A Strong Smell of Drugs May Be Enough for Probable Cause

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently upheld police officers’ ability to perform a search based on what they smell during a traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed a ruling in the lower courts suppressing evidence seized on the basis that officers lacked probable cause to conduct a search. The Supreme Court concluded that the search was based on probable cause and thus was lawful.

The Facts and Legal Issues in State v. Moore

Quaheem Moore was pulled over for speeding in the City of Marshfield. The officer noticed that he had dumped liquid out the window immediately prior to stopping. The officer initially found a vape pen on his person. When the officer questioned him, she noticed a smell of raw marijuana coming from the car. Backup arrived, and the officers continued to question Moore. Ultimately, they decided to conduct a search pursuant to a lawful arrest. While they did not find anything in the car, they did find a bag in his pants containing cocaine and fentanyl. 

Moore was charged with possession with intent to distribute. In the lower court, his attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that officers lacked probable cause to conduct a full search. The lower court agreed and suppressed the evidence against Moore. The state appealed the ruling, but the appeals court affirmed it. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Smell of Drugs Should Allow Officers to Search

In reversing the circuit court, the Supreme Court looked at its own precedent involving searches when there is a smell of drugs. According to the Court, it is a “common sense conclusion” that there is probable cause to believe that there is criminal activity when there is an odor of illegal drugs. In another case, the Court held that there was probable cause when the odor was unmistakable and linked to a specific person. Here, Moore asked the court to establish a bright-line rule for when the officer could conduct a search based on a test.

The Court declined to institute the test that Moore proposed. The Court explained that the ability to conduct a search based on probable cause depends on the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the totality of the circumstances supported the existence of probable cause. Thus, the Court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case, allowing the evidence to be used in Moore’s trial. 

The Court’s holding in Moore does not necessarily expand police’s power to conduct a search. The lower court’s ruling was more of an outlier in limiting what may be considered probable cause. Nonetheless, defendants should aggressively challenge evidence when they believe that any search was unreasonable and violated their constitutional rights.

Contact a Eau Claire Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you have been charged with drug crimes, you need the legal help that a criminal defense attorney can provide. The Cohen Law Offices will review your case and determine whether there is an opening to challenge evidence being used against you. Call us today at (715) 382-9447, or send us a message online to speak to an attorney.