MN Court of Appeals – Marijuana Odor Does Not Justify DWI Investigations
Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a first-degree DWI conviction, holding that the odor of marijuana alone does not justify escalating a routine traffic stop into a DWI investigation in State v. Babineau. This decision reinforces the idea that officers can no longer presume criminal activity during traffic stops based solely on the scent of marijuana.
On December 17, 2022, officers stopped a vehicle after noticing that one of its headlights was out. Before initiating the stop, officers followed the vehicle for several blocks, observing no erratic driving, lane violations, or other infractions. The driver safely pulled over, and officers testified that they saw nothing illegal in plain view nor anything that would suggest the driver was impaired when they first approached the vehicle.
However, the encounter quickly escalated when the deputy told his supervising sergeant he might have smelled marijuana. The sergeant reapproached the vehicle, later testifying that the purpose of his second approach was to verify the suspected odor. The sergeant confirmed the scent himself and subsequently noticed the driver had dilated pupils and glossy eyes. Based on these observations, the officers ordered the driver out of the car, questioned him, conducted field sobriety tests, and obtained a blood sample. He was later convicted of a first-degree DWI based on the presence of controlled substances in his blood.
On appeal, the driver argued that officers expanded the scope of the stop without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of further criminal activity beyond the headlight violation. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, holding that when the sergeant reapproached the car to ask the driver questions about the marijuana odor, this constituted an expansion of the scope of the stop requiring reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. However, the only factor giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was the smell of marijuana. Therefore, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the first-degree DWI conviction on the basis that the evidence obtained by the arresting officers was invalid, and that the district court should have suppressed the evidence obtained at trial.
This case carries serious implications for drivers in Minnesota, especially considering the State’s evolving marijuana laws. With the legalization of hemp and various cannabis products, the mere presence of its odor is no longer a dependable or lawful basis for initiating a DWI investigation during a routine traffic stop. It is important to remember that, when officers escalate the scope of a traffic stop without clear justification to do so, any evidence obtained as a result may be subject to suppression. If you or someone you know has been criminally charged after a questionable traffic stop, we encourage you to contact us to discuss your options to see if your Fourth Amendment rights were violated. As this case shows, an unlawful stop can lead to unlawful evidence and a strong basis for dismissal.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense lawyer and DWI attorney in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Attorney Woodbury, Criminal Defense Lawyer, DWI Lawyer Minnesota.