The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule cannot save warrantless vehicle searches conducted solely based on marijuana odor that occurred before the court's decision in *State v. Torgerson*. The December 24, 2025 ruling in *State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas* reversed a lower court conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The case arose during a traffic stop of Raenard Romalle Douglas, when a law enforcement officer conducted a warrantless search of Douglas's vehicle based solely on the smell of marijuana. During the search, the officer discovered ammunition in a safe located inside a briefcase in the backseat. Douglas, who was prohibited from possessing ammunition, was subsequently charged with possessing ammunition as an ineligible person in violation of Minnesota Statute Section 624.713, subdivision 2(b).
Douglas moved to exclude the ammunition evidence at trial, arguing that the officer's warrantless search violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The motion centered on whether the search was constitutionally permissible under existing law at the time it was conducted.
The legal landscape surrounding marijuana odor searches changed significantly with the Minnesota Supreme Court's 2023 decision in *State v. Torgerson*, 995 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 2023). In *Torgerson*, the court held that the odor of marijuana alone is insufficient to create probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. This ruling effectively invalidated the practice of conducting warrantless vehicle searches based solely on marijuana smell.
However, the search of Douglas's vehicle occurred before the *Torgerson* decision was issued. This timing raised the question of whether law enforcement could invoke the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which typically allows evidence to be admitted when officers reasonably relied on existing legal precedent that was later overturned.
The good-faith exception, established in federal law by *United States v. Leon*, generally permits the use of evidence obtained through searches that officers conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding legal authority. Courts have applied this exception when officers follow existing precedent that is later declared unconstitutional, recognizing that law enforcement should not be penalized for following the law as it existed at the time.
Writing for the majority, Justice Thissen rejected the state's argument that the good-faith exception should apply to pre-*Torgerson* marijuana odor searches. The court's syllabus explicitly states that "the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a warrantless vehicle search based solely on the smell of marijuana that occurred before we issued our opinion in *State v. Torgerson*."
The decision represents a significant victory for criminal defendants and civil liberties advocates who have argued that marijuana odor should not provide sufficient justification for warrantless searches, particularly given changing attitudes toward cannabis use and possession. Minnesota has decriminalized small amounts of marijuana possession, making searches based solely on marijuana odor increasingly problematic from a legal and policy perspective.
Two justices dissented from the majority opinion. Justices Procaccini and Moore, III, disagreed with the majority's analysis, though the full text of their dissenting opinions was not available in the released materials. Dissenting opinions in exclusionary rule cases often argue that the good-faith exception should apply more broadly to protect law enforcement officers who reasonably relied on existing precedent.
The ruling has immediate practical implications for pending criminal cases involving pre-*Torgerson* marijuana odor searches. Defense attorneys representing clients in similar situations can now cite *Douglas* to argue for suppression of evidence obtained through such searches. Prosecutors may need to reassess cases where marijuana odor was the primary justification for vehicle searches conducted before the *Torgerson* decision.
The decision also reinforces Minnesota's position as a state court willing to provide robust protection for individual privacy rights under both the federal and state constitutions. State supreme courts have increasingly diverged from federal precedent in recent years, with many providing greater protection for individual rights than required by federal constitutional minimums.
Law enforcement agencies will need to ensure their training and protocols reflect both the *Torgerson* and *Douglas* decisions. Officers can no longer conduct warrantless vehicle searches based solely on marijuana odor, and departments cannot rely on the good-faith exception to save evidence from pre-*Torgerson* searches of this type.
The *Douglas* decision represents the latest development in the ongoing evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence related to drug searches. As states continue to liberalize marijuana laws, courts are increasingly scrutinizing traditional law enforcement practices that relied heavily on cannabis prohibition for justification.
The case was argued by Anders J. Erickson of Johnson Erickson Criminal Defense for Douglas, while the state was represented by Attorney General Keith Ellison's office and Scott County prosecutors Ronald Hocevar and Elisabeth M. Johnson. The matter now returns to the lower courts for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's holding.