Summary and Legal Analysis: People v. Jeffery Scott Armstrong, Michigan Supreme Court (2025)

Michigan Supreme Court: Smell of Marijuana Alone Not Enough for Vehicle Search

Introduction

In People v. Armstrong, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a significant question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: can the smell of marijuana alone justify a warrantless vehicle search? This decision redefines the limits of police authority post-legalization of marijuana in Michigan.

Background of the Case

Jeffery Scott Armstrong was charged with firearm-related offenses after Detroit police discovered a handgun under the passenger seat of a vehicle where he was seated. The officers approached the car due to the smell of burnt marijuana. Armstrong challenged the search, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment.

Lower Court Rulings

The Wayne Circuit Court suppressed the evidence, holding that:

  • Armstrong was seized when officers surrounded the vehicle.
  • The smell of marijuana alone did not establish probable cause.
  • The plain-view exception did not apply.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) had superseded the precedent in People v. Kazmierczak (2000), which previously permitted vehicle searches based solely on marijuana odor.

Supreme Court’s Holding

Majority Opinion (Justice Cavanagh)

The Court held that:

  • The smell of marijuana is insufficient by itself to establish probable cause.
  • The MRTMA, by legalizing certain marijuana uses, invalidated the rationale behind Kazmierczak.
  • Warrantless vehicle searches require probable cause considering all circumstances, not just the smell.
  • Even assuming a valid Terry stop, the gun was not in plain view but discovered via search, making it inadmissible.

Key Legal Principles

  1. Automobile Exception: Requires probable cause; marijuana smell alone doesn’t meet this threshold post-MRTMA.
  2. Terry Stop Doctrine: Allows investigatory stops with reasonable suspicion, but plain-view seizures must be immediately obvious and visible from a lawful vantage point.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Zahra)

Justice Zahra argued:

  • The trial court improperly dismissed the plain-view exception.
  • Reasonable suspicion from the marijuana smell might have justified a Terry stop.
  • The Court should not have overruled Kazmierczak in this case, as other evidence (like nervous behavior or movement) was potentially relevant.

Implications of the Ruling

  • Police can no longer rely on marijuana odor alone to justify vehicle searches.
  • Officers must evaluate a broader set of factors to establish probable cause.
  • The ruling underscores evolving constitutional interpretations as drug laws change.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Armstrong marks a pivotal shift in how Fourth Amendment protections are applied in the post-legalization era. Law enforcement must now tread more carefully when initiating searches based on the presence of marijuana odor.

FAQs

1. What law did the Supreme Court say overrides Kazmierczak? The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).

2. Can police still search a car if they smell marijuana? Only if other factors besides the smell establish probable cause.

3. Was the gun admissible in People v. Armstrong? No, it was discovered during an unlawful search and suppressed.

4. Does this ruling apply statewide? Yes, the Michigan Supreme Court’s decisions apply across the state.

5. What is a Terry stop? A brief detention by police based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, allowing limited search for weapons or contraband.