Can Michigan Police Search Your Car Just Because It Smells Like Weed?

No — the smell of weed is not a search warrant in Michigan. In People v. Wilkins, Docket 167737, decided July 22, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court held 5–2 that the automobile exception does not allow a warrantless vehicle search based only on probable cause of a civil marijuana infraction, and that the smell of marijuana does not per se establish probable cause of a criminal amount. This is a court rule, not a new traffic statute and not a new MCL. It does not legalize driving high. It does not block a consent search. It does not erase OWI.

The opinion landed in July. This post is dated September 5 because Metro Detroit readers are seeing it now — Metro Detroit News recirculated the holding — and this journal had a coverage gap. The recirc is a hook. The authority is the signed opinion, MSP Legal Update No. 171, and MRTMA’s penalty section.

I'm Jamie. I grow sun-grown organic flower for Divine Toke here in Detroit. I am not a lawyer, a cop, or a traffic-stop coach. I want you home. Legal weed on a Michigan shelf is not a hall pass for the Lodge, I-75, or 8 Mile. A court opinion about when an officer may rummage a car is also not a how-to-hide-weed kit. Read it that way.

Is This a New Michigan Traffic Law — or a Court Ruling? #

It is a court ruling about the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception — not a new traffic law, not a new MCL, and not a rewrite of the Vehicle Code. The legislature did not pass a “no smell searches” bill in July. The Michigan Supreme Court decided a suppression fight in a Kent County gun case.

A statute is a rule written into the compiled laws. A Supreme Court holding tells trial judges, prosecutors, and police how an existing constitutional rule applies. Wilkins interprets the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception against MRTMA. It does not add a line to your speeding ticket.

What people heard on a group chat	What actually happened
“Michigan passed a new law: cops can’t search for weed smell.”	No new statute. People v. Wilkins, decided July 22, 2026.
“Weed smell is now legal probable cause again.”	Opposite. Smell does not per se equal a criminal amount (opinion; MSP Update 171).
“This only matters in Kent County.”	The stop was in Kent County. The holding is statewide, including Metro Detroit.
“I can drive high now.”	No. MCL 257.625 and MCL 333.27954(1)(a) still ban that.
“If they ask to search, I have to say yes.”	Not what the Court said. Consent is a different exception. Wilkins was a no-consent automobile-exception search (MSP Update 171).

The Detroit Free Press reported the same split on July 24. I am citing Freep as coverage. If a headline and the PDF disagree, keep the PDF.

What Did the Michigan Supreme Court Actually Hold in People v. Wilkins? #

The automobile exception does not permit a warrantless vehicle search based only on probable cause of a civil marijuana infraction, and marijuana odor does not by itself prove a criminal amount. Justice Kimberly A. Thomas wrote for a 5–2 majority. Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh and Justices Elizabeth M. Welch, Kyra H. Bolden, and Noah P. Hood joined. Justice Welch concurred. Justice Brian K. Zahra dissented, joined by Justice Richard H. Bernstein.

A warrantless car search under the automobile exception requires probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. A civil infraction is, by Michigan statute, not a crime — MCL 257.6a, as the Court cited it. Substances prohibited only by civil law are not “contraband” for that exception, the majority held. Because amount splits a civil infraction from a crime under MCL 333.27965, the officer needs probable cause of a criminal amount or some other crime.

From the opinion:

We hold that the search was unlawful.

And later:

And merely smelling marijuana does not per se provide probable cause regarding possession of a criminal amount.

And in the close:

The smell of marijuana is not enough and, here, there is little else on which the trooper could rely.

MSP Legal Update No. 171 (July 2026) told troopers the same thing: the automobile exception “does not permit a warrantless search where there is probable cause that the vehicle only contains civil infraction contraband or evidence of a civil infraction offense.” MSP also warned the holding is not limited to marijuana. A warrantless car search based only on probable cause of any civil infraction is the same problem. Speeding is often a civil infraction. The Court used marijuana because that is the case that arrived.

Justice Welch joined the Fourth Amendment analysis in full. She wrote separately that she would have decided the case under Michigan Constitution, art. 1, § 11, because marijuana is still illegal federally and federal courts have not faced this split. That concurrence is not a second holding you can wave at a window.

