Court Opinion

ID: 9403102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 14:12:14.397874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:04.519081
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 50

                  SUPREME COURT         OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2021AP938-CR

COMPLETE TITLE:        State of Wisconsin,
                                 Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner,
                            v.
                       Quaheem O. Moore,
                                 Defendant-Respondent.

                         REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
                         Reported at 404 Wis. 2d 510, 979 N.W.2d 813
                                    (2022 – unpublished)

OPINION FILED:         June 20, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:         April 19, 2023

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:              Circuit
   COUNTY:             Wood
   JUDGE:              Nicholas J. Brazeau, Jr.

JUSTICES:
HAGEDORN, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in
which ZIEGLER, C.J., ROGGENSACK, and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY,
JJ., joined. DALLET, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
ANN WALSH BRADLEY and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

       For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs
filed by Jacob J. Wittwer, assistant attorney general, with whom
on the briefs was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an
oral argument by Jacob J. Wittwer, assistant attorney general.

       For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief filed by
Joshua Hargrove, Tracey A. Wood, Teuta Jonuzi, and Tracey Wood &
Associates,   Middleton.   There   was   an   oral   argument   by   Joshua
Hargrove.

                                   2
                                                                         2023 WI 50
                                                                 NOTICE
                                                   This opinion is subject to further
                                                   editing and modification.   The final
                                                   version will appear in the bound
                                                   volume of the official reports.
No.       2021AP938-CR
(L.C. No.    2019CF711)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                             :              IN SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin,

             Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner,                          FILED
      v.                                                         JUN 20, 2023
Quaheem O. Moore,                                                   Sheila T. Reiff
                                                                 Clerk of Supreme Court
             Defendant-Respondent.

HAGEDORN, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in
which ZIEGLER, C.J., ROGGENSACK, and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY,
JJ., joined. DALLET, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
ANN WALSH BRADLEY and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.

      REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.                 Reversed.

      ¶1     BRIAN   HAGEDORN,    J.   After       he   was    pulled     over     for

speeding, officers searched Quaheem Moore based primarily on the

smell of marijuana emanating from his vehicle.                        The circuit

court1 suppressed the results of that search, and the court of

appeals affirmed.         The State contends this was error.              It argues

      1The Honorable Nicholas J. Brazeau, Jr., of the Wood County
Circuit Court presided.
                                                              No.     2021AP938-CR

the officers had probable cause to arrest Moore, and thus, this

was a lawful search incident to arrest.             We agree and reverse.

                              I.    BACKGROUND

     ¶2   On     November    17,    2019,   City     of    Marshfield     Police

Officer Libby Abel executed a traffic stop for speeding.                   While

attempting to make the stop, Officer Abel "observed some sort of

liquid fly out of the driver's window" and noticed the vehicle

hit a curb while turning onto a side street.                      Officer Abel

approached the vehicle, identified the driver and sole occupant

as Quaheem Moore, and questioned him about the speeding and the

liquid.   During this initial contact, Officer Abel "detected an

odor of raw marijuana."            She called for back-up, and Officer

Mack Scheppler arrived on the scene.

     ¶3   Both    officers    escorted      Moore    out    the     vehicle,   in

between his vehicle and Officer Abel's squad car.                   Officer Abel

performed an initial safety pat-down for weapons.2                  She did not

find any, but she did discover a vaping device.3              She asked Moore

     2 During an investigative stop, officers are permitted to
search a person's outer clothing for weapons if they have
reasonable suspicion to believe that the person may be armed and
dangerous.     State v.    McGill, 2000 WI 38, ¶¶21-22, 234
Wis. 2d 560, 609 N.W.2d 795.     Moore does not challenge this
search.
     3 A vaping device, commonly known as a "vape pen" or "vape,"
is a device that works "by heating and aerosolizing a liquid
mixture" that "is inhaled as vapor."     Big Time Vapes, Inc. v.
Food & Drug Admin., 963 F.3d 436, 439 n.11 (5th Cir. 2020).

