By The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that the scent of cannabis alone is sufficient reason to warrant a police investigation, even though other products with similar odors, such as hemp, have been legalized. bottom. The court’s conservative majority ruled 4-3 that police officers in Marshfield, Wisconsin, had good cause to search the defendant after detecting the smell of cannabis in the car he was driving. and refused to exclude evidence found during the warrantless search. The ruling admitted evidence from the investigation because it wasn’t certain the officers smelled marijuana, which is still illegal under Wisconsin law, and hemp, a federally legalized crop. It overturns two lower court rulings that it could not. Along with the 2018 Farm Bill.
A court ruled on Tuesday in the case of Quaheem Moore, a man who was stopped for speeding by two police officers in Marshfield in 2019. Officers said in their report they smelled a strong odor while talking to Moore. Burning cannabis scatters from inside the car. When questioned about the smell, Moore told officers he was in possession of a CBD e-cigarette and said the car was rented by his brother.
Cannabis scent cited as reason for search
Officers admitted they smelled marijuana from Moore, but cited the smell of cannabis wafting from the car as the reason for searching the car and Moore. Officers said during the search that Moore’s belt buckle appeared to be twisted and upon closer inspection they found a bulge in his pants. Upon closer inspection, officers found a hidden pocket inside the zipper of Moore’s trousers containing packets of fentanyl and cocaine.
Police then arrested Moore and charged him with drug possession, although he was not charged with marijuana possession. Moore’s lawyers argued that officers did not smell marijuana from Mr Moore and that officers had no valid reason to search because hemp, which has an odor indistinguishable from CBD and marijuana, is legal. bottom. Drugs found in searches should therefore be excluded from the evidence.
The Circuit Court Judge and the Court of Appeals agreed and ruled that the evidence found in the investigation was inadmissible. Prosecutors appealed the ruling, arguing that the lower court was erroneous in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible to the trial.
Judgment Overturns Lower Court in Wisconsin
The Supreme Court disagreed with the previous ruling, overturning the lower court’s ruling and ruled that the evidence obtained in the investigation could be used in court. In a majority opinion written by Justice Brian Hegedorn, the conservative majority of the court said that because Mr. Moore was the only person in the vehicle, police said Mr. Moore “was involved in illegal substances identified by officers.” There is a high possibility that the
The ruling was based on a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that police could arrest a driver because he smelled cannabis in the car he was driving. The ruling said the “unmistakable” scent of a controlled substance was evidence that a crime had been committed.
But a liberal minority in the Wisconsin Supreme Court questioned the connection between the 1999 ruling and Mr. Moore’s case, and officers said they had strong evidence that the cannabis smell was from Mr. Moore. said they don’t have They also noted that the previous ruling was outdated and did not consider the subsequent legalization of cannabis and CBD.
“A police officer who believes a vehicle smells of marijuana is likely smelling raw or smoked cannabis, but this is not a criminal act,” Justice Rebecca Frank Darrett added. said in a dissenting opinion joined by a judge.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling was released on Tuesday, Moore’s attorney Joshua Hargrove said the ruling could allow law enforcement to justify investigations based on unreliable conclusions without being held accountable in court. warned of potential
“This opinion may lead to the arrest of more citizens who have committed lawful acts,” he said. said in a statement Quoted by Associated Press.