Justice Zahra, joined by Justice Bernstein, would have upheld the search. The dissent asked whether the trooper had probable cause to find marijuana contraband where nobody in the car could legally possess any amount. The majority rejected that frame. Five votes beat two.

Piece	What the Court did
Vote	5–2 (opinion; Freep)
Majority	Thomas, joined by Cavanagh, Welch, Bolden, Hood
Concurrence	Welch — would have used Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11
Dissent	Zahra, joined by Bernstein
Disposition	Reverse the Court of Appeals; remand to Kent Circuit Court
Charge in the file	MCL 750.227 — CCW in a vehicle

The gun charge is how the case got to Lansing. The holding is about the search. No marijuana was recovered — that is in the opinion and MSP Update 171. A search that finds a gun can still be an unlawful search. I am not your suppression lawyer.

What Happened at the 2023 Kent County Stop? #

On January 16, 2023, a Michigan State Police trooper stopped Freddie Wilkins III for speeding in Kent County, smelled marijuana, learned both occupants were under 21, heard the passenger admit to “shake,” searched the car without consent, found a loaded gun in a backpack, and recovered no marijuana. Those are the Court’s facts, not folklore. The stop was not on the Lodge or 8 Mile. It was Kent County. The rule still follows you down I-75 because the Supreme Court sits for the whole state.

From the opinion’s fact section:

• Trooper James Tomkins (the Court’s application order uses that spelling; the concurrence spells it Tompkins) pulled Wilkins over for speeding. Wilkins was driving. There was a front-seat passenger.
• The passenger window was down. The trooper noticed the smell of marijuana. On cross-examination he said “it didn’t smell like [defendant] had just smoked it.” He did not see marijuana in plain view. He did not see anyone smoking. He did not see signs of intoxication.
• Licenses showed both people were under 21. He called for backup.
• Both occupants initially denied having marijuana. The trooper had Wilkins step out and searched him. Nothing.
• He ordered the passenger out. She said she had “some shake,” which the trooper understood as a small amount of marijuana. Under MCL 333.27965(3)(a) and (b), a person under 21 who possesses not more than 2.5 ounces is generally responsible for a civil infraction on a first or second violation.
• He then searched the vehicle. In a backpack on the floor in front of the passenger seat he found empty ziplock cellophane packages and a loaded semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine. MSP Update 171 describes a loaded Glock with a 33-round magazine. Wilkins admitted the pistol was his. No marijuana was recovered.
• MSP states there was no consent sought and no consent given. The search was justified, the trooper thought, by the automobile exception.

Wilkins was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle under MCL 750.227. He moved to suppress the gun. The district court bound him over. Kent Circuit Court denied suppression. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion on September 5, 2024 (Docket No. 367209). The Supreme Court reversed.

Two details from the opinion that group chats skip: the prosecution conceded that the search of Wilkins’s person exceeded a Terry weapons frisk; and the Court declined to decide a Rodriguez “prolonging the stop” question because it was no longer necessary. Do not turn that silence into a roadside script.

Fact	In the record	Not in the record
Reason for the stop	Speeding	A marijuana checkpoint
Where	Kent County, Jan. 16, 2023	Detroit, the Lodge, 8 Mile
Occupant ages	Both under 21	Adult-use 21+ possession
Marijuana seen	None in plain view	A criminal pile on the seat
Smoking / intoxication	None observed	“They were clearly high”
What the passenger said	“Shake” / small amount	“A pound in the trunk”
Marijuana recovered	None	A bag that “proved” the smell
Gun	Loaded pistol in a backpack	A reason the smell search was lawful
Consent	None	“He said go ahead”

If someone tells you the Court “let a gun charge walk because weed is legal,” they skipped the sentence. The Court said the path into the backpack was an unlawful automobile-exception search. Remand is a later chapter. I am not predicting it.

What Facts Can Still Support a Warrantless Vehicle Search? #

Smell can still be one factor. It is not a stand-alone warrant. Other facts — a criminal amount in plain view, smoking, dissipating smoke, signs of intoxication — may complete probable cause. That list is not my invention. It is the majority’s own example, copied almost word-for-word into MSP Legal Update 171.

From Wilkins, reaffirming People v. Armstrong (April 2, 2025):

For example, if the trooper here had seen a criminal amount of marijuana in plain view, defendant smoking marijuana, dissipating marijuana smoke, or signs of intoxication, the smell combined with any of those factors may well have established probable cause to search the vehicle.

