Background
A Michigan State Police trooper pulled over a vehicle driven by Freddie Wilkins, III, for speeding. Upon approaching the car, the trooper smelled marijuana. Both Wilkins and his passenger were under the age of 21, the legal age for marijuana possession in Michigan. After initially denying they had any marijuana, the passenger admitted to possessing “some shake,” which the trooper understood to mean a small amount.
Under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), possession of a small amount of marijuana by a person under 21 is a civil infraction, not a crime. Based on the smell and the passenger’s admission, the trooper conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle. The search did not uncover any marijuana but did reveal a firearm that Wilkins admitted was his. He was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle.
Wilkins moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied his motion, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, finding the search was lawful. Wilkins then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the warrantless search of Wilkins’ vehicle was unlawful. The Court concluded that the search was not justified under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because the trooper lacked probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in the car.
The Court explained that the automobile exception allows for a warrantless search only when police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains “contraband or evidence of a crime.” In this case, the facts known to the trooper—the smell of marijuana and the passenger’s admission to having a small amount—only established probable cause for a civil infraction. The Court explicitly declined to extend the automobile exception to situations where police merely suspect a non-criminal, civil offense has occurred.
Because Michigan law distinguishes between a criminal amount of marijuana and a non-criminal amount (which results in only a civil infraction), an officer must have probable cause to believe a criminal amount is present to justify a search. The smell of marijuana alone is insufficient, as is an admission to possessing a non-criminal quantity. Since the trooper only had probable cause for a civil infraction, the search was unconstitutional, and the evidence found must be suppressed.
Key Takeaways
- In Michigan, probable cause that only a civil infraction has occurred is not enough to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception.
- To search a vehicle for marijuana, police must have probable cause to believe a *criminal* amount of marijuana is present, not just any amount that might constitute a civil infraction.
- The smell of marijuana, whether alone or combined with evidence of a non-criminal amount, does not automatically create probable cause to search a vehicle for evidence of a crime.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly clarifies the limits of police authority during traffic stops in the era of marijuana decriminalization. It establishes a strong privacy protection for Michigan drivers by creating a clear distinction between suspicion of a minor civil offense and the power to conduct an invasive warrantless vehicle search. The ruling prevents the exception from swallowing the rule, ensuring that minor infractions do not become a pretext for broad searches.
The case demonstrates how the legal landscape for searches and seizures must adapt as states reclassify marijuana offenses. By requiring probable cause of an actual crime, the court reinforces Fourth Amendment principles in light of changing laws. This ruling will guide law enforcement conduct in Michigan and may influence other states grappling with the constitutional implications of decriminalizing marijuana while still penalizing underage use.