“The Nose Still Knows” – Eleventh Circuit Re-Affirms that the Odor of Marijuana Alone Creates Probable Cause for a Vehicle Search Even After State-Level Legalization

Commentary on United States v. Vincent Edward Wardlow, No. 25-10341 (11th Cir. July 10, 2025) (non-published)

1. Introduction

United States v. Vincent Edward Wardlow squarely presented the Eleventh Circuit with a modern Fourth Amendment dilemma: does the unmistakable smell of marijuana still give police probable cause to search a car when a state—here, Florida—has legalized medical marijuana and hemp products that emit virtually the same scent? Mr. Wardlow, a convicted felon, sought suppression of a firearm found after Deputy Derek Matera searched his vehicle solely because, he claimed, he smelled marijuana. The case placed three issues in tension:

• Florida’s evolving cannabis laws;
• The long-standing “odor doctrine” that any detectable marijuana smell equals probable cause; and
• The heightened judicial skepticism demanded by modern body-camera, dashboard-camera, and forensic capabilities—none of which corroborated the deputy’s nose here.

The district court credited the deputy, denied suppression, and ultimately convicted Wardlow following a bench trial for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, signalling that—at least within this circuit—the odor doctrine survives state-level cannabis reforms.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Writing per curiam, Judges Grant, Kidd, and Wilson upheld the district court’s ruling. Key holdings:

1. Credible olfactory testimony suffices. An officer’s “credible testimony” that he smelled marijuana furnishes probable cause to search a readily mobile automobile under the automobile exception, even if no contraband is ultimately found.
2. State legalization does not negate federal probable-cause analysis. The possibility that the odor could emanate from lawful hemp or medical marijuana is merely an “innocent explanation” that officers are not required to eliminate before acting.
3. Appellate deference to credibility findings remains robust. Where the district judge finds the officer’s testimony believable, the court of appeals will overturn that finding only if it is “contrary to the laws of nature” or otherwise clearly erroneous.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) – Found that the smell of marijuana emanating from a residence justified a warrantless entry under exigent circumstances; cited here as baseline authority that smell alone equals probable cause.
• United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985) – Supreme Court holding that officers who smelled marijuana in sealed packages on trucks had probable cause to search; the panel analogized to vehicles generally.
• Merricks v. Adkisson, 785 F.3d 553 (11th Cir. 2015) – Re-affirmed that burned-marijuana odor from a vehicle provides probable cause; served as direct circuit precedent.
• District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) – Clarified that probable cause does not require officers to rule out innocent explanations; applied to respond to the “legal hemp/medical marijuana” defense.
• United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) – Restated the two-prong automobile exception; adopted here without dispute as the vehicle was readily mobile.
• United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2002) – Provided the standard for overturning factual credibility findings (“contrary to the laws of nature”); used to uphold the district court’s credibility assessment.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Three analytical steps drove the outcome:

1. Framing the factual question as one of credibility. Because the deputy’s testimony was the only evidence of marijuana’s presence, the entire legality of the search turned on whether the district judge believed him.
2. Applying the automobile exception. Once probable cause is established, no warrant is required when a vehicle is “readily mobile.” That element was undisputed.
3. Rejecting the “legalization defeats probable cause” argument. The panel invoked Wesby to state that probable cause tolerates reasonable probability, not certainty, and officers need not eliminate lawful possibilities (hemp, medical cannabis) before acting.

Notably, the panel expressed unusual skepticism (“remarkably weak” justification) yet still affirmed because the deferential standards of review bound it to accept the district court’s credibility call absent clear error.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Cases

• Continued vitality of the odor doctrine. Defense counsel in the Eleventh Circuit face an uphill battle when challenging searches predicated solely on marijuana odor, even in states with partial legalization.
• Evidentiary burden for suppression. Wardlow shows that the absence of body-camera footage, dash-cam footage, field notes, or recovered marijuana may not, by itself, defeat probable cause if the officer is found credible.
• Legislative pressure. If state lawmakers wish to limit such searches, they may need to enact statutory constraints because federal constitutional doctrine, as applied here, remains unchanged.
• Practice pointers for law enforcement. Although the Court upheld the search, its language (“remarkably weak”) admonishes officers to document corroborating facts to withstand closer scrutiny in future, especially as public attitudes shift.
• Implications for cannabis-adjacent industries. Businesses transporting legal hemp may continue to see vehicle searches justified by odor alone; regulatory or labeling solutions (e.g., certificates of analysis, sealed shipping containers) may become advisable.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Probable Cause: A practical, non-technical judgment that it is “fairly probable” a crime has been committed or evidence will be found—less than proof “beyond reasonable doubt,” more than a mere hunch.
• Automobile Exception: Because vehicles are mobile and have a lesser expectation of privacy, police may search them without a warrant if they have probable cause.
• Credibility Determination: A trial judge’s finding about whether a witness is believable. On appeal, such findings are reversed only if “clearly erroneous”—a highly deferential standard.
• Hotboxing: Slang for smoking marijuana in an enclosed space so that smoke fills the vehicle, which can leave a strong residual odor even after the substance is gone.
• “Innocent Explanation” Rule (Wesby): Officers need not rule out lawful or innocent explanations for the facts they observe before establishing probable cause.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Wardlow cements—at least for now—the Eleventh Circuit’s adherence to the traditional rule that the smell of marijuana by itself justifies a warrantless vehicle search. The decision’s significance lies less in breaking doctrinal ground than in failing to break it: the odor doctrine survives the wave of cannabis reforms. While the panel signalled some discomfort with search justifications resting on “bare assertion,” its deferential posture toward district-court credibility findings kept the precedent intact. Practitioners should expect continued reliance on officers’ olfactory observations, but also anticipate increasing judicial scrutiny and calls for better corroboration as the social and legal landscape surrounding cannabis evolves.