Call us now:
In Cherfils v State, a Florida Court shows why the plain smell of marijuana can still lead to a search.
As Florida’s marijuana laws have evolved, so has the analysis courts use when evaluating vehicle searches. In a recent appellate decision involving Joshua Cherfils, a Florida court clarified an increasingly important distinction: although the odor of marijuana alone is no longer enough to justify a vehicle search, it may still support probable cause when combined with other incriminating facts. The issue to really pay attention to is what facts the Court’s use to justify those searches. If you thought telling the officer you have a marijuana card will help, you would be exactly wrong based on the reasoning in this case.
This case illustrates how courts now assess marijuana-related vehicle searches under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach—and why suppression motions depend heavily on the specific details of the encounter.
Charges and Statutory Basis
Joshua Cherfils was convicted of:
- Possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a second-degree felony, under § 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2022), which makes it a felony to possess a controlled substance when the surrounding circumstances show an intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver it.
- Possession of drug paraphernalia, a first-degree misdemeanor, under § 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (2022), which prohibits possessing items used or intended for use in preparing, storing, or ingesting controlled substances.
Cherfils appealed, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence because the search of his vehicle was unconstitutional.
Key Facts Leading to the Search
The appellate court emphasized that the officer’s decision to search was not based solely on the odor of marijuana. Instead, the court relied on a combination of specific facts developed during the traffic stop.
1. Location and Time
The stop occurred at night in an area described by the officer as a high-crime area, a contextual factor courts routinely consider when assessing reasonableness. individually these aren’t controlling, but the Court here made a point to repeat the alleged ‘high crime’ area.
2. Odor of Burnt Marijuana
As the officer approached the driver’s side door, he smelled burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Based on training and experience, the officer testified that the odor was much stronger than would be expected if someone had merely smoked earlier in the day.
3. Sole Occupant
Cherfils was the only person in the vehicle, allowing the officer to reasonably associate the odor with the driver rather than a passenger.
4. Nervous and Argumentative Conduct
The officer testified that Cherfils appeared nervous, became argumentative, and repeatedly refused lawful commands to exit the vehicle. Without knowing specifics of the alleged ‘arguing’ (which sometimes is a gross mischaracterization by a law enforcement officer) we won’t know what not to say to the police during a traffic stop.
5. Admissions and Medical Marijuana Card
Cherfils provided a medical marijuana card and admitted he had smoked marijuana earlier. However, the officer concluded—based on the strength and character of the odor—that marijuana had likely been recently smoked inside the vehicle, not hours earlier. Also note, the Court here used the admission of having a medical marijuana card and smoking earlier in the day heavily against the suspect. Here, the Court reasoned that since the defendant had a card, that eliminated from the officer any concern about whether the alleged substance was hemp!
6. Refusal to Exit the Vehicle
After multiple refusals, the officer physically removed Cherfils from the car and conducted the search.
During the search, the officer discovered cocaine inside a cigarette box in the driver-side door, along with fresh marijuana and burnt marijuana cigarettes on the center console.
Why Marijuana Odor Still Mattered in This Case
Florida appellate courts have recently made clear that the plain smell of marijuana, standing alone, no longer automatically establishes probable cause, given the legalization of medical marijuana and hemp.
However, the court emphasized that odor remains a relevant factor when evaluated alongside other evidence suggesting illegal activity. Here, the officer did not merely smell marijuana; he reasonably believed that marijuana had been recently smoked inside the vehicle, which remains unlawful even for medical marijuana patients.
Medical Marijuana Restrictions Applied by the Court
The court relied on Florida’s medical marijuana statute to conclude that the officer could reasonably believe a crime was occurring:
- § 381.986(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2022) defines lawful “medical use” of marijuana and limits how qualified patients may possess and consume it.
- § 381.986(1)(k)5.f, Florida Statutes (2022) expressly prohibits the smoking of medical marijuana in a vehicle, regardless of patient status.
- § 381.986(12)(c), Florida Statutes (2022) makes it unlawful to use medical marijuana in a manner that violates the statute’s restrictions.
Because the officer believed marijuana had been recently smoked inside the vehicle, the court held that he could reasonably conclude Cherfils was engaging in illegal conduct, even though he possessed a valid medical marijuana card.
The Court’s Holding
Considering all of the circumstances—the strong odor of burnt marijuana, Cherfils’s admissions, his behavior, the location, and the statutory prohibition on smoking marijuana in vehicles—the court held that the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle.
The trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress was therefore affirmed, and Cherfils’s convictions and sentences were upheld.
Practical Takeaway
This case reinforces a critical point for Florida drivers and criminal defense attorneys:
Marijuana odor alone may no longer justify a search, but it can still be powerful evidence when combined with additional facts suggesting illegal use.
Medical marijuana patients remain subject to strict statutory limitations—particularly when it comes to vehicle use—and courts will closely scrutinize the surrounding circumstances when evaluating suppression challenges. And if you thought telling the officer that you have a card, or that you smoked earlier in the day will help? You are clearly wrong.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, Marion and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.