Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to hear a case in which a man’s car was searched without a warrant based on the smell of burnt marijuana in his vehicle.
On appeal, Brione Jackson challenged denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a handgun found in his car during the search and that resulted in him being charged with one count of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Hamilton Superior Court Judge William Hughes denial of Jackson’s motion to suppress in a October 2023 memorandum opinion.
The Supreme Court decided 3-2 last week not to hear Jackson’s appeal. Justices Mark Massa, Geoffrey Slaughter, and Christopher Goff voted with the majority. Chief Justice Loretta Rush dissented with a separate opinion, which Justice Derek Molter joined.
Jackson’s attorney Denise Turner called the denial disappointing.
“Given this decision, anyone driving a vehicle that smells like burnt marijuana will be subject to a search of their car, even when they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. The often unquestionable ‘odor of burnt marijuana’ is already abused by police officers to justify what would otherwise be unreasonable searches, and this decision only gives law enforcement more power to intrude on the privacy interests of Hoosiers,” Turner said.
Attorneys for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Rush wrote that the case was an issue of first impression that the high court should review.
“This case presents an issue of first impression, implicating the reasonableness of an officer conducting a warrantless search of a car’s locked trunk based only on the smell of burnt marijuana coming from the passenger compartment,” Rush wrote. “The Court’s decision today avoids addressing this important issue, leaves standing an opinion that misstates the record, and fails to protect one of our citizens’ constitutional rights.”
She continued by stating the warrantless search of Jackson’s trunk violated his rights under Article 1, Section 11.
“By denying transfer, the Court leaves standing a Court of Appeals decision that both misstates the record and decides important issues of first impression that we should decide,” Rush wrote. “But what perhaps troubles me most is that the Court not only fails to protect Brione Jackson’s constitutional rights but also waters down Hoosiers’ protections against overly intrusive police searches.”
The case is Brione Jackson v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2524. Appellant’s attorney: Denise Turner with DTurner Legal LLC. Appellee’s attorneys: Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Deputy Attorney General Robert Yoke.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.