For decades, an officer who smelled cannabis could search your car on that basis alone. In the Second District, which covers the Tampa Bay area, that is no longer the law. The legalization of hemp and medical marijuana changed the reasoning that supported the old rule, because the smell of cannabis no longer tells an officer whether a crime is occurring. This is one of the most useful recent developments for the defense, and it is binding here.
The smell of cannabis alone no longer establishes probable cause in the Second District. It can still count as one factor when combined with other facts that point to a crime.
Facing a marijuana charge? The odor question on this page is often the heart of a possession case. For the charge itself, the degrees, and the penalties, see Marijuana and Cannabis Charges.
What Changed and Why
In Williams v. State, 421 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), the Second District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, held that the plain smell of cannabis can no longer establish probable cause on its own. The court receded from its earlier decision in Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), which had held the opposite, and aligned with the Fifth District’s decision in Baxter v. State, 389 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). The reasoning is that hemp, which is legal, and marijuana smell the same, so the odor no longer makes it immediately apparent that a substance is illegal. The odor is now treated as one factor within the totality of the circumstances.
Odor Plus
The smell still counts for something when there is more. In Cherfils v. State, No. 2D2023-1932 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 31, 2025), the Second District found probable cause where the odor was combined with other facts: the driver’s dishonesty about the nature of the smell, his evasive and argumentative behavior, and evidence that the cannabis was a type that could not be lawfully smoked in a vehicle. Cherfils is the companion to Williams, because it shows what the State now has to add to bare odor, and it gives the defense a checklist for testing whether those additional facts are really present.
What This Means for Your Case
The combined effect is a real opening. If a search in this district rested on the smell of cannabis and nothing more, Williams supports a motion to suppress. The defense work is isolating exactly what the officer relied on, separating the odor from any genuine additional facts, and holding the State to the odor-plus standard from Cherfils. Because hemp is legal under section 581.217 of the Florida Statutes and medical marijuana is lawful under section 381.986, the lawful explanations for the smell are now part of the analysis rather than afterthoughts.
Where This Is Binding
This matters a great deal in our area. The Second District Court of Appeal covers Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, and several other counties, so its decisions bind the trial courts here. The Williams decision came down on October 1, 2025, which means searches conducted after that date in this district are governed by the new rule that odor alone is not enough. Because the Second District also certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court, the law may eventually be settled statewide, but for now the rule in this region is clear and favorable to challenging odor-only searches.
How We Use Williams and Cherfils
The two decisions work together. Williams gives the rule that the smell of cannabis, standing alone, no longer establishes probable cause, which is the basis for a motion to suppress when a search rested on odor and nothing else. Cherfils maps the other side, showing which additional facts a court will treat as enough when combined with odor. So the analysis on a given case is precise: isolate exactly what the officer relied on, separate the bare odor from any genuine additional facts, and show the court either that there was nothing more than smell or that the supposed extra factors do not hold up. A K-9 alert adds little when the dog cannot distinguish legal hemp from illegal cannabis, a point a 2025 Fifth District decision in Ford v. State, 400 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), underscored.
This is one of the fastest-moving areas in Florida search-and-seizure law, and I follow it closely, because in the counties where I practice the odor of cannabis alone no longer lets an officer tear your car apart. I look hard at what the officer had beyond a claimed smell, since that is now the whole question, and I know which decisions bind the courts here and how recently the rule changed. When a search rested on nothing more than a sniff, I put the current law in front of the court and move to suppress what that search produced.
I started out as an Assistant Public Defender in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in Tampa, and today I am one of six ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientists in Florida. I work both the science and the procedure in your case the way the State’s own analysts and officers are trained to, and I show a jury the exact point where the evidence does not hold up. Learn more about my background.
Questions About the Odor of Cannabis
Can police search my car just because they smell cannabis?
Not in the Second District, which covers the Tampa Bay area, after October 1, 2025. In Williams v. State, the court held that the odor of cannabis, standing alone, no longer provides probable cause for a search. Officers now need additional facts.
Why did the law change?
Because Florida legalized hemp and medical marijuana, the odor of cannabis no longer reliably indicates a crime. Hemp and marijuana smell the same, so the smell alone is no longer immediately indicative of illegal activity, which is the reasoning the courts adopted.
What case changed it?
In Williams v. State, the Second District Court of Appeal receded from its earlier decision in Owens v. State and held that plain smell alone is no longer probable cause. The Fifth District had reached a similar result in Baxter v. State the year before.
Can odor still matter at all?
Yes, as one factor among others. In Cherfils v. State, the court found probable cause where the odor was combined with other facts, including dishonesty about the smell, evasive and argumentative behavior, and evidence that the cannabis could not be lawfully smoked in the vehicle.
What is the odor plus standard?
It is the idea that the smell of cannabis can contribute to probable cause when it is combined with additional facts, but cannot establish it alone. The question becomes whether the extra facts, taken with the odor, add up to a fair probability of a crime.
Does a drug dog alert solve the problem for police?
Not necessarily. A dog that cannot distinguish legal hemp from illegal cannabis provides an alert that does not reliably indicate a crime, a concern Florida courts have recognized, so a K-9 alert based only on cannabis odor faces the same challenge.
Related pages: the search overview, the automobile exception, reasonable suspicion, and the motion to suppress.
This page is general information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Search and seizure in Florida is governed by the Fourth Amendment, Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190. The law changes and every case turns on its own facts. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