MSP gives officers the same four pictures, plus the reminder that burnt or unburnt odor does not reliably predict how much is there. A “strong smell” is still a subjective nose. It is not a scale.

A Detroit-fridge map — education, not a checklist for gaming a stop:

Factor	Can it help probable cause of a crime?	Alone enough after Wilkins?
Odor of marijuana	One factor (Armstrong; Wilkins)	No
Under-21 occupant + odor	Relevant to a civil possession theory	No for a warrantless car search under the automobile exception
Passenger says “shake” / small amount	Points toward a civil quantity, not a criminal one (MSP 171)	No
Initial denial, then a small-amount admission	The Court said deception can be an attempt to dodge a civil ticket too	Not enough here
Criminal amount in plain view	Yes — that is the example	With odor, “may well” be enough
Driver smoking / dissipating smoke	Yes — the example	With odor, “may well” be enough
Signs of intoxication	Yes — and it is a different crime (MCL 257.625)	Can support an OWI investigation; not a smell-only search
Valid consent	Different exception	Wilkins did not erase consent
A warrant	The default Fourth Amendment path	Always was

The majority also said, in a footnote, that nothing in the opinion affects searches for criminal violations — including driving under the influence under MCL 257.625 and MCL 333.27954(1)(a) and (g), or distribution of criminal quantities. Smell-plus-nothing lost. Smell-plus-a-crime did not get deleted.

I will not diagram “what to hide,” “how to air out a cabin,” or “what words beat a trooper.” If you are high, you should not be driving. If you are not, you still do not get to treat a PDF as a dare.

What Did Not Change After Wilkins? #

You still may not drive high. Under-21 possession is still unlawful (usually a civil infraction at small amounts). Federal law did not move. Consent searches still exist. Smoking in the passenger area of a vehicle on a public way is still outside MRTMA. The Court narrowed one search-warrant exception on one theory. It did not hand Metro Detroit a new lifestyle.

MRTMA §4(1)(a) still does not authorize operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marihuana. §4(1)(g) still does not authorize consuming while you operate, or smoking marihuana in the passenger area of a vehicle on a public way. MCL 257.625 still has under-the-influence, visible-impairment, and the Schedule 1 “any amount” lane we unpacked in blood THC vs. impairment.

Adults 21 and over may possess up to 2.5 ounces under MRTMA §5. A person under 21 is not authorized to possess, consume, or transport marihuana — §4(1)(c). Under-21 possession of not more than 2.5 ounces is, for a first or second violation, a civil infraction under MCL 333.27965(3). Larger amounts can still be criminal under §15(4). Wilkins did not make under-21 possession “legal.” It said a civil theory does not unlock a criminal-search exception.

Cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Welch’s concurrence says federal courts have not faced this split because marijuana is still a federal crime. A Michigan automobile-exception holding is not a DEA memo. Crossing a state line is still a different map — see the cannabis travel guide.

MSP notes that Tomkins did not ask for consent and did not receive it. If a driver agrees to a search, that is a different doctrinal box. Wilkins did not close it. I am not telling you to consent or to refuse. Talk to a Michigan lawyer about your facts.

Wilkins was speeding. The Court did not say the stop was illegal. It said the search of the car was illegal on those facts. You can still be pulled over for a real traffic violation on I-75. This opinion is not a “cops can’t pull me over if the car smells” sticker.

MRTMA §4(3) still lets most private employers drug-test and fire. That file is Can you get fired for legal weed in Michigan?.

How Did People v. Armstrong in 2025 Lead to Wilkins in 2026? #

Armstrong (April 2, 2025) killed the old rule that odor alone is probable cause. Wilkins (July 22, 2026) added that probable cause of a civil marijuana infraction is not enough for the automobile exception, and that odor still does not prove a criminal amount. They stack. They are not the same case.

People v. Armstrong, Docket 165233, was the Metro Detroit chapter. Jeffery Scott Armstrong was a passenger in a parked vehicle in Wayne County. Corporal Treva Eaton said she approached because she smelled marijuana. Officers found a gun under a seat. The prosecution leaned on People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich. 411 (2000) — odor alone, by a person qualified to know it, could establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle.

