It’s just a bill
Monday, Feb 3, 2025 - Posted by Isabel Miller
* Shaw Local…
State Sen. Rachel Ventura introduced a measure that would prevent the odor of raw or burnt cannabis from being the sole reason for police to search a vehicle, driver or passenger without a warrant.
“The Supreme Court gave a conflicting directive in its recent ruling between raw and burnt cannabis, shifting a huge burden to law enforcement to know the difference,” Ventura, a Democrat from Joliet, said in a news release. “This bill aims to clean up that court ruling by directing law enforcement to consider all factors – not just odor – in deciding if the law has been broken.” […]
Under Senate Bill 42, cannabis odor alone would not allow for a search of the driver or passengers of a vehicle, and a vehicle and its passengers may not be detained based on only the odor of cannabis.
Additionally, the legislation would remove current law requirements that cannabis possessed in a vehicle must be stored in an odor-proof container, but it continues to require that cannabis be stored in a secured, sealed or resealable child-resistant container, according to the release.
* Rep. Anthony DeLuca filed HB2405…
Amends the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Provides that if a minor (1) has previously been placed on probation for an offense that involves the possession or discharge of a firearm not causing any injury; and (2) is convicted of a subsequent offense involving the possession or discharge of a firearm not causing any injury, then the court shall require the minor to participate in social service programs offered through juvenile probation and comply with referral recommendations for no less than 3 months. Provides that if the minor does not complete the referral recommendations, the court shall commit the minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice to complete the recommended services. Provides that a minor convicted of a subsequent offense involving the use of a firearm causing serious injury, great bodily harm, or death shall be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice with the Department providing services, including, but not limited to, education, mental health services, drug treatment, and mentoring.
* Tribune…
The fight over the future of hemp in Chicago moved to the City Council on Thursday, weeks after a push by Mayor Brandon Johnson helped block state legislation to strictly license, tax and regulate the often high-inducing products. […]
While no vote was taken Thursday, the possibility of an ordinance to allow hemp’s continued widespread sale in Chicago won a critical early sign of approval from the Johnson administration. […]
But [ Ald. William Hall, who first proposed a hemp tax last fall as a potential way to earn the city more revenue,] insisted in his own news conference that his bid for hemp regulation “is not an opportunity for blood money.” The dozens of Chicago smoke shops that sell hemp products should not be “penalized” or “destroyed” by the stricter regulations that have stalled at the state level.
The Pritzker-backed state legislation would amount to a “prohibition” on hemp, Hall said. He argued that the bill is really a push by wealthy marijuana companies to box out stores selling hemp products.
* Rep. Bob Rita filed HB1814…
* HB1843 from Rep. Suzanne Ness would prevent cities from banning roommates that are not related by blood…
Amends the Zoning Division of the Illinois Municipal Code. Removes a provision giving the corporate authorities in each municipality the power to classify, to regulate, and to restrict the use of property on the basis of family relationship. Provides that the powers enumerated in provisions relating to zoning powers of a municipality may not be used in any way that violates or otherwise contradicts any other applicable State or federal law, including the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prohibits a municipality from adopting zoning regulations that prohibit 2 or more individuals who are not related by blood from living together in the same residence. Provides that a municipality may not adopt zoning regulations that prohibit the creation of a community-integrated living arrangement or housing for a community-integrated living arrangement. Limits home rule powers.
* Sen. Patrick Joyce filed SB1473 last week…
Amends the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975. Removes provision stating that no organization licensee conducting its race meeting in a county bordering the Mississippi River and having a population greater than 230,000 may be a host track for its race meeting. Makes changes in provisions regarding organizations that may not conduct a horse race meeting, the standardbred racetrack in Cook County, the application for an organization license, and wagering. Adds provisions concerning the standardbred racetrack in Macon County. Effective immediately.
* Sen. Rachel Ventura…
Following the water rate hikes that affected Bolingbrook and the surrounding area, State Senator Rachel Ventura introduced a measure that would allow municipalities to buy back their private water lines through a ballot referendum. The measure is being supported in the house by Representative Dagmara Avelar.
“Water is essential to all life — I believe water should never be privatized for this reason. We cannot allow profits to be put over people,” said Ventura (D-Joliet). “I will continue to work with my colleagues to protect access to clean, affordable drinking water, as well as advocate to reform water policies that have continually hurt consumers.”
SB 1513 follows recent water rate hikes in Bolingbrook and surrounding areas in July 2024, which sparked public outrage with residents citing already high water bills and rising living expenses. Under the proposed legislation, a municipality would be able to buy back their water rights from private water utility companies using eminent domain, led by a vote via referendum in any regular election. […]
Senate Bill 1513 currently awaits committee assignment.
- HSI - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 9:35 am:
Making it easier for drivers to smoke cannabis in cars is just a bad idea.
- Perrid - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 9:37 am:
Hall can claim it’s not blood money all he wants, but demanding that no one look twice at what stores call “hemp” is reckless. If people can’t sell safe products, then I don’t really care about putting them out of business.
- Doug - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 9:44 am:
While making it easier for drivers to smoke in cars is a bad idea, right now the Supreme Court has said that the smell of burning cannabis is not sufficient for a search, but the smell of raw cannabis is sufficient. This means that to avoid a search, people should be lighting up when they get into their cars, which is bad public policy.
- Tony T. - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 9:47 am:
I think I would have been for Sen. Ventura’s bill on cannabis in vehicles a couple years ago. But the sheer amount of weed smoking I smell from fellow motorists while driving around town has changed my mind. It’s really become alarming.
