Know Your Rights: The Extent of a Vehicle Search by Law Enforcement

At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, we stay on top of court decisions that we can use in fighting for our clients. Previously, there has been some debate in New Jersey regarding the extent of vehicle searches when the smell of marijuana is detected. Ever since marijuana was legalized in New Jersey in 2020, there have been wins for criminal defense lawyers and their clients who are involved in similar matters such as the following case. Recently, a New Jersey Supreme Court case limited the extent of a search when the odor of marijuana is detected in a vehicle. In State v. Cornelius C. Cohen (A-50-21) (084493) (2023) Judge Pierre-Louis wrote “A generalized smell of marijuana does not justify a search of every compartment of an automobile.” On January 17, 2016, State Trooper Travis received a “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) email that said that defendant Cornelius Cohen was traveling to the Carolinas to purchase firearms and would return to New Jersey to sell them. State Trooper Charles Travis pulled over Mr. Cohen because his car was similar to the one described in the BOLO email. When Mr. Cohen was pulled over, State Trooper Travis noticed multiple air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. State Trooper Travis testified that he smelled a “strong odor of raw marijuana” and observed that Mr. Cohen had a “greenish-brown vegetation” on his beard and shirt. State Trooper Travis let a colleague know who was with him at that time that he was going to remove Mr. Cohen and his passenger, Najah Baker, from the vehicle. They were subsequently handcuffed and placed in separate patrol cars while State Trooper Travis searched Mr. Cohen’s vehicle. He first searched the passenger compartment and in the glove compartment, he recovered a 9mm spent shell casing. He then searched the vehicle’s hood and engine compartment where he recovered a rifle and revolver. State Trooper Travis proceeded to search the trunk where he found a duffle bag containing hollow point bullets. However, he did not apply for a search warrant and did not find marijuana in the car despite the odor.



The defendant, Mr. Cohen, moved to suppress the evidence that was seized during the car search. The trial court held that the order of raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle without a detectible pinpoint establishes probable cause to search the entire vehicle and denied Mr. Cohen’s motion. In the New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge Pierre-Louis held that searching more than just the glove compartment went beyond the scope of the automobile exception. If State Trooper Travis had probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous, he may search the vehicle without obtaining a warrant. The smell of marijuana constitutes probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed and additional contraband may be found. The initial search was valid because State Trooper Travis had a reasonable belief that a criminal offense had been committed and that contraband may be present in the passenger compartment or on the defendant’s person. However, his initial search yielded no results, so it did not justify his search further than the glove compartment. There were no unique facts presented after the initial search that indicated raw marijuana was in the engine compartment or the trunk of the vehicle. State Trooper Travis should have stopped the search after he found no marijuana in the passenger compartment of Mr. Cohen’s car and the search was beyond the compartment from which he detected the strong odor of marijuana. Therefore, he did not have any definitive information that Mr. Cohen possessed marijuana. His search may have been reasonable at its inception, but it violated the Constitution due to its extent of it. If State Trooper Travis had smelled raw marijuana emanating from under the vehicle’s hood, it may have justified expanding the search. State Trooper Travis’s searches of the engine compartment and truck were unlawful. Due to the search being unlawful, the evidence seized from the illegal searches must be suppressed. Despite the strong odor of raw marijuana, it did not justify the search of all the compartments of Mr. Cohen’s car.

The decision in State v. Cohen reinforces the strict boundaries placed on vehicle searches. The New Jersey Supreme Court anticipates that cases involving the automobile exception and probable cause to conduct a vehicle search based solely on the smell of marijuana will likely be less likely going forward. Governor Phil Murphy has signed a law that the odor of marijuana does not establish reasonable suspicion, nor does it establish probable cause to search, it predates this case and does not apply to the matter at hand. Our offices are with case law and police protocol regarding vehicle searches. If you have a case where your vehicle has been searched beyond the scope of the automobile exception, please contact our offices to obtain the best results possible.