically yes. The smell of marijuana coming from a vehicle was treated as automatic probable cause to search the entire car.

But Florida law has changed. Hemp is legal. Medical marijuana is legal. Both smell exactly like illegal marijuana.

As a result, the old “if it smells like weed, we can search anything” rule is starting to break down in Florida courts—especially on the appellate level.

This post explains, in plain English:

• How the old “plain smell” rule worked

• What changed with hemp and medical marijuana

• Why some parts of Florida now require “odor plus” to search a car

• What this means if you’re stopped and your car “smells like marijuana”

• How this issue can be used in a motion to suppress if you’re charged

Important: This article is general information, not legal advice. If you’re facing charges, talk to a criminal defense lawyer about your specific facts.

Quick Answer

• Historically: If an officer said they smelled marijuana from your car, that alone was enough probable cause to search it.

• Now: In some parts of Florida, appellate courts have said that odor by itself is no longer enough because hemp and lawful medical marijuana smell identical to illegal cannabis.

• Statewide: The law is in transition. Some District Courts of Appeal (DCAs) still treat odor as enough; others require “odor plus” additional suspicious facts. The Florida Supreme Court is likely to step in.

1. The Old Rule: “Plain Smell” = Automatic Probable Cause

For decades, Florida courts applied a simple rule:

If a trained officer smelled marijuana coming from a vehicle, that smell alone gave them probable cause to search the car.

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Betz approved this logic. Lower courts followed with case after case saying the same thing: the odor of marijuana, standing alone, justified a warrantless vehicle search under the “automobile exception.”

In practice, that meant:

• A minor traffic stop (speeding, tag light, rolling stop)

• Officer approaches the driver’s window

• Says, “I smell marijuana”

• Entire car gets searched, sometimes including closed containers

The assumption behind this rule was that any marijuana smell = illegal contraband.

2. What Changed: Hemp & Medical Marijuana

The problem is that assumption is no longer true.

• Florida legalized hemp as an agricultural commodity (≤0.3% THC).

• Florida expanded medical marijuana, so thousands of Floridians legally possess cannabis products.

• Hemp and marijuana look and smell the same. Even trained officers and drug dogs can’t tell them apart by sight or smell.

So now:

• The exact same “weed smell” might come from:

  • Illegal marijuana

  • Legal hemp

  • Legitimate medical marijuana

But only one of those is a crime.

That’s why courts have started asking:If the smell of cannabis is just as likely to come from a legal source as an illegal one, can we still say the “incriminating nature” of that odor is immediately apparent?

Some appellate courts have answered no.

3. Florida’s Split: Different Rules in Different DCAs

Florida has 6 District Courts of Appeal (DCAs). They review cases coming up from the trial courts in their regions.

Right now, they do not all agree on marijuana odor and vehicle searches.

A. DCAs that say “odor alone is NOT enough” (odor-plus rule)

Fifth DCA – Central / Northeast Florida

• In Baxter v. State (en banc), the Fifth DCA held that:

  • The plain smell of cannabis is no longer clearly indicative of criminal activity.

  • The odor of cannabis cannot, by itself, establish probable cause to search a vehicle.

  • Cannabis odor is still a factor, but it must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances with other facts suggesting illegality.

Second DCA – Tampa Bay and surrounding

• In Williams v. State (en banc, 2025), the Second DCA:

  • Overruled its earlier case (Owens) that had allowed odor-only searches.

  • Held that the mere odor of cannabis is no longer enough to establish probable cause.

  • Explained that because hemp and medical marijuana are legal and smell the same as illegal cannabis, odor alone no longer makes it “immediately apparent” that a crime is being committed.

In both of these districts, the rule is now:

Odor alone ≠ probable cause.Officers need “odor plus”: admissions, visible contraband, impairment, paraphernalia, or other specific facts.

B. DCAs that still treat odor as enough (for now)

Fourth DCA – Southeast Florida

• In State v. Fortin (2024), the Fourth DCA reaffirmed the traditional rule:

  • The smell of marijuana, fresh or burnt, still provides probable cause for a vehicle search.

  • The possibility of hemp or medical marijuana is treated more like an affirmative defense than something that destroys probable cause at the roadside.

