Florida’s Second DCA Limits Plain Smell Cannabis Search Doctrine

Landmark en banc ruling holds that the odor of cannabis alone is no longer enough to establish probable cause for a vehicle search in Florida

A Turning Point in Florida Search and Seizure Law

On October 1, 2025, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an en banc opinion in Williams v. State, No. 2D2023-2200 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 1, 2025), that marks a turning point in Florida search and seizure law. The court held that the odor of cannabis, by itself, is no longer enough to establish probable cause for a search.

This ruling aligns Florida law with modern statutory changes surrounding cannabis—including medical marijuana legalization and hemp decriminalization—and underscores the need for defense attorneys to challenge searches based solely on smell.

Background of the Case

Darrielle Ortiz Williams was on probation after serving a lengthy prison term. During a 2023 traffic stop in Hillsborough County, officers claimed they smelled cannabis when approaching the vehicle. Relying solely on this odor, they searched the car and found substances that led to his arrest.

Williams moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the plain smell doctrine should no longer apply given Florida’s medical marijuana laws and hemp legalization. The trial court denied his motion, citing older precedent that allowed searches based on marijuana odor alone.

On appeal, however, the Second DCA took the opportunity to revisit the doctrine—sitting en banc to reconsider its own prior ruling in Owens v. State (2021).

Why the Evidence Was Still Admitted in This Case

Although the Second DCA receded from its earlier ruling in Owens v. State (2021), it ultimately affirmed Williams’ probation revocation. The reason: at the time of the search, Owens was binding precedent.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. United States, evidence is not excluded when officers reasonably rely on then-controlling appellate precedent. Because the officers acted in good faith based on the law as it existed at the time, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

Certified Question to the Florida Supreme Court

Recognizing the sweeping impact of its holding, the Second DCA certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court:

This certified question sets the stage for the Florida Supreme Court to provide definitive statewide guidance on the issue. Until then, the Williams ruling is binding in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction—which includes Tampa, Hillsborough County, and surrounding areas.

Before and After Williams: What Changed

Practical Impact for Florida Drivers

For years, drivers across Florida have been searched, arrested, and prosecuted after an officer claimed to smell marijuana. This decision shifts the balance significantly:

• Odor alone is no longer enough. Officers must point to other facts beyond smell to justify a search—such as visible contraband, erratic driving, statements by the driver, or other indicators of criminal activity.
• Probationers and parolees retain constitutional protections unless their supervision terms explicitly authorize warrantless searches by law enforcement.
• Future litigation will focus on whether other circumstances—combined with odor—create the “totality of circumstances” needed for probable cause.
• Suppression motions challenging odor-based searches should now be filed in cases arising after October 1, 2025.

What Officers Must Now Show for Probable Cause

Frequently Asked Questions: Plain Smell Doctrine in Florida

Does the odor of cannabis still allow police to search my car in Florida?

Not anymore—at least not in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction. The court ruled in Williams v. State that the odor of cannabis by itself does not provide probable cause for a search. Officers must now rely on the totality of the circumstances, not smell alone.

What is the plain smell doctrine?

The plain smell doctrine allowed officers to search based solely on detecting the odor of cannabis. For decades, courts treated the smell of marijuana as automatic probable cause. Because Florida has legalized medical marijuana and hemp, the Second DCA found that odor alone no longer proves criminal activity.

Does this mean cannabis possession is legal in Florida?

No. Cannabis possession remains illegal in Florida unless it is medical marijuana from a licensed treatment center or hemp containing less than 0.3% THC. The Williams ruling only limits how police can justify a warrantless search—it does not legalize recreational cannabis.

Can probationers still be searched if officers smell cannabis?

Probationers have constitutional protections unless their probation terms specifically authorize warrantless searches. In Williams, the court noted that odor alone is not sufficient for probationers whose supervision conditions do not include a search waiver.

How does this decision affect DUI or impaired driving cases?

The odor of cannabis may still be considered along with other factors, such as driving behavior, field sobriety test results, or visible evidence of impairment. However, odor alone is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

Does this ruling apply statewide?

Currently, Williams is binding only in the Second DCA’s jurisdiction (Tampa, Hillsborough, Polk, Sarasota, and surrounding counties). However, the court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, which may adopt this reasoning statewide.

What should I do if I was searched based on cannabis odor?

Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. If your search occurred after October 1, 2025, you may have grounds for a motion to suppress. Even for earlier searches, an attorney can evaluate whether other facts support the probable cause determination.

What was the outcome in Williams v. State?

The court receded from its prior ruling in Owens v. State and held that odor alone is insufficient for probable cause. However, Williams’ conviction was affirmed because officers reasonably relied on then-controlling precedent at the time of the search (under Davis v. United States). The decision applies prospectively to future searches.

Related:

• Tampa Drug Crimes Lawyer – Defense for drug possession and trafficking
• Tampa DUI Lawyer – DUI defense and implied consent issues
• Tampa Police Mistakes Can Lead to Case Dismissal
• Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney – Full-service criminal defense