STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUSTIN C. WILLIAMS (17-09-0681, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2533-18

Background:

Police stopped defendant's car in Linden on July 12, 2017 after observing a seatbelt violation.
Detective Michael Oberlies approached, detected an odor of marijuana from the vehicle, and perceived defendant's answers as hostile.
Officer left to call for backup, then returned, told defendant to exit the vehicle, and informed him he smelled marijuana; defendant did not consent to a search.
After a frisk revealed nearly $10,000 and papers, officers searched the vehicle without a warrant and found a handgun, hollow-point bullets, and a sealed jar appearing to contain marijuana.
Defendant moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, was sentenced, and appealed the suppression ruling.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search (pre- Feb. 22, 2021)	Odor of marijuana gives probable cause to search for contraband and weapons	Odor alone was not credible here and insufficient to establish probable cause	Court affirmed: under controlling precedent, the odor supplied probable cause at the time of the search
Whether the detective's credibility/supporting testimony was adequate	Detective's testimony was credible and supported probable cause	Detective’s uncertainty about burnt vs raw marijuana and other testimony undermined credibility	Court deferred to trial judge's credibility finding and found the testimony sufficient
Whether the physical configuration (sealed jar in backpack) undercuts the claim of smelling raw marijuana	Officer testified he believed he smelled burnt marijuana, which can justify search	Defendant argued it was implausible to smell raw marijuana given containers and location	Court accepted officer's account that he smelled marijuana (likely burnt) and found search justified
Whether CUMMA or subsequent legislation eliminated odor-based probable cause	At the time, CUMMA did not eliminate odor-based probable cause; law change effective Feb. 22, 2021 postdates search	Defendant argued medical-marijuana law and later statute undermine odor-based searches	Court held CUMMA protects qualifying patients only and did not alter the then-governing precedent; acknowledged later statute now forbids odor-alone searches but is not retroactive

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (recognizing smell of marijuana may establish probable cause)
State v. Vanderveer, 285 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div.) (endorsing odor-based probable cause)
State v. Hagans, 233 N.J. 30 (reaffirming odor-based search precedents)
State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281 (discussing standards for searches and seizures)
State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424 (same: appellate deference to factfinder on credibility)