On July 22, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that police can't search a car based only on marijuana odor or a civil marijuana infraction

On July 22, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in People v. Wilkins that police cannot conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception based only on probable cause that a marijuana civil infraction has occurred. According to the court's opinion, officers instead need probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, which in marijuana cases means probable cause to believe a criminal amount of marijuana is present. The court also held that the smell of marijuana does not, by itself, provide probable cause regarding possession of a criminal amount.

The case began with a traffic stop for speeding. According to the opinion, a Michigan State Police trooper smelled marijuana, learned that the driver and the passenger were both under 21, and later heard the passenger say she may have had a small amount of marijuana. Under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, which voters approved by ballot initiative in 2018, possession of not more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana by a person under 21 is a civil infraction for a first or second violation, while possession of larger amounts can still be a crime. The trooper searched the car without a warrant and found a concealed firearm but no marijuana, and the driver was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. The trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to suppress the gun. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Justice Kimberly A. Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh and Justices Elizabeth M. Welch, Kyra H. Bolden and Noah P. Hood. The court wrote that the people of Michigan "demonstrated a reduced state interest" in enforcing marijuana possession laws by taking the offense out of criminal law. The majority said the smell of marijuana may still be one factor in deciding whether there is probable cause, and that odor combined with other signs, such as a criminal amount of marijuana in plain view, smoking, dissipating smoke or signs of intoxication, may well establish probable cause. Justice Welch also wrote a concurrence saying she would have decided the case under the Michigan Constitution. Justice Brian K. Zahra, joined by Justice Richard H. Bernstein, dissented, writing that the trooper had probable cause to believe he would find marijuana contraband because no one in the vehicle could legally possess any amount. The ruling builds on the court's 2025 decision in People v. Armstrong, which held that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer enough to establish probable cause.

WNEM reported the 5-2 ruling on July 25 and said Michigan State Police and Saginaw police declined to comment on it. In Legal Update No. 171, issued in July 2026, Michigan State Police summarized the decision for officers and said the holding is not limited to marijuana civil infractions and would similarly bar a warrantless vehicle search based solely on probable cause of any civil infraction.

Current status: as of Oct. 18, 2026, the decision stands, and no motion for rehearing or later change to the ruling was found. The underlying case was remanded to the Kent Circuit Court.

This report summarizes a court decision and published reporting and is not legal advice.