United States v. Outlaw: Requiring Particularized Probable Cause from Marijuana Odor

Introduction

In United States v. Abdul Outlaw (3d Cir. May 28, 2025), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the distinction between probable cause to search a vehicle and probable cause to arrest an individual within that vehicle when the only incriminating factor is the odor of burning marijuana. The Government appealed an order suppressing evidence—a firearm and raw marijuana—seized from Outlaw’s person during a pat-down search incident to arrest. The central issue was whether Detective Castro, relying solely on his detection of marijuana smoke emanating from the driver’s side window and his prior training, had probable cause to arrest Mr. Outlaw, who was accompanied by a passenger. The court affirmed suppression, holding that a smell must be particularized to a person, not just to a vehicle or confined space, before it can justify an arrest of that person.

Parties:

Appellant: United States of America
Appellee: Abdul Outlaw

Court Below: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Judge Brian R. Martinotti) Panel: Chief Judge Chagares, Judges Scirica & Rendell Date: May 28, 2025

Summary of the Judgment

1. On December 31, 2020, Detective Castro smelled burning marijuana and saw smoke emanating from a parked Audi’s open sunroof in a high-crime Newark neighborhood. 2. Castro stopped the vehicle for illegal window tint and the marijuana odor. After speaking to Outlaw and seeing smoke at the driver’s window, Castro asked him out of the car, patted him down, and seized a pistol and a bottle containing raw marijuana. 3. The District Court suppressed the evidence, concluding that Castro lacked individualized probable cause to arrest Outlaw. 4. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that while odor alone can establish probable cause to search a vehicle, to arrest an occupant the smell must be particularized to that person—here, it was not, because a passenger might have been the source of the odor and smoke.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973): Confirmed that once an arrest is lawful, a search incident to arrest is reasonable.
United States v. Ramos, 443 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2006): Held that an “articulable and particularized” odor of marijuana can supply probable cause.
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979): Emphasized the requirement that searches and arrests be based on probable cause particularized to the individual.
Circuits aligning on vehicle odor searches vs. person-specific arrests:
- Humphries (4th Cir.), Perdoma (8th Cir.), Paige (7th Cir.).
- Vehicle searches: Green (3d Cir.), Snyder (10th Cir.), Stancil (11th Cir.).

2. Legal Reasoning

A. Probable Cause Standard: Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may arrest without a warrant when “facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge” would lead a reasonable person to believe an offense has been committed.

B. Vehicle vs. Person Particularization: The court distinguished between two contexts:

Vehicle Searches: The smell of marijuana from a car can supply probable cause to search that vehicle, provided the odor is “particularized” to the confined space.
Person Arrests: To arrest someone within or near that vehicle, the odor must be particularized to the individual—i.e., there must be additional facts tying the smell to that person.

C. Application to Outlaw:

Detective Castro smelled marijuana from ~20 feet away and saw smoke at the driver’s window, but the passenger was equally within range of suspicion.
No further indicia: Castro did not observe Outlaw smoking, detect odor on Outlaw’s clothing or breath, or see any furtive movements by Outlaw.
Thus, without evidence particularizing the odor to Outlaw, there was no probable cause to arrest him, rendering the subsequent pat-down and seizure unconstitutional.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces the requirement that, absent a warrant, an arrest or search of an individual must rest on probable cause specifically tied to that person. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that:

When relying on odors or other sensory observations in multi-occupant settings, officers gather additional indicia—furtive movements, possession in plain view, odor on clothing—before effecting an arrest.
Training emphasizes the distinction between probable cause to search a vehicle and particularized probable cause to arrest a person inside or near that vehicle.

Future courts will apply this framework whenever an officer cites the smell of a controlled substance as the sole basis for arresting one of several occupants.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause: A reasonable belief, based on factual evidence, that a crime has been or is being committed.
Particularization: The need to connect facts (like a smell) directly to the person to be arrested, not just to a general area or vehicle.
Search Incident to Arrest: A warrantless search of a person and immediate surroundings following a lawful arrest, aimed at officer safety and evidence preservation.

Conclusion

United States v. Outlaw underscores that while marijuana odor can justify a warrantless search of a vehicle, it cannot alone justify an arrest of an individual among multiple occupants without particularized facts tying the odor to that person. The Third Circuit’s clarification aligns with Supreme Court precedents requiring individualized probable cause, and it will guide lower courts and law enforcement in distinguishing between vehicle searches and person-specific arrests.