                                       2
                                                                  No.    2021AP938-CR

if it was a THC (tetrahydrocannabinols) vape, and he responded

that it was a CBD (cannabidiol) vape pen.4

       ¶4         Officer Abel proceeded to question Moore.              She first

asked about the liquid, which she said she could still see on

the side of the car and inside the window; but Moore denied

throwing anything out of the window.5                      He explained that the

vehicle was his brother's rental, and that he had taken it to

the car wash earlier in the day.                 Officer Abel next asked Moore

if he had been drinking, which he also denied.                     Then, Officer

Abel       told    Moore     that   she   smelled   marijuana   coming    from   the

vehicle,          but   he    immediately      expressed    disbelief.      Officer

Scheppler confirmed that he too smelled marijuana, and later

described the odor as overwhelming.                 Moore continued to express

his disbelief and insisted that the officers could not smell

marijuana          on   him.        Officers     Abel   and   Scheppler     agreed,

       The liquid in vape pens often contains "nicotine and
       4

sometimes flavoring." Id. However, the liquid mixture can also
contain THC or CBD. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
E-Cigarette,   or   Vaping,   Products   Visual  Dictionary,   17,
available   at    https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-
cigarettes/pdfs/ecigarette-or-vaping-products-visual-dictionary-
508.pdf. "THC is the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana."
Id. at 18.    And "CBD is the main ingredient in hemp and the
second main ingredient in marijuana after THC," although it "is
not a psychoactive substance." Id. at 20. Possession of THC is
illegal; however, Wisconsin law permits possession of certain
CBD products.      See Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(3g)(e) (2021-22);
961.14(4)(t).

     All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
the 2021-22 version.

       The officers never determined what this liquid was, but
       5

Officer Abel testified it was odorless.

                                             3
                                                                          No.    2021AP938-CR

indicating        the    smell   was     coming      from     the   vehicle,      not     from

Moore.

       ¶5        Eventually,     the    officers       told    Moore      that   they     were

going to search him based on the odor of marijuana.                                   Officer

Scheppler found only cash at first.                        Officer Abel then stepped

away to search Moore's vehicle while Officer Scheppler and Moore

chatted.6          Several     minutes        later,    Officer      Scheppler        noticed

Moore's "belt buckle was sitting a little higher on his pants"

and    decided      to   examine       the    zipper       area.     Officer      Scheppler

testified, "I looked behind the belt buckle, I noticed that he

had a bulge in his pants, and then in searching the zipper area,

I felt a material that wasn't consistent to the pants fabric."

He     called      Officer     Abel     back       over,    and     she    put    Moore    in

handcuffs.         The officers then moved Moore closer to the squad

cars       for   privacy.        Officer       Scheppler       ultimately        found     two

plastic      baggies     containing          cocaine   and     fentanyl     in    a    false-

pocket behind Moore's zipper.

       ¶6        The State charged Moore with two crimes:                        possession
with intent to deliver narcotics and possession with intent to

deliver more than one but less than five grams of cocaine——both

as second and subsequent offenses and as a repeater.                                    Moore

moved to suppress evidence of the cocaine and fentanyl found by

Officer Scheppler, arguing the State lacked probable cause to

arrest and therefore to search him.                         The circuit court agreed

       6   Moore does not challenge the search of the vehicle.

                                               4
                                                                      No.   2021AP938-CR

and granted the motion.             The court of appeals affirmed,7 and we

granted the State's petition for review.

                                   II.    DISCUSSION

       ¶7    The United States Constitution provides:                       "The right

of    the   people      to    be   secure    in     their     persons . . . against

unreasonable         searches        and          seizures,      shall       not     be

violated . . . ."8           U.S. Const. amend. IV.           "Warrantless searches

are   presumed     to    be    unconstitutional."             State   v.    Denk,   2008

WI 130,     ¶36,   315       Wis. 2d 5,     758    N.W.2d 775.        But   there   are

exceptions, and the State bears the burden to prove an exception

applies.     Id.

       ¶8    One exception is a search incident to an arrest.                       Id.,

¶38; see also Wis. Stat. § 968.11.                     When conducting a search

incident to arrest, the officer is not required to formally

arrest before the search.            State v. Sykes, 2005 WI 48, ¶15, 279

Wis. 2d 742, 695 N.W.2d 277.                The "search may be incident to a

subsequent arrest if the officers have probable cause to arrest
before the search."             Id. (quoting another source).                "Probable

cause to arrest is the quantum of evidence within the arresting

officer's knowledge at the time of the arrest which would lead a

reasonable police officer to believe that the defendant probably

       See State v. Moore, No. 2021AP938-CR, unpublished slip op.
       7

(Wis. Ct. App. July 28, 2022).

       The Wisconsin Constitution also provides, "The right of
       8

the   people  to   be  secure   in  their   persons . . . against
unreasonable    searches    and    seizures    shall    not    be
violated . . . ." Wis. Const. art. I, § 11.

