I’ve told the story a few times, about the cop who made the stop testifying that he smelled unburnt marihuana (that’s how it’s spelled under the New York Penal Law; don’t blame me) emanating from the car.

“Poignant,” the officer replied.

I turned to the judge. “What did he say?” The judge, Herbie Adlerberg, who was actually a former judge, now aged out but sitting as a Judicial Hearing Officer at the Suppression Hearing, knew exactly why I asked. “He said ‘poignant.'” Judge Adlerberg wryly replied, letting me know that he, too, heard it clearly. We both gave each other “the look.”

The smell of marijuana (spelled now the usual way) had been the go-to justification for car searches in New York City for a long time. NYPD always seems to have a built-in excuse. There was dropsy until Judge Irving Younger finally called bullshit on it, after which dropsy rarely appeared again. The smell of weed was one of those magic excuses, because who’s to say the cop didn’t smell weed? There’s no nose meter. It can’t be seen or captured on video. If a cop says he smelled it, naturally based on training and experience, there’s really no way to dispute it.

But still we asked the question of what it smelled like. The answer cops are trained to give is “pungent.” For reasons unknown, or maybe they’re just trolling us, the word often came out “poignant.” We all had a good laugh about it, until the judge said “suppression denied.” Herbie knew better, but that’s how the story went. Poignant.

After the Governor of the State of New York, Handsy Cuomo, signed the bill that made marihuana legal, the NYPD issued a memo.

Effective immediately, the smell of marijuana alone no longer establishes probable cause of a crime to search a vehicle. This change applies to both burnt and unburnt marijuana.

This is tantamount to stripping cops down to their Sam Brownes. Without the smell of weed to claim as justification for conducting car searches, how would they ever make another bust?

Driving while impaired by marijuana is a crime, and the smell of burnt marijuana can be considered probable cause of impairment. But officers can only search the passenger compartment, not the trunk, unless they have cause to believe the trunk contains evidence of a crime, the guidelines state.

Well, there’s a small crack in the wall of search and seizure, the combo of a poignant odor with an observation of a car that “swerved” across a line that only the trained and experienced eyes of a cop can see.

But there remains a number of questions raised and unanswered here. Pot remains a federal Schedule I drug, as there is no money to be handed out by the President for removing it. New York is filled with task forces of cross-designated cops working with the DEA, and thus authorized to police federal law as well as state law. Will this be the case? Will cross-designation expand? Will the NYPD find its way around the state’s legalization to do what it does best, stop people at random in black and Hispanic neighborhoods and shake them down for a reason to arrest them?

Why the NYPD says its ranks can search a passenger compartment but not a trunk is curious, since that’s not the law. Most of the time, the claim of weed smell emanating from a car is used to coerce a consent search, which means they can search anywhere they want after the unwary driver agrees for fear of the “what do you have to hide?” reaction. While this memo suggests cops won’t use this unauthorized claim to get a fearful driver to unwittingly consent, will there be any negative consequences if they do?

Of course, the legalization applies only to the possession of small quantities of marijuana, which means that street sales remain illegal, but the law makes an attempt to limit them as well so people can hand off a free bag to the close friends on the street corner.

The new law also affects how police officers can enforce “hand-to-hand” street sales of marijuana. Specifically, someone can’t be charged with sale of marijuana unless the officer also sees money exchanging hands, according to the guidance.

Then again, this won’t do much for the ubiquitous “buy and busts” or the claimed observation sale that will include not merely the handing over of a baggie which, based on training and experience, appeared to be pot in exchange for what appeared to be currency. If the seller happens to have some cash in his pocket, there’s the proof the observation was right.

Years ago, New York “decriminalized” small amount of marihuana (see what I did there?) provided it wasn’t open to view. The cool new trick was for cops to toss black kids against walls before forcing them to empty their pockets, thus revealing the small amount of pot to open view. Boom, and bust. Will that be the level of respect shown for the legalization of weed?

If the question is whether people who obtain marijuana lawfully, through a properly taxed seller with an unblemished record, and smoke it in the privacy and comfort of their home, no one (except possibly the neighbors) will give a hoot. What is the unspoken difference now between the way most white kids and black and brown kids toke is that the former do it in private while the latter do it on the street corner, thus subjecting them to the watchful eyes of the Mod Squad.

Will people smoke weed on the corner, in front of their office building, on the steps of Madison Square Garden? Will the cops smile as they walk past them, wishing them a pleasant evening? If so, it will be quite a poignant moment. Will Herbie finally say “suppression granted”?