Federal Appeals Court: Pot Smell Alone Can't Justify N.J. Police Search, Arrest

A federal appeals court ruled that Newark police violated a man’s constitutional rights when they arrested and searched him based solely on the smell of marijuana coming from his car.

The smell of weed may justify searching a vehicle, but it does not automatically give police the right to arrest or search a person unless the odor can be clearly linked to that individual, according to the opinion issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case stems from a 2020 incident in Newark, where, according to court documents, a police detective said he smelled burning marijuana as he approached a parked Audi with its engine running.

Abdul Outlaw was in the driver’s seat, with a passenger beside him.

The Newark Police detective testified that he saw smoke and noticed a strong odor of marijuana.

However, as the court noted, he did not see anyone smoking, nor did he observe any suspicious behavior.

Outlaw cooperated fully, handing over his license and registration without incident. Despite this, police ordered Outlaw out of the car and conducted a pat-down.

According to the opinion, the officer found on Outlaw a firearm with a scratched-off serial number and a small amount of marijuana in a prescription bottle

Outlaw was arrested and later charged with illegal possession of a firearm under federal law, along with motor vehicle violations for marijuana possession and tinted windows.

Outlaw challenged the search, arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the officer had no specific reason to believe the marijuana smell came from him personally. The court agreed.

“While the smell of marijuana alone can create probable cause to search a vehicle, there must be facts that connect the smell to an individual passenger for there to be probable cause to arrest that passenger,” Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote for the court.

Because Outlaw had a passenger in the car and showed no signs of drug use, Rendell found that the search of his person was unconstitutional.

As a result, the firearm and marijuana found during the search cannot be used as evidence in court.

The ruling puts the federal case against Outlaw in jeopardy, though it has not yet been dismissed.

The decision could also have broader implications for police practices in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware—the states under the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction.

It reinforces that officers must have specific, individualized evidence before arresting or searching someone.

Outlaw’s attorney, Michael J. Pappa, said the court made the right call in throwing out the evidence.

“The facts and case law supported the well-reasoned opinion,” he said, noting that the officer had no legal basis to search his client.

“There was no probable cause to believe Mr. Outlaw had smoked or possessed marijuana,” Pappa added, “and no credible direct or circumstantial evidence to support the officer’s claim.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

________________

Visit nj.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.