Case Analysis: Williams v. State, 421 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2025)

• In October of 2025, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal sent shockwaves through the criminal law community by changing course on the longstanding precedent that the odor of cannabis alone was sufficient to establish probable cause.

• Factual Background:

  • In 2023 Darielle Williams was released from Florida State Prison and began serving a probation sentence. While out on probation, Mr. Williams was a passenger in a car that law enforcement stopped for (1) failing to come to a complete stop; and (2) obstructed license plate. The law enforcement officers who approached the vehicle testified that they smelled cannabis upon approaching the vehicle, but disagreed whether it smelled "burnt" or "fresh". Based on the odor, the officers ordered Williams and the driver out of the car. Mr. Williams also told the officers he was on probation. During a search of the vehicle the officers found bags and a pill in the glove compartment. Mr. Williams was arrested and a search incident to arrest revealed a plastic bag with a white powder which was identified as Dimethylpentylone.

• In Williams, the 2nd DCA discussed the analogy between the "plain view" and "plain smell" doctrine. "Regardless of which sense of perception is involved, a core element of this doctrine is that law enforcement must "immediately" perceive the "incriminating character" of the item. Williams at 815.

• "Florida courts consistently have held that when closer examination of an item observed in plain view is necessary to confirm the incriminating nature of the contraband, its incriminating nature is not considered immediately apparent." Id.

• "Consequently, where the police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting some further search of the object - the plain view doctrine cannot justify its seizure." Id.

• "The incremental legalization of certain types of cannabis at both the federal and state level has reached the point that its plain smell does not immediately indicate the presence of an illegal substance. As a result, the smell of cannabis cannot on its own support a detention." Id. at 817.

• The 2nd DCA concluded the following:

  • "In light of significant legislative amendments to the definition and regulation of cannabis, its mere odor can no longer establish that it is "immediately apparent" that the substance is contraband. Accordingly, the plain smell doctrine can no longer establish probable cause based solely on the odor of cannabis. Rather, we now align the Fourth amendment analysis for cannabis with the test that applies to other suspected contraband, such that its odor is a valid factor to be considered along with all others under the totality of the circumstances." Id. at 820.

• In summary, while Williams v. State certainly moves the law in a more favorable direction from a Defense perspective, some may misinterpret the case as going further than it truly does. While "odor alone" is no longer sufficient to establish probable cause, there is no bright line rule establishing what additional factors need be present along with odor to establish probable cause. While cases where probable cause was truly based on "odor alone" will benefit, cases involving testimony of (1) a high crime area; (2) production of a medical marijuana card; (3) admission to smoking marijuana; (4) marijuana or paraphernalia in plain view; (5) nervous or argumentative behavior; or (6) furtive movements will likely be unable to overcome the totality of the circumstances analysis when combined with the odor of marijuana.