Maryland’s transition to legalized recreational cannabis has prompted significant shifts in criminal procedure, particularly in the law governing searches and seizures.[1] One of the most consequential changes is the legislature’s directive that the odor of cannabis alone no longer provides probable cause for a search.[2] In a recent decision for Cutchember v. State, however, the Supreme Court of Maryland clarified that this limitation does not apply retroactively, preserving the validity of searches conducted before the statute took effect.[3]

Historically, Maryland courts, like many jurisdictions, treated the smell of marijuana as sufficient to establish probable cause.[4] That doctrine rested on the premise that possession of cannabis was categorically illegal, making its odor indicative of criminal activity.[5] However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically following Maryland’s legalization of recreational cannabis.[6] In response, the General Assembly enacted a statute providing that the odor of cannabis, standing alone, cannot justify a search.[7]

The key issue before the court in Cutchember was whether this statutory limitation applies to searches conducted before its effective date.[8] Applying established principles of retroactivity, the court held that it does not.[9] Under Maryland law, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise.[10] Because the cannabis odor statute contains no express retroactive language, and because applying it retroactively would affect substantive law enforcement authority, the court declined to extend its reach to pre-enactment searches.[11]

This reasoning reflects a broader doctrinal distinction between substantive and procedural changes in the law.[12] While procedural rules may sometimes apply retroactively, statutes that alter the legal consequences of past conduct, such as redefining what constitutes probable cause, are typically treated as substantive.[13] The court’s decision thus preserves reliance interests of law enforcement while avoiding the disruption that retroactive invalidation of prior searches could entail.[14]

At the same time, the ruling carries significant consequences for defendants whose cases arose during the transition to legalization.[15] Individuals subjected to searches based solely on cannabis odor before the statute’s effective date remain unable to challenge those searches under the new rule, even though identical conduct by law enforcement would be impermissible today.[16] This temporal divide underscores the uneven effects of legal reform and highlights the importance of timing in criminal adjudication.[17]

More broadly, the decision situates Maryland within a growing number of jurisdictions grappling with the Fourth Amendment implications of cannabis legalization.[18] Courts nationwide have begun to reassess whether the odor of marijuana can continue to support probable cause in a post-legalization environment, with mixed results.[19]

As Maryland’s legal framework continues to evolve, the court’s retroactivity holding provides clarity, but not closure.[20] Future litigation may further test the boundaries of the odor rule, particularly as courts confront cases arising from the gray area between prohibition and legalization. For now, the message is clear: while the smell of cannabis no longer justifies a search in Maryland, the past still carries legal weight.

---

Deborah Yi is a fourth-year evening student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and an Associate Editor for Law Forum. Deborah earned her bachelor’s degree from American University in Political Communications. Deborah has experience in government relations and currently works for the National Council of State Housing Agencies. Deborah has plans to pursue a career in housing law after graduation.

[1] See Cannabis Reform Act of 2023, ch. 26, 2023 Md. Laws; U.S. Const. amend. IV.

[2] Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 1-211 (2023).

[3] Cutchember v. State, 439 Md. 187, 192 (2026).

[4] See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017).

[5] Id.

[6] Cannabis Reform Act of 2023, ch. 26, 2023 Md. Laws.

[7] See Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 1-211 (2023).

[8] Cutchember, 439 Md. at 192.

[9] Id. at 209-10.

[10] See Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396 (2000).

[11] Cutchember, 439 Md. at 202-10.

[12] See Langston, 359 Md. at 406–08.

[13] Id.

[14] See Cutchember, 439 Md. at 202-10.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265–66 (1994).

[18] See Robinson, 451 Md. at 131–32.

[19] See Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25 (Pa. 2021); People v. McKnight, 446 P.3d 397 (Colo. 2019).

[20] See Barr, 266 A.3d at 44; McKnight, 446 P.3d at 403.