Justice Megan K. Cavanagh wrote for a 5–1 Court (Justice Thomas did not participate). Kazmierczak is no longer good law after MRTMA. From Armstrong:

post MRTMA, the smell of marijuana might just as likely indicate that the person is in possession of a legal amount of marijuana, recently used marijuana legally, or was simply in the presence of someone else who used marijuana.

And:

Instead of a rule that the smell of marijuana alone may be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, the appropriate rule is that the smell of marijuana is one factor that may play a role in the probable-cause determination.

AP and the Detroit News reported that holding in April 2025. Wilkins is the sequel: what if the occupants cannot legally possess any amount because they are under 21, and the officer has odor plus a civil quantity? Majority answer: still not an automobile-exception search.

	Armstrong (April 2, 2025)	Wilkins (July 22, 2026)
Docket	165233	167737
Geography	Wayne County (Metro Detroit)	Kent County
Setting	Parked vehicle; odor of burnt marijuana	Speeding stop; odor; under-21 occupants
Old rule on the table	Kazmierczak (2000): odor alone can be enough	Automobile exception for a civil marijuana infraction
Holding	Odor alone is not probable cause; it is one factor	Civil-infraction probable cause is not enough; odor does not per se prove a criminal amount
Vote	5–1 (Thomas not participating); Cavanagh for the Court	5–2; Thomas for the Court
Dissent	Zahra	Zahra, joined by Bernstein
What was found	Handgun	Loaded pistol; no marijuana
MSP write-up	Cited in Update 171 (and earlier odor guidance)	Legal Update 171

Armstrong took away “I smell weed, I search.” Wilkins took away “they’re under 21, I smell weed, I search for the civil amount.” Odor is a clue, not a warrant.

If You Are Stopped in Metro Detroit, What Should You Actually Do? #

Be polite. Comply with a lawful stop. You may decline a consent search. Do not argue constitutional law on the shoulder of I-75. Call a Michigan lawyer if you are charged. Do not hide cannabis, do not “beat” a stop, and do not treat this blog as a defense kit.

1. Slow down, signal, stop somewhere safe. A Supreme Court PDF does not cancel a speeding ticket. Wilkins started with speeding.
2. License, registration, insurance if asked. That is ordinary traffic-stop business, not a car search.
3. Be polite. You can be right about the Fourth Amendment and still make the night worse with your mouth.
4. You may decline a consent search. Wilkins was not a consent case. MSP says no consent was sought. If an officer asks, that question is not an order from Lansing. I am not scripting your sentence.
5. Do not consent just because you think “they’ll search anyway.” That thought can turn a later suppression issue into “I said yes.” Declining is also not a promise the stop is over. A lawyer sorts those paths. A farm blog does not.
6. Do not drive high. Do not smoke in the passenger area on a public way. MCL 333.27954(1)(a) and (g).
7. If you are charged, call a lawyer. Bring the citation. Do not crowdsource a motion to suppress in a comments section.

This section is not a concealment tutorial, a “how to air out the cabin before 8 Mile” guide, a list of magic words, or advice to lie, ditch, or run. Declining a search does not make you immune.

I grow flower in Detroit. I ride the same freeways you do. I would rather you miss a porch session than pick a fight with a trooper on the Lodge.

FAQ: Weed Smell and Michigan Car Searches #

No, smell alone is not a warrantless car search after Wilkins — and this is still not a new traffic law, not a driving-high pass, and not legal advice. Short answers below cite the opinion, MSP Update 171, and the MRTMA. Your facts are your facts.

Can Michigan police search my car just because it smells like weed? #

No. Odor alone is not probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the automobile exception. Armstrong said smell is one factor, not a stand-alone. Wilkins said smell does not per se prove a criminal amount. Other facts can still matter.

Did Michigan pass a new law about marijuana smell in cars? #

No. People v. Wilkins is a Supreme Court decision from July 22, 2026, not a new MCL. Metro Detroit News and the Free Press are covering a ruling. Coverage is not legislation.

What if I am 21 or older — does Wilkins even apply to me? #

Armstrong is the closer odor case for adult-use. Wilkins still matters because it confirms odor is not a criminal-amount meter and that civil-infraction probable cause does not unlock the automobile exception. If you are 21+ with a legal amount, smell “might just as likely” mean a legal amount, recent legal use, or someone else’s use — Armstrong. Together they cover more drivers, not fewer.