                                            5
                                                                     No.     2021AP938-CR

committed or was committing a crime."                    State v. Secrist, 224

Wis. 2d 201, 212, 589 N.W.2d 387 (1999).                      This requires more

than a mere hunch or reasonable suspicion, but "does not require

proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt or even that guilt is more

likely      than    not.'"       State   v.    Young,    2006      WI 98,     ¶22,    294

Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 729 (quoting another source).                            Probable

cause is an objective test that "requires an examination of the

totality of the circumstances."                 State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96,

¶20,     372    Wis. 2d 202,       887   N.W.2d 554.          In     analyzing       this

question, we uphold the "circuit court's findings of fact unless

they   are     clearly    erroneous"     but    independently        review     whether

there was probable cause to arrest.                     Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d at

207-08.

       ¶9      In a case similar to this, we observed that "when an

officer smells the odor of a controlled substance," the "common

sense conclusion" "is that a crime has probably been committed."

Id. at 218.          In Secrist, the defendant pulled up to a police

officer with his window down to ask for directions.                        Id. at 204.
The defendant was the only person in the car.                      Id.     The officer,

who had frequent contact with marijuana in his 23 years as a

police officer, "immediately smelled a strong odor of marijuana

coming from the automobile."             Id.    He asked the defendant to get

out of the vehicle and placed him under arrest for possession of

marijuana.         Id. at 205.

       ¶10     The defendant argued before this court that the smell

of   marijuana       alone   was   not   sufficient      to   establish        probable
cause.      Id. at 213.      We disagreed.      Id. at 218-19.           We held,
                                          6
                                                                         No.    2021AP938-CR

     the odor of a controlled substance may provide
     probable cause to arrest when the odor is unmistakable
     and may be linked to a specific person or persons
     because of the particular circumstances in which it is
     discovered or because other evidence at the scene or
     elsewhere links the odor to the person or persons.
Id. at    217-18.       We    further    explained,       "The       strong       odor      of

marijuana in an automobile will normally provide probable cause

to believe that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle is

linked to the drug."         Id. at 218.

     ¶11    Moore asks us to construe our holding in Secrist as
creating a three-part test that requires:                      (1) an unmistakable

smell (2) linked to the suspect and (3) smelled by a trained and

experienced officer who testifies accordingly.                           This effort to

establish bright-line rules and prerequisites misses the mark.

Secrist    stressed——and        we   agree——that         it        was     conducting        a

"totality of the circumstances" analysis; it did not purport to

design new, higher standards to govern every case with factual

similarities.        Id.      Rather,    Secrist    acknowledged                the    rather

obvious    connections       necessary    to    establish          probable       cause     in

this kind of circumstance.           Was the odor sufficiently identified

as   an    illegal     substance,       most    likely        by     someone          (a   law

enforcement officer) who could make such an identification?                                If

so, it was reasonable to believe that some illegal activity had

occurred    or   was   occurring.         And   therefore,           the       question     is

whether this illegal activity was sufficiently linked to the

suspect such that a reasonable law enforcement officer would

reasonably believe it was the suspect who was involved in the
illegal drug activity.

                                          7
                                                                           No.    2021AP938-CR

       ¶12   Thus,       the    issue   presented            here    is,    examining      the

totality      of     the       circumstances,       whether          a     reasonable      law

enforcement officer would believe Moore probably committed or

was committing a crime.             The answer is yes.                   When Officer Abel

pulled Moore over, she watched his vehicle hit the curb and

observed a "liquid fly out the driver's window"; she later saw

the liquid on the side of the car as well.                           And when she first

approached     the       vehicle,   she   smelled        raw        marijuana.       Officer

Scheppler smelled it too, and even called it overwhelming.                                 The

circuit court found both officers' testimony regarding the smell

credible,      stating       multiple     times     in       its     decision      that    the

officers smelled a "strong" odor of marijuana.                             Moore does not

challenge this factual finding.                  Critically, Moore was the sole

occupant of the vehicle.                And he was in possession of a vape

pen.    Taken together, a reasonable officer would believe it was

Moore   that       was    responsible     for      the       overwhelming        odor     of   a

prohibited     substance         emanating       from    a    vehicle      with    no   other

passengers.         The officers need not know with certainty that
Moore was committing or had committed illegal activity, but they

had more than enough to meet the modest bar that it was probably

true.     Therefore, the officers had probable cause to believe a

crime was or had been committed——at the very least, possession

of THC.      See Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(e).