First DCA – North Florida / Panhandle

• The First DCA (which covers Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, etc.) has older cases like Johnson v. State (2019) that embraced the plain-smell rule.

• A later case, Hatcher v. State, includes a concurrence from Judge Bilbrey openly questioning whether plain smell still makes sense after hemp—but the court hasn’t formally changed the rule yet.

• A recent case, Hall v. State (2025), mentions the new law from Baxter and Campbell but sidesteps the issue because it wasn’t preserved properly in the trial court.

So in the First DCA, the law is in flux. Many judges still apply older “smell = search” cases, but there is strong, modern authority from other DCAs saying that is unconstitutional in the hemp/medical-marijuana era.

Third DCA – Miami / Monroe

• In Wright-Johnson v. State, the Third DCA recognized that the plain-smell doctrine is being questioned.

• It ultimately upheld the search based on good-faith reliance on old precedent, without squarely deciding whether odor alone is enough going forward.

Bottom line:

• 2nd & 5th DCAs: Odor-only searches are not allowed (for new cases).

• 4th DCA: Odor-only searches still allowed under existing precedent.

• 1st & 3rd DCAs: The issue is open and contested, and defense lawyers are litigating it case by case.

The Florida Supreme Court is very likely going to have to resolve this conflict.

4. Raw vs. Burnt Marijuana Smell: Does It Matter?

For years, courts treated raw and burnt marijuana smell the same:

• Raw smell implied marijuana present in the car.

• Burnt smell implied recent use and likely presence of marijuana or paraphernalia.

Even now, most of the appellate opinions talk about the “odor of cannabis” without drawing a big legal distinction between fresh and burnt.

From a search-and-seizure standpoint, both have the same problem:

• Either odor could come from:

  • Illegal marijuana, or

  • Legal hemp or lawful medical marijuana.

So in districts following Baxter and Williams, neither raw nor burnt odor, standing alone, is enough for probable cause. An officer can consider it, but needs something more.

Burnt odor may give officers more reason to check for impairment (possible DUI case), but that’s a different question than whether they can tear apart the car looking for contraband.

5. What Can Officers Rely On Now? “Odor Plus”

In the DCAs that have rejected plain smell, courts are clear:

Officers must look at the totality of the circumstances, not just one factor.

Examples of “odor plus” facts that might combine with cannabis smell to create probable cause:

• Visible buds, shake, or a bag of plant material

• Pipes, rolling papers, grinders, or other obvious paraphernalia

• Strong signs of impairment (slurred speech, confusion, inability to stand or drive safely)

• Admissions like “Yeah, I’ve got a little weed in the center console”

• Multiple indicators of dealing (scale, baggies, large amounts of cash, etc.)

If a case is odor-only—no visible weed, no paraphernalia, no impairment, no admission—those newer cases say a search is unconstitutional.

6. What Should You Do If an Officer Says “I Smell Marijuana”?

This isn’t about beating cases on technicalities; it’s about knowing your rights and not accidentally making things worse.

General principles (not specific advice for your case):

1. Stay calm and polite.Don’t argue, don’t get sarcastic, and don’t escalate the situation.

2. You don’t have to consent to a search.If an officer asks, “Do you mind if I search your car?” you can say:

   “I do not consent to any searches.”They may search anyway, but you’ve clearly asserted your rights.

3. You can ask if you’re free to go.A simple, calm question:

   “Am I free to go, or am I being detained?”helps clarify whether you’re in a simple traffic stop or a possible criminal investigation.

4. Don’t lie. Don’t volunteer extra information.You are not required to answer questions about where you’ve been, what you’ve used, or what’s in the car. If you’re uncomfortable, you can say:

   “I’d like to remain silent and speak with a lawyer.”

5. Remember: roadside is not a courtroom.Don’t try to “argue the law” with the officer. These odor-search issues are won and lost later—in motions to suppress—based on the record created at the scene.

7. Why This Matters If You’re Charged

If police searched your car after saying “I smell marijuana,” and you were later charged with a crime (drug possession, gun charge, etc.), this issue can be critical to your defense.

Your lawyer may be able to:

• File a motion to suppress arguing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution.

• Show that:

  • Odor was the only real basis for the search, and

  • Under modern case law (especially Baxter and Williams), that is not enough.