I am under 21. Can they search because I cannot legally possess any weed? #

Not on odor plus a small-amount admission, on these facts. Under-21 possession of not more than 2.5 ounces is generally a civil infraction for a first or second offense under MCL 333.27965(3). The majority held that is not enough for the automobile exception. The dissent would have gone the other way. Under-21 possession is still not legal.

Can smell plus other facts still justify a search? #

Yes. The Court and MSP both list examples: a criminal amount in plain view, smoking, dissipating smoke, signs of intoxication. See Wilkins and MSP Update 171. Totality of the circumstances is still the test. I will not build you a loophole chart.

Does this mean I can drive high in Michigan? #

No. MCL 333.27954(1)(a) and MCL 257.625 still forbid operating under the influence. A leftover blood THC number is a different science problem — blood THC vs. impairment. Neither post is a designated-driver exemption.

Can I smoke in the car if I am not the driver? #

Not in the passenger area of a vehicle on a public way. MCL 333.27954(1)(g). Wilkins did not repeal that sentence. Don’t.

Can I refuse a search? #

You may decline to consent. Wilkins was a no-consent automobile-exception search, held unlawful on those facts. Other exceptions, a warrant, or an OWI investigation can still exist. I am not advising you to refuse or to consent. Call a lawyer if you are in it.

Did federal marijuana law change? #

No. Welch’s concurrence in Wilkins notes that marijuana has remained illegal at the federal level, which is why federal courts have not faced this exact issue. State search rules and federal scheduling are different cabinets.

How is this different from People v. Armstrong? #

Armstrong (Wayne County, April 2025) overruled Kazmierczak’s odor-alone rule. Wilkins (Kent County, July 2026) held that a civil marijuana infraction is not enough for the automobile exception and that odor still does not prove a criminal amount. See the table above. Armstrong PDF. Wilkins PDF.

They found a gun. Doesn’t that make the search lawful after the fact? #

No. The Court held the search unlawful even though a loaded pistol was in the backpack and no marijuana was found. Opinion; MSP 171. What is found does not rewind whether the officer had probable cause before opening the bag. That is the whole exclusionary-rule idea. Case outcomes on remand are for a court, not a farm.

The stop was in Kent County. Does this apply on the Lodge, I-75, or 8 Mile? #

Yes. Supreme Court holdings apply statewide. Wilkins is a Kent County speeding stop. Armstrong is a Wayne County parked-car case. Detroit drivers live closer to Armstrong’s geography and still live under Wilkins’s rule. Local recirc — Metro Detroit News — is how many people heard it this week. The PDF is still the source.

Bottom Line for Michigan Drivers #

Smell of weed is not a search warrant. People v. Wilkins, 5–2, July 22, 2026, is a court ruling — not a new traffic law. The automobile exception does not cover a warrantless vehicle search based only on probable cause of a civil marijuana infraction. Odor does not per se equal a criminal amount. The Kent County file had speeding, odor, two people under 21, a “shake” admission, a loaded gun, and no marijuana recovered. Search held unlawful. Court of Appeals reversed. Remanded.

Do not drive high. Do not smoke in the passenger area on a public way. Legal flower from a Detroit shop does not come with a consent-search exemption, a federal pardon, or a job-protection clause.

At Divine Toke — a sun-grown organic cannabis farm rooted in Detroit, Michigan — we will talk soil and honest education all day. We will not pretend a jar rewrites the Fourth Amendment or the Vehicle Code. Related reading:

• Blood THC vs. impairment: what Michigan drivers need to know
• Cannabis travel guide: where you can bring weed
• Can you get fired for legal weed in Michigan?
• Labor Day weekend: Michigan cannabis hosting and travel
• Divine Toke shop

If you're curious to try sun-grown organic flower, visit the shop when you already have a sober way home. The plant will wait. The shoulder of I-75 will not.

Legal disclaimer: This article is general information for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Search-and-seizure, OWI, CCW, consent, under-21 possession, and suppression outcomes depend on your specific facts, the charging theory, and the forum. Talk to a licensed Michigan attorney about your situation. Jamie is a cultivator, not a lawyer.

Wellness disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice. Always consult your healthcare provider before starting any new wellness routine.