       ¶13   Moore provides several counterarguments, none of which

are persuasive.            First, he contends that the odor of marijuana

was not sufficiently linked to him because the officers did not
smell it on him, only in his vehicle.                         While Moore is correct
                                             8
                                                                               No.        2021AP938-CR

that the officers did not smell marijuana on his person, he was

the    sole    occupant      of        the     vehicle      that    bore        a     strong       and

overwhelming smell of marijuana.                       A reasonable law enforcement

officer      would    believe      Moore        was    probably      connected             with    the

illegal      substance      the        officers       identified.             As     we     said    in

Secrist, "The strong odor of marijuana in an automobile will

normally provide probable cause to believe that the driver and

sole    occupant      of    the    vehicle       is       linked    to    the        drug."        224

Wis. 2d at 218.

       ¶14    That     leads       to    Moore's          second    counterpoint:                  the

vehicle was not his, but his brother's rental.                                While this could

constitute      an    innocent          explanation——albeit,              a    strained           one——

Moore misses the legal standard.                      Who owned the title or signed

the rental lease does not change the analysis.                                See, e.g., State

v. Stewart, 2011 WI App 152, ¶¶8 & n.3, 27, 337 Wis. 2d 618, 807

N.W.2d 15      (upholding          a     search       incident       to       arrest         of    the

defendant's daughter's car after police observed the defendant

throw   a     bag    into   the     trunk).           A    reasonable         law        enforcement
officer would still likely conclude, absent other facts not in

the record, that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle was

probably      connected      to        the   illegal        substance         whose        odor    the

officer clearly detected in the vehicle.

       ¶15    Third,       Moore       contends       that    the    odor           of     marijuana

cannot be unmistakable when there are innocent explanations for

it——such as the odor of CBD, a legal substance that Moore stated

his vape pen was used for.                   The circuit court referenced this as
well:         "The     State           notes     that       CBD     and        marijuana           are
                                                 9
                                                                              No.      2021AP938-CR

indistinguishable            in    their     odor.             The       Court      didn't        note

testimony to that effect in the record, but it may exist there,

and this Court will assume that is true."                                The State responds

that    this    statement         was    taken        out    of     context      and    is    not    a

factual concession.               Regardless of what the State said in its

briefing to the circuit court, the circuit court found that the

officers noticed "a strong smell of marijuana emanating" from

the vehicle Moore was driving.                        While the officers might have

reasonably inferred that the smell from the vehicle was CBD,

that was not the only inference they could draw——they also could

infer (and they did) that the smell was THC.                              It is black letter

law    that    "an     officer      is    not     required          to   draw     a    reasonable

inference that favors innocence when there also is a reasonable

inference that favors probable cause."                              State v. Nieves, 2007

WI App 189, ¶14, 304 Wis. 2d 182, 738 N.W.2d 125; see also State

v.     Waldner,        206     Wis. 2d 51,            60,      556       N.W.2d 681          (1996).

Therefore, while an innocent explanation may exist, we still

conclude       under     the      facts     of        this    case,       a   reasonable           law
enforcement       officer         would     infer            that     Moore      had     probably

committed or was committing a crime.

       ¶16     Finally,      Moore       notes    that        neither      Officer      Abel       nor

Officer Scheppler testified with respect to their training and

experience to detect the smell of marijuana.                                  He asserts that

without this testimony, the State failed to establish the odor

was    unmistakable.              This      argument,             however,       goes        to   the

credibility of the officers.                 And credibility of a witness is a
question left to the fact-finder.                            See State v. Burch, 2021
                                                 10
                                                                         No.     2021AP938-CR

WI 68, ¶34, 398 Wis. 2d 1, 961 N.W.2d 314.                          The circuit court

acting     as    fact-finder          here    found       the   officers'         testimony

credible       and    stated     repeatedly        that   the   officers         noted   the

"strong smell" and "strong odor" of marijuana coming from the

vehicle.       It made this factual finding absent specific testimony

regarding the officers' training and experience.                          Moore does not

challenge this factual finding; nor do we conclude this finding

is clearly erroneous.             Furthermore, the fact that the officers

testified       to     smelling       marijuana       suggests       they       know     what

marijuana       smells    like.         See    United      States    v.        Ludwig,    508

F.2d 140, 142 (10th Cir. 1974) ("[I]nherent in the officer's

statement that he smelled marihuana is the claim that he is

familiar with that substance's odor.").                         It could be that a

fact-finder      will     not    believe      an    officer's       identification        of

marijuana       absent    an     on-the-record        statement      of     training      and

experience.          The changing legal status and ubiquity of marijuana

could make the lack of such evidence vulnerable to attack.                                But

again, we do not see why such testimony would be required.                               The
relevant    question       is    whether      the    testimony      is    sufficient       to

support    a    finding     of    fact.        There      was   enough      here    without

testimony       regarding       the   officers'       training      and     expertise     to

support a finding that they smelled illegal raw marijuana.

