The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.

Police conducted a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.”

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.

Wilkins appealed a conviction stemming from the discovery of unregistered firearms in his car after police conducted a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.”

This legal principle allows law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

In the Wilkins’ case, the search was triggered by the odor of marijuana, which raised questions under Michigan’s marijuana laws.

While the odor of marijuana previously constituted probable cause, recent changes under Michigan’s recreational marijuana law, the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), complicate this.

The court debated whether the smell of marijuana alone still justifies a search, especially since possession of small amounts is now legal for adults.

The appellate court highlighted that for the search to be lawful, additional suspicious factors would need to accompany the marijuana smell to support probable cause for finding contraband.

Use You Right To Remain Silent

If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.

CALL NOW

The case draws comparisons to similar rulings like People v. Armstrong, where Michigan courts have reconsidered the application of the automobile exception in light of the state’s evolving marijuana laws.

The central question in both instances revolves around whether the smell of cannabis, in conjunction with additional elements such as the driver’s deceptive behavior, provides sufficient grounds for conducting a search without a warrant.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.

Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.

However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.

The appeal in People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) was denied because the Michigan Court of Appeals found that there was no immediate need for further appellate review.

Wilkins had argued that the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional under the “automobile exception” because the smell of marijuana alone, without additional suspicious circumstances, did not provide probable cause to search the car.

However, the court determined that existing case law supported the legality of the search, particularly when other factors (such as the behavior of the suspect) combined with the odor of marijuana.

Similar Cases

A number of legal cases have scrutinized the legitimacy of performing warrantless vehicle searches based on the scent of marijuana, especially in light of the evolving status of marijuana laws:

People v. Armstrong (2023): In this instance, the courts in Michigan reassessed the applicability of the automobile exception, taking into consideration the provisions outlined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).

The court ruled that while the smell of marijuana could still contribute to probable cause, it must be accompanied by other suspicious factors to justify a search. This case closely mirrors Wilkins, where the search was based on marijuana odor but also raised questions about unregistered firearms found during the search​.

People v. Kazmierczak (2000): Previously, Michigan courts held that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

However, this decision was later overruled in part due to changes in marijuana laws.

This case laid the groundwork for discussions like those in Wilkins, where courts must determine if the presence of marijuana (legal in small amounts) is enough to justify a search​.

People v. Moorman (2020): During a traffic stop, a police officer detected the scent of marijuana, and when the defendant denied possessing any, this denial, along with the odor, provided the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant’s behavior, along with the odor, justified the search, similar to the arguments presented in Wilkins. The ruling was based on the idea that such behavior suggests illegal possession beyond the legal limits​

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

More Articles

Criminal Law FAQs – Traffic Offenses

Criminal Law FAQs – Traffic Offenses

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Traffic OffensesAccording to Michigan State Law (Michigan Compiled Laws - MCL), Traffic Offenses encompass a wide range of violations related to the operation of motor vehicles on public roads and highways. These offenses are primarily...

read more
Criminal Law FAQs – Drunk and Disorderly

Criminal Law FAQs – Drunk and Disorderly

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Drunk and DisorderlyAccording to Michigan State Law (Michigan Compiled Laws - MCL), there isn't a specific statute that solely defines "Public Drunkenness" as a statewide criminal offense in the same way some other states might have a...

read more
Criminal Law FAQs – Probation Violations

Criminal Law FAQs – Probation Violations

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Theft CrimesAccording to Michigan State Law (Michigan Compiled Laws - MCL), a Probation Violation occurs when a person who has been sentenced to probation fails to comply with the terms and conditions of their probation order. These terms...

read more
Criminal Law FAQs – Theft Crimes

Criminal Law FAQs – Theft Crimes

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Theft CrimesAccording to Michigan State Law (Michigan Compiled Laws - MCL), Theft Crimes generally involve the unlawful taking of someone else's property with the intent to deprive them of it, either permanently or for a significant period....

read more
Criminal Law FAQs – Domestic Violence

Criminal Law FAQs – Domestic Violence

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Domestic ViolenceAccording to Michigan State Law, Domestic Violence is not a standalone criminal offense but rather a designation applied to certain crimes when the victim is a "spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom the person...

read more
Criminal Law FAQs – Assault and Battery

Criminal Law FAQs – Assault and Battery

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Assault and BatteryAccording to Michigan State Law, Assault and Battery are distinct but often related offenses. There isn't one single statute that explicitly defines both terms together. Instead, their definitions have evolved through...

read more
Criminal Law FAQs – Marijuana Offenses

Criminal Law FAQs – Marijuana Offenses

Michigan Criminal Laws FAQs Marijuana OffensesFAQ 1: Is recreational marijuana legal in Michigan? Answer: Yes, recreational marijuana is legal for adults 21 and over in Michigan. However, there are restrictions on possession, use in public places, and driving under...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Disclaimer: Please remember that the information provided in these legal tips and articles is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or an agreement for legal services. Laws are subject to change, and interpretations can vary. While we strive for accuracy, legal information can be complex and may not apply to your specific situation. Reading this information does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It is crucial to consult with a qualified attorney to discuss the specific facts of your case before taking any action or making any decisions.

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This