If the judge agrees and suppresses the evidence:

• Drugs, guns, or other items found in the search can be excluded.

• In many cases, the State then has little or no evidence left and may have to reduce or dismiss the charges.

Even in parts of Florida that haven’t formally adopted the new rule yet, lawyers are using these cases as persuasive authority to push trial courts (and DCAs) toward the odor-plus standard.

8. The Trend: Where Florida Is Likely Headed

All signs point in one direction:

• Legal hemp and legal medical marijuana are here to stay.

• Courts recognize that you can’t smell THC percentage or tell legal from illegal cannabis by odor.

• The plain-smell rule made sense when all cannabis possession was a crime; it makes far less sense now.

Two DCAs have already done the hard work of updating the law. Others are acknowledging the issue, even when they uphold older searches under a good-faith theory.

The likely endgame:

A statewide rule from the Florida Supreme Court that the odor of cannabis is a factor—but not an automatic pass to search your car.

Until then, the legality of an “odor of marijuana” search in Florida depends heavily on where you were stopped, when, and what else the officer observed.

9. What To Do If You’re Facing Charges After a Weed-Odor Search

If you’ve been arrested or charged after a vehicle search where the officer claimed to smell marijuana:

• Act quickly. Evidence and videos need to be preserved.

• Get a defense lawyer who understands the current case law on cannabis odor and vehicle searches.

• Make sure your lawyer evaluates:

  • Which DCA you’re in

  • Whether the search was before or after Baxter/Williams

  • Whether there were any genuine “odor plus” facts—beyond the officer’s nose

An aggressive, well-researched motion to suppress can completely change the outcome of your case.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for personalized legal advice. Every case is different. If you’ve been arrested or charged with a crime in Florida, consult a licensed criminal defense attorney about your specific situation.

Sources & Key Florida Cases (with Links)

These are the main legal authorities backing up the discussion above:

• State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2002) – Florida Supreme Court case approving warrantless vehicle search based on marijuana odor.

• State v. Jennings, 968 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) – 4th DCA case applying plain smell to justify search of vehicle and occupant.

• State v. Tigner, 276 So. 3d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) – 4th DCA reaffirming that marijuana odor alone provided probable cause for vehicle search.

• Johnson v. State, 275 So. 3d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) – 1st DCA case holding that even if smoking marijuana were legal, odor from a driver could still create probable cause; also addresses medical marijuana.

• Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) – 2nd DCA case holding post-hemp that marijuana odor emanating from a vehicle still provided probable cause (later overruled by Williams in the 2nd DCA).

• Hatcher v. State, 342 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) – majority applies existing law; Judge Bilbrey’s concurrence questions whether plain smell survives hemp legalization.

• State v. Fortin, 383 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) – 4th DCA case holding that smell of marijuana, fresh or burnt, still provides probable cause for a vehicle search.

• Baxter v. State, 389 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (en banc) – leading 5th DCA decision rejecting the plain-smell doctrine for cannabis; cannabis odor alone no longer clearly indicative of criminal activity.

• Ford v. State, No. 5D2023-1995 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 7, 2025) – 5th DCA opinion applying Baxter; concurring opinion stresses that if odor alone isn’t even reasonable suspicion, it cannot be probable cause.

• Campbell v. State, 407 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) – 2nd DCA panel opinion indicating that post-hemp, cannabis odor alone doesn’t create reasonable suspicion without additional facts.

• Williams v. State (Darrielle Ortiz Williams v. State of Florida), No. 2D2023-2200 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 1, 2025) (en banc) – 2nd DCA overrules Owens; holds that plain smell of cannabis alone is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

• Hall v. State, No. 1D2024-3216 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 8, 2025) – 1st DCA recognizes Baxter and Campbell but avoids ruling on the odor issue because it was not preserved; shows the issue is on the court’s radar.

• Wright-Johnson v. State (DelJimmyo Wright-Johnson v. State of Florida), No. 3D22-1899 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 5, 2025) – 3rd DCA acknowledges the plain-smell controversy but upholds search under good-faith reliance on older law.

• Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992) – Florida Supreme Court case on the “Pardo rule,” explaining that DCA decisions bind trial courts statewide on issues of first impression absent conflict.