                                  III.       CONCLUSION

    ¶17        Examining the totality of the circumstances, we hold

that officers Abel and Scheppler had probable cause to arrest
Moore on the belief that he was committing or had committed a
                                              11
                                                          No.   2021AP938-CR

crime.   Therefore, the search incident to arrest did not violate

the Fourth Amendment.   We reverse the court of appeals' decision

to the contrary and remand to the circuit court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    By   the   Court.—The   decision   of   the   court   of    appeals   is

reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court.

                                  12
                                                                        No.    2021AP938-CR.rfd

       ¶18    REBECCA           FRANK     DALLET,       J.      (dissenting).             After

pulling Moore over for speeding, police officers removed him

from    his   car      to       conduct   a     pat-down      search.         They    found    no

evidence that a crime had been committed, so Moore should have

been free to go, perhaps with a speeding ticket.                                Instead, the

officers conducted a second, more thorough search of Moore and

found baggies containing cocaine and fentanyl concealed in his

pants.        The      majority      concludes         that    this    second     search      was

permissible because the officers had probable cause to arrest

Moore on the basis that the car he was driving smelled like

marijuana.          I disagree; because the officers lacked probable

cause    to       arrest        Moore,    the    evidence       they    found        should   be

suppressed.

                                                 I

       ¶19    On the night of November 17, 2019, Officer Libby Abel

pulled Quaheem Moore over for speeding on a residential street.

She called for backup.               The sequence of events that followed was

captured on the bodycam video.                       The officers removed Moore from
the vehicle to conduct a pat-down search.                            While searching him,

Officer Abel asked Moore if he had been drinking.                              He said "no."

Officer Abel then told Moore she saw him throw something out of

the driver's side window while pulling over, "[s]ome sort of

beverage      .    .   .    .      It's    on    the    side    of    your     car."      Moore

expressed confusion and explained that it was his brother's car

and had been through a car wash earlier that day.                               Officer Abel

asked Moore again if he had been drinking and when the last time
was that he had an alcoholic drink.                      Moore replied, "yesterday."

                                                 1
                                                                No.   2021AP938-CR.rfd

He did not appear intoxicated and was not asked to take field

sobriety tests.         The only item the officers found during the

pat-down search was a vape pen which Moore said was a "CBD

vape."     There   is    nothing   in   the       record   to     contradict     this

statement.

     ¶20    Instead of letting Moore go with a speeding ticket,

Officer Abel briefly paused and said for the first time, "Okay,

okay, um . . . I also smelled mar——the odor of marijuana coming

from the car."     The second officer chimed in that he could smell

it too.      Later, at the suppression hearing, Officer Abel said

that she had smelled "raw marijuana."               Moore expressed disbelief

and pulled his sweatshirt outwards exclaiming "You don't smell

that shit on me."         Officer Abel admitted, "I can't smell it

right now."1

     ¶21    At this point, Officer Abel told Moore that the second

officer was going to search him.                  That officer stated, "Just

with the odor of marijuana, I'm going to be searching you."                       The

officer found nothing.       Several minutes later, the officer said
that he had to search Moore's waistband.               This time, the officer

found    bags   containing   cocaine        and   fentanyl      concealed     behind

Moore's pants zipper.        No marijuana was found on Moore and he

was never charged with possession of marijuana.

     ¶22    Moore contends that the officers lacked probable cause

to arrest him, and thus to conduct a search incident to arrest.

     1The second officer seemingly agreed that Moore didn't
smell like marijuana.  After Moore said "You don't smell it on
me," the officer responded, "But, but it's coming out of the
car."

                                        2
                                                                     No.   2021AP938-CR.rfd

An       officer    has    probable     cause     to    arrest     when    "[t]here    are

reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or

has committed a crime."                 Wis. Stat. § 968.07(1)(d); see also

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 185 (1990) (explaining the

reasonableness            requirement    of     the     Fourth     Amendment).        This

standard demands "more than a possibility or suspicion that the

defendant committed an offense, but the evidence need not reach

the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even that guilt

is more likely than not."                State v. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201,

212, 589 N.W.2d 387 (1999).               Probable cause is an objective test

that       "requires        an     examination         of   the     totality     of    the

circumstances."            State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96, ¶20, 372 Wis. 2d

202, 887 N.W.2d 554.

