The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 22, 2026, that police officers cannot conduct warrantless searches of vehicles based solely on probable cause of civil infractions, such as the possession of small amounts of marijuana by individuals under 21 years old. This decision affects how law enforcement can handle similar situations in the future and clarifies the legal boundaries regarding the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals.
The case, People v. Wilkins (Docket No. 167737), involved Freddie Wilkins, III, who was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. The incident began when a Michigan State Police trooper pulled over Wilkins for speeding. During the stop, the trooper detected the smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Although the trooper found no marijuana in plain view and neither Wilkins nor his passenger appeared to be intoxicated, the passenger later admitted to having a small amount of marijuana. The trooper then searched the vehicle and found a firearm, which Wilkins admitted belonged to him.
Wilkins challenged the legality of the search, arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court initially ruled against him, leading to further appeals. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, but the case was eventually brought before the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the matter.
In its ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of Wilkins' vehicle was unlawful. The court stated, "The warrantless search of defendant’s car was unlawful under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because the trooper did not have probable cause to believe there was a criminal amount of marijuana in the vehicle." The opinion was authored by Justice Kimberly A. Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh and Justices Elizabeth M. Welch, Kyra H. Bolden, and Noah P. Hood.
The court emphasized that while the smell of marijuana may suggest a civil infraction, it does not provide sufficient probable cause for a warrantless search. The ruling clarifies that law enforcement must have probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has occurred to justify such searches. The court noted that the state has shown a reduced interest in enforcing marijuana possession laws since the enactment of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), which decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for individuals over 21.
Justice Welch concurred with the majority opinion but expressed a desire to have based the decision on the Michigan Constitution instead of the federal Fourth Amendment. She argued that Michigan's Constitution could provide clearer protections in cases involving marijuana legalization. In contrast, Justice Brian K. Zahra, joined by Justice Richard H. Bernstein, dissented. They argued that the trooper had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the presence of marijuana, even if it was a civil infraction.
This ruling has significant implications for law enforcement practices in Michigan. It sets a precedent that limits the ability of police to conduct warrantless searches based solely on civil infractions. Moving forward, officers will need to establish probable cause related to criminal offenses to justify searches under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment.
The decision also reflects the ongoing evolution of marijuana laws in Michigan and the changing landscape of public attitudes towards marijuana possession and use. As more states continue to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, similar legal challenges may arise in other jurisdictions.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the prosecution will seek to appeal this decision or if any related cases are pending that could further clarify the legal standards surrounding warrantless searches and marijuana possession. The ruling in People v. Wilkins marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of law enforcement practices and individual rights in Michigan.