Call us now:
Appellate Court Reverses Suppression Order in State v. Powell—But Sidesteps New Florida Marijuana Law Issues
On August 6, 2025, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal issued a significant opinion in State v. Powell, reversing a trial court order that had suppressed narcotics evidence obtained during a traffic stop. While the ruling reaffirms long-standing principles under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, it is equally notable for what the court did not address: whether recent developments in Florida law concerning hemp and medical marijuana undermine the long-standing “plain smell” rule.
Background of the Case
Cedrick Powell was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, misdemeanor possession of cannabis, and two counts of bringing those substances into the state after a Florida Highway Patrol trooper initiated a traffic stop and ultimately discovered 13 grams of marijuana and less than one gram of ecstasy in his vehicle.
Before trial, Powell moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop was pretextual and the search unlawful. The trial court agreed, characterizing the trooper’s conduct as “profiling,” and granted the motion.
The State appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(B), contending the stop was objectively justified and the subsequent vehicle search supported by probable cause. Many people don’t know this, but the State has the ability to challenge an exclusion of evidence, and seek an appeal in the higher Court. This is called an interlocutory appeal, and it’s relatively uncommon. This will essentially pause the lower Court proceedings until the State gets an appellate Court answer.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
Traffic Stop and Pretext
The appellate court rejected the trial court’s reliance on pretext. Drawing on Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), and Dobrin v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 874 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2004), the court emphasized that an officer’s subjective motivations are irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. What matters is whether the stop is objectively reasonable.
Here, the trooper knew Powell’s car was registered in Louisiana, that the registered owner’s Louisiana ID was expired, and that no valid driver’s license was associated with the vehicle. These facts gave rise to reasonable suspicion that Powell was unlawfully driving without a valid license—an offense under section 322.03, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the stop was valid.
The Vehicle Search
Turning to the search, the court applied the automobile exception. Citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), and State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2002), the panel reaffirmed that a warrantless vehicle search is permissible when probable cause exists.
The trooper testified that he immediately detected the odor of raw marijuana. Powell, when confronted, admitted to having smoked marijuana in the car the night before and confirmed he had no medical marijuana card. These admissions, combined with the trooper’s training and experience, established probable cause under existing precedent.
What the Court Avoided: The Hemp and Marijuana Debate
Defense counsel urged the court to reconsider the plain smell doctrine in light of Florida’s legalization of hemp (§ 581.217, Fla. Stat.) and medical marijuana (§ 381.986, Fla. Stat.), arguing that the odor of marijuana is now indistinguishable from lawful conduct. This argument has gained traction in trial courts and is the subject of ongoing appellate litigation across Florida.
Yet the court sidestepped this developing issue. It reasoned that because Powell admitted to prior marijuana use, disclaimed having a medical marijuana card, and did not suggest the odor was hemp, it was unnecessary to confront whether odor alone suffices in today’s legal landscape. In effect, the court confined its holding to traditional precedent—Betz and Ross—rather than clarifying the scope of search-and-seizure law in the post-hemp era.
Implications for Florida Citizens
The decision reaffirms the State’s broad authority in conducting traffic stops and vehicle searches but leaves unresolved a pressing question: can the odor of marijuana, without more, still justify a warrantless vehicle search in Florida?
For now, law enforcement may continue to rely on odor, bolstered by admissions or corroborating circumstances, to establish probable cause. But until Florida’s appellate courts directly address how hemp and medical marijuana laws alter the equation, trial courts will continue grappling with these challenges on a case-by-case basis. This puts even more emphasis on the idea that criminal practitioners repeat – when police ask you questions they are not trying to help you! It may seem friendly and informal, but every question asked roadside can be used by the police to support their ulterior motives in the traffic stop. When the police ask you questions, remember the tactics used in cases like these and be ready to invoke your rights to silence and for counsel.
Conclusion
State v. Powell underscores the tension between established Fourth Amendment doctrine and Florida’s evolving drug laws. While the appellate court reversed the suppression order based on narrow factual grounds, it deliberately avoided resolving whether the plain smell doctrine remains valid in light of lawful hemp and medical marijuana possession.
For defendants, this means the battle over search and seizure rights in Florida is far from over.
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, 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.