          ¶23   The majority concludes that under the totality of the

circumstances, "the officers had probable cause to believe a

crime was or had been committed——at the very least, possession

of THC."           Majority op., ¶12.             The circumstances the majority

cites for this conclusion are the following:
         While coming to a stop, Moore's vehicle hit the curb;

         Officer Abel saw an unknown liquid fly out of the driver's

          window;

         Moore had a CBD vape pen; and

         Officer    Abel    and    a   second     officer        testified    that   they

          smelled the "strong" odor of "raw marijuana" coming from

          Moore's vehicle.

Id.

                                              3
                                                          No.    2021AP938-CR.rfd

      ¶24    Almost    none   of   these   circumstances     "would     lead    a

reasonable police officer to believe" that Moore possessed THC.

Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d at 212.             Hitting the curb while pulling

over might be evidence the driver was impaired, but Moore was

not arrested for operating while intoxicated and there is no

evidence of impairment from the bodycam footage or the officers'

reports.     Officer Abel's testimony about a liquid spraying out

of the driver's side window is immaterial as well.                    There is

nothing in the record about what the liquid was or linking it in

any way to THC.        Likewise there is nothing in the record that

suggests Moore's vape pen was used for anything other than CBD——

a legal substance.

      ¶25    That leaves only the smell of marijuana coming from

the car Moore was driving——a fact the majority all but admits is

the   only   support    for   probable     cause   to   arrest   Moore.        See

majority op., ¶12.        In concluding that the smell of marijuana

alone gave the officers probable cause to arrest Moore, the

majority relies primarily on one 24-year old case decided when
the use or possession of any amount of cannabis2 was illegal

nationwide.     See Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201.

                                      II

      2Cannabis refers to a category of flowering plants which
produce both hemp and marijuana.     Hemp is a type of cannabis
that contains low levels of the intoxicating chemical delta-9
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).     Marijuana is another type of
cannabis known for its much higher concentration of THC.       In
1996, both hemp and marijuana were illegal.    See Ryan LeCloux,
Regulating Wisconsin's Hemp Industry, Wisconsin Legislative
Reference Bureau, Wisconsin Policy Project, Vol. 2 No. 9, at 1-4
(Aug. 2019), https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/wisconsin
_policy_project/wisconsin_policy_project_2_9.pdf.

                                       4
                                                                   No.    2021AP938-CR.rfd

      ¶26     On a summer day in 1996, Timothy Secrist rolled down

his window to ask a police officer for directions.                         See Secrist,

224 Wis. 2d at 204.           The officer was immediately struck by the

strong odor of marijuana wafting from inside the vehicle.                                 Id.

Secrist was ordered to pull over and get out of the car and was

then placed under arrest.             Id. at 205.            We concluded that the

evidence      seized   after      Secrist's     arrest       did    not    need     to    be

suppressed,     holding     that     the   officer      had       probable       cause     to

arrest Secrist because the officer identified the "unmistakable

odor of a controlled substance and [wa]s able to link that odor

to a specific person."            Id. at 218.     Applying Secrist to Moore's

case, I conclude that the officers lacked probable cause to

arrest, and therefore to search, Moore.

      ¶27     For    starters,      even   if     the    officers          smelled        the

"unmistakable" odor of marijuana coming from the car Moore was

driving,      the   linkage    between     that    smell       and       Moore    was     not

particularly strong.           See id. (stating that probable cause to

arrest based on the "unmistakable" odor of marijuana must also
be linked to a specific person).                   As Secrist explained, the

likelihood that an occupant is linked to the smell of marijuana

in a vehicle "diminishes if the odor is not strong or recent, if

the source of the odor is not near the person, if there are

several     people     in   the    vehicle,     or      if    a    person        offers     a

reasonable explanation for the odor."                    Id.       Here, it is true

that Moore was the sole occupant of the car, thus increasing the

probability that he was linked to the smell.                         But that linkage
is   weaker    than    it   initially      appears,      since       neither       officer

                                           5
                                                                            No.       2021AP938-CR.rfd

smelled         marijuana     on    Moore    once      he   was       out    of        the   car   and

because         Moore   explained       that      he   was    driving             a    vehicle     his

brother had rented——a fact the officers subsequently verified.

