State v. Cushman - Case Summary

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 22nd Feb 2024
Wordcount: 490 words


Law Expert

Disclaimer: This legal case summary was produced by one of our law experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of

Cite This

Legal Case Summary

Summary: Groundbreaking case demonstrating the complex intersection of vehicular law and privacy rights.


The case involved the Defendant, Cushman, who was driving a vehicle that was later pulled over by a State Trooper. The Trooper smelled marijuana from outside of the vehicle and, therefore, conducted a search of the vehicle’s passenger compartment. The Trooper found a pipe with marijuana residue in the vehicle’s ashtray. The Trooper did not initially have a search warrant (State v. Cushman, 2009).


The essential question of the case was whether an officer’s warrantless search of an automobile’s passenger compartment due to smell of marijuana from outside of the vehicle constitutes an unlawful search. This raised broader issues regarding the contours of the privacy rights versus law enforcement's duty to ensure public safety (State v. Cushman, 2009).


The case had a significant impact on automobile search law in Washington, emphasizing the state's heightened privacy protections compared to federal law. The ruling implied a move toward requiring a warrant or valid warrant exception for vehicular searches based on smell alone. This case, however, contrasts federal jurisprudence which generally allows warrantless searches of vehicles based on probable cause (State v. Cushman, 2009).


The Supreme Court of Washington ruled in favour of the defendant, Cushman. The court held that the officer’s warrantless search of Cushman’s vehicle violated his privacy rights protected under Article I, section 7 of the Washington’s State Constitution. The court reasoned that the smell of marijuana did not eliminate the requirement for a search warrant. The court thus dismissed the evidence obtained from the search (State v. Cushman, 2009).


  • State v. Cushman, 165 WN.2d 317 (2009)

Journalist Brief

The legal case of State v. Cushman centered on the balance between an individual's privacy rights and the need for law enforcement to maintain public safety. The court ruled that merely smelling marijuana did not provide enough reason to conduct a vehicle search without a warrant. This specific case reshaped vehicle search laws within Washington State and underlined the heightened privacy protections the state provides.


What is the significance of the State v. Cushman case?

Answer: The case is significant as it set a precedent in Washington State that smell alone does not authorise police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle's passenger compartment.

How did this case change the law in Washington?

Answer: This case heightened the constitutional protections for individual privacy rights in the setting of automobile searches, requiring a warrant or valid warrant exception for searches based on smell alone.

How does the case contrast to federal law?

Answer: Under federal law, smell is generally considered enough probable cause to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle, making this case a divergence from federal precedent.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider