New York’s highest court is set to hear arguments next week in a case involving whether the state’s post-legalization limits on marijuana odor searches can apply to a search conducted before adult-use marijuana became legal.
The New York Court of Appeals will hear People v. Martin on Wednesday, September 16. The case centers on whether Penal Law § 222.05(3)(a), enacted through the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), applies when a suppression hearing takes place after the law’s enactment but the underlying search occurred beforehand.
The case began with a September 30, 2020 traffic stop in Washington County. A New York State trooper pulled over a vehicle for suspected illegal window tinting and reported smelling marijuana after the window was lowered. Based solely on the odor, the trooper ordered the occupants from the vehicle and conducted searches.
Marijuana cigarettes were found on two passengers, including Darnell Martin. Police later found a backpack belonging to Martin in the trunk that contained cocaine, packaging materials and a digital scale.
New York legalized adult-use marijuana on March 31, 2021. The legalization law included a provision generally barring courts in criminal proceedings from finding reasonable cause based solely on the odor of marijuana, the odor of burnt marijuana or possession of marijuana in amounts permitted under state law.
Martin’s suppression hearing took place after the new provision became law. The county court refused to suppress the evidence, finding that applying the provision to a search conducted in 2020 would amount to an improper retroactive application of the law.
The Appellate Division’s Third Department reached a different conclusion in June 2025, reversing the decision in a 3 to 2 ruling. The majority found that the statute controls what a court may consider when determining probable cause during a suppression hearing, rather than retroactively changing whether the officer’s conduct was lawful when the search occurred.
The Third Department suppressed the evidence and vacated Martin’s conviction.
New York appellate courts have since split over the issue. In October 2025, the Second Department rejected the Third Department’s interpretation in People v. Fasoli, concluding that the date of the search, rather than the date of the suppression hearing, determines whether the newer marijuana odor restrictions apply.
The Court of Appeals considered a related issue in People v. Pastrana in 2023. In that case, the court ruled that the marijuana odor provision enacted through legalization does not retroactively invalidate searches conducted before the law took effect. However, Pastrana involved a conviction that had already occurred before legalization, leaving the question presented in Martin unresolved.
A ruling in Martin could settle the disagreement among New York’s lower appellate courts and establish how judges should handle other cases involving marijuana odor searches conducted before legalization but challenged in court afterward.