       ¶28       More fundamentally, however, legal developments in the

last       24   years   may    call     into       question       a    central           premise    of

Secrist, namely that the odor of marijuana is "unmistakabl[y

the] odor of a controlled substance."                        Id.       Thirty-eight states

have legalized medical marijuana and twenty-three of those have

also legalized recreational marijuana.3                           Additionally, Congress

modified the Controlled Substances Act in 2018 to remove hemp

and    hemp-derived         products        from    the     definition            of     marijuana,

which legalized certain hemp products nationwide.4                                       This means

that       virtually    all        adults   can     legally       purchase             hemp-derived

       See National Conference of State Legislatures, State
       3

Medical          Cannabis          Laws,          tbl.         1,
https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-medical-cannabis-laws.      See
also Joe Sonka, Kentucky Bill Legalizing Medical Marijuana
Signed Into Law, Louisville Courier Journal (Mar. 30, 2023),
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/30/m
edical-marijuana-bill-passes-in-kentucky-heads-to-beshears-
desk/70062316007/ (identifying Kentucky as the 38th state to
legalize medical marijuana); Shawna Mizelle & Sydney Kashiwagi,
Minnesota Becomes 23rd State to Legalize Recreational Marijuana,
CNN          Politics           (May          30,          2023),
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/30/politics/minnesota-cannabis-
legalization-recreational-marijuana/index.html.

       See Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, H.R. 2, 115th
       4

Cong. § 12619.   The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the legal
definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act. This
made some hemp-derived products with less than 0.3% THC
federally legal.

                                               6
                                                    No.   2021AP938-CR.rfd

products from local CBD stores.5       Hemp-derived products come in a

variety of processed forms like gummies, oils, and creams, as

well as in their unprocessed state as hemp flowers.6            And just

like marijuana, hemp flowers can be smoked, vaped, or eaten.7

Unlike marijuana, however, hemp contains only trace amounts of

the psychoactive compound THC——the main psychoactive ingredient

in marijuana.8

     ¶29    Experts indicate that hemp flowers and marijuana are

so similar in appearance and smell that even drug detection dogs

can't tell the difference.9      If true, this means that when a

police officer smells what they believe to be the distinctive

     5 See Mike Sill, The Future of the CBD Industry in 2022 and
Beyond,    Forbes    Business   Council    (Oct.    21,    2021),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/10/21/th
e-future-of-the-cbd-industry-in-2022-and-beyond (detailing the
exponential growth of the CBD industry).
     6 See Elizabeth G. Dunn, They're Betting the Family Farm on
Weed,        N.Y.       Times       (Feb.        17,       2023),
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/17/nyregion/hepworth-farms-
cannabis.html (explaining the process of growing hemp).
     7 See Phil Dixon, Hemp or Marijuana?, UNC Sch. of Gov't:
N.C.      Crim.      L.      Blog       (May      21,  2019),
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/hemp-or-marijuana.
     8   See Elizabeth G. Dunn, supra note 6.
     9 See  North    Carolina State   Bureau  of   Investigation,
Industrial        Hemp/CBD       Issues,       available       at
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/doc_warehouse/NC%20S
BI%20-%20Issues%20with%20Hemp%20and%20CBD%20Full.pdf ("Hemp and
marijuana look the same and have the same odor, both unburned
and burned. This makes it impossible for law enforcement to use
the appearance of marijuana or the odor of marijuana to develop
probable cause for arrest."); see also Cynthia Sherwood,
Alexander Mills, & Davis Griffin, Even Dogs Can’t Smell the
Difference: The Death of "Plain Smell," As Hemp Is Legalized, 55
Tenn. Bar J. 14 (Dec. 2019).

                                   7
                                                                         No.    2021AP938-CR.rfd

odor of either raw or burnt marijuana, they could just as easily

be smelling raw or burnt hemp.                          In light of the nationwide

legalization of hemp, this               raises          the question:               Should the

smell of marijuana alone still justify a warrantless arrest?

      ¶30    Courts in jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana

for   medical        or    recreational           purposes        have       answered     "no,"

rejecting       their        Secrist-like               cases       in         the     process.

Pennsylvania,        for   example,      once           had   a   rule       that    "where    an

officer is justified in being where he is, his detection of the

odor of marijuana is sufficient to establish probable cause."

Commonwealth v. Stainbrook, 471 A.2d 1223, 1225 (Pa. Super. Ct.

1984).      In 2016, after Pennsylvania legalized the possession and

use   of      medical      marijuana          in        limited     circumstances,            the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that change eliminated the

"main pillar" of the state's prior rule regarding the smell of

marijuana——that marijuana was illegal in all circumstances in

Pennsylvania.        Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25, 41 (Pa. 2021).

Accordingly, the court held that "the smell of marijuana alone
cannot      create    probable      cause          to    justify        a    search."         Id.

Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that possession or use of

marijuana remained illegal for those not qualified to possess

medical marijuana.           Id.    For that reason, the court explained

that "the smell of marijuana indisputably can still signal the

possibility of criminal activity" and thus "may be a factor, but

not   a    stand-alone       one,   in    evaluating              the       totality    of    the

circumstances        for   purposes      of    determining          whether          police   had
probable cause to conduct a warrantless search."                               Id.

                                              8
                                                                       No.    2021AP938-CR.rfd

    ¶31       States that have decriminalized possession of small

quantities of marijuana have reached similar conclusions.                                         For

example,      the    Maryland      Court       of    Appeals       held      that       a    search

incident to arrest was invalid because "nothing in the record

suggest[ed] that possession of a joint and the odor of burnt

marijuana      gave      the     police       probable       cause     to     believe             [the

defendant]      was      in     possession      of    a     criminal      amount            of   that

substance."         Pacheco v. State, 214 A.3d 505, 518 (Md. 2019); see

also Lewis v. State, 233 A.3d 86, 99 (Md. 2020) (holding that

the odor of marijuana alone doesn't indicate possession of a

criminal      amount       of    marijuana      and       police     officers           therefore

lacked probable cause to arrest).                         The Minnesota Supreme Court

likewise explained that although the odor of burnt marijuana

might provide probable cause to believe that a "non-criminal

amount" of marijuana is present, it cannot provide the basis for

probable cause to arrest because there is no reason to believe a

criminal amount of marijuana is present.                           State v. Ortega, 770

N.W.2d 145, 149 n.2 (Minn. 2009).
    ¶32       Although Wisconsin has not yet legalized medical or

recreational          marijuana,         or     decriminalized              possession             or

consumption         of     marijuana,         the     reasoning        in      these             cases

demonstrates        that      marijuana's      once-unique         odor      may     no      longer

serve   as    the     beacon      of    criminal      activity       it   did       a    quarter-

century      ago.        As   discussed       above,       Wisconsinites        can         legally

purchase,      transport,         and    smoke       or    vape    hemp      products             that

experts indicate are identical to marijuana in look and smell.
As such, officers who believe they smell marijuana coming from a

                                               9
                                                                       No.    2021AP938-CR.rfd

vehicle may just as likely be smelling raw or smoked hemp, which

is   not     criminal        activity.        Moreover,         in    virtually       all    of

Wisconsin's           neighboring         states——Illinois,                Michigan,        and

Minnesota——recreational              marijuana      is    now    legal.            With   that,

Wisconsinites         may     travel     to   neighboring            states    and    consume

marijuana without violating any state laws.10                                And experience

teaches us that smells linger in cars, sometimes long after the

item    responsible          for   the   smell     is    gone.        In     sum,    Secrist's

reliance on the smell of marijuana as an unmistakable indication

of illegal activity sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest

may no longer ring true.11

       ¶33       All things considered, the totality of the relevant

circumstances here do not add up to probable cause to arrest and

thus any evidence found during the search should be suppressed.

Other       than    the     officers'     testimony        that       they     smelled      raw

marijuana coming from the car Moore was driving, there was no

reason      to     believe    that   Moore    possessed         THC.         The    smell   the

officers identified was not sufficiently linked to Moore under

       The Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated that $36.1
       10

million of Illinois' cannabis tax revenues in fiscal year 2022
were attributable to sales of cannabis to Wisconsin residents.
Memorandum from Sydney Emmerich, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative
Fiscal Bureau, to Senator Melissa Agard, at 2 (Mar. 10, 2023).

       For this reason, Secrist may be worth revisiting in a
       11

future case. See State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, ¶20, 407 Wis. 2d
195, 990 N.W.2d 174 (identifying several factors that we
consider when deciding whether to overturn precedent, including
when "the law has changed in a way that undermines the prior
decision's rationale" and when "there is a 'need to make a
decision correspond to newly ascertained facts'" (quoting
another source)).

                                              10
                                                            No.   2021AP938-CR.rfd

the circumstances of this case.               See Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d at

218.    And if experts are correct that there is no distinction

between the odor of legal hemp products and marijuana, then a

central premise of Secrist is called into question and further

undermines       probable   cause.           For   all    these      reasons,   I

respectfully dissent.

       ¶34   I   am   authorized   to   state      that   Justices    ANN   WALSH

BRADLEY and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this opinion.

                                        11