- TJ - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 9:51 am:
re sb42 (I see what they almost did there? 420 but dropped the 0?” - I totally get that obviously bunk claims of being able to smell pot have long been used by police to needlessly search vehicles on an often race-based basis, so having barriers in place to that alone being cause to detain and search makes sense
But if an officer pulled over a driver and they could clearly smell alcohol on their breath, I don’t think anyone in their right mind would have any issue with that being cause for a sobriety test and getting arrested, right? I don’t think that people with an obvious weed stench on them should be just waved on to drive still.
I think this is something that needs an established middle ground to crack down on those that actually do smoke pot and drive but to allow for protections to not let it be used frivolously. I’m not sure what that effective middle ground would be, though.
re hb1814 - I really can’t stand nimby arguments to keep neighborhoods all one thing or another. The biggest case in point I can remember is of a wealthy subdivision in Normal being aghast at a proposal to allow for merely under $300,000 houses to be built in their fancypants subdivision. I’m all for more affordable houses being built everywhere, and we do need to financially incentivize building more basic single-family, multi-family, and #-flats to boot.
re hb1843 - Is this still a thing? jfc, let anyone live with anyone and leave them alone, towns.
- LJ - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 9:54 am:
If the police smell alcohol, it that solely enough to search a car?
I honestly don’t know, but I think as good starting point is that weed enforcement should be similar to alcohol…
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 10:13 am:
==If the police smell alcohol, it that solely enough to search a car?==
No
- TheInvisibleMan - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 10:34 am:
–But if an officer pulled over a driver and they could clearly smell alcohol on their breath, I don’t think anyone in their right mind would have any issue with that being cause for a sobriety test and getting arrested, right?
–
Not right.
The smell of alcohol ALONE is not enough for probable cause. There have to be other conditions to establish probable cause, like an accident, moving violation, or other demonstrations of intoxication. Probable cause has a higher standard than mere suspicion or a hunch. Even the inclusion of the accident standard has a high bar to clear. Not all accidents will give valid probable cause for a DUI.
You can read all about it here, from our own courts.
https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/fd4f2e68-7f39-4344-af74-15094e526d13/2000731.htm#:~:text=The%20odor%20of%20alcohol%20is,on%20the%20odor%20of%20alcohol.
Additionally, this is also included in documents directly on the state of Illinois website;
“the Appellate Court noted that under Illinois precedent, the mere odor of alcohol on a person’s breath and inadequate performance of field sobriety tests does not create probable cause for a DUI arrest.”
https://osad.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/osad/publications/digest-by-chapter/ch-49-traffic-offenses.pdf
Since this has been posted on local news sites, I have seen a lot of people using their own incorrect understanding of current law to justify their opposition to this change to the cannabis laws.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 10:36 am:
===Rep. Bob Rita filed HB1814===
All of my urban planning nerdiness and wonkiness or whatever one might call it thinks this bill is a pretty good bill, but also the kind of bill where opposition falls out of the woodwork and vague and anonymous threats get made which is potentially why the population limit is arbitrarily made and exists at sigh a high rate.
There are whole counties and regions of Illinois where this bill would have no impact and affordable housing near city centers that have zoned to specifically prevent multi-unit housing due to concerns largely based on socioeconomic or racial nonsense. This would apply to fewer than a hundred cities and leave out communities like East Moline, Frankfort, Collinsville, Rosemont, and a bunch of other notable places with populations below 25,000.
If this is an issue that the law maker cares about they should amend it and immediately remove the population limit. Otherwise this is pretty much just a joke that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
- Homebody - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 10:50 am:
On hemp: It seems like there needs to be some sort of middle ground between the two extremes of “everyone sells unregulated, untested drugs everywhere” and “can only sell in very limited places with very expensive licenses, under very (possibly overly) strict rules, and prohibitively high taxes”
How did we end up in a world where these seem to be the only two options?
- thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 10:56 am:
Re: SB 1513
I am all for municipal ownership of critical local infrastructure, but I suspect the cost (however that is determined) will be far too much for most communities to muster. I would like to make it much more difficult for communities to privatize assets and services that utilize rights-of-way. 75 year leases of parking meters and the sale of a water systems should require voter referenda.
- fs - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 11:07 am:
Re Rita’s bill and Candy’s comments, I wouldn’t necessarily consider 25,000 to be an arbitrary figure, when that is the number used for home rule communities. As I read the bill further, it also limits some zoning authority for communities over 10,000. 1814 and 1843 are together a good start to a much needed conversation on necessary limits on zoning.
- Just Me 2 - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 11:21 am:
Re Roommate bill — my condo board has interpreted their ability to ban vacation rentals thanks to a Chicago ordinance to include banning renting out my basement to a roommate. According to them my roommate has to sign a 12-month lease and be approved by the condo board. It’s madness.
- TheInvisibleMan - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 11:39 am:
–I really can’t stand nimby arguments to keep neighborhoods all one thing or another.–
Some of the reasons for this zoning rule addressed in hb1843 are because churches have a long record of trying to use small single family homes as group homes to dump people into with no ability to support themselves - but without any of the support infrastructure to make it successful. Wanting to help people, and being able to help people are two different things.
Often times it is done this way to avoid the specific other zoning rules, inspections, and insurance required for group homes.
In my county, the zoning rule for single-family zoning is 4 unrelated people. That is based on the definitions of group homes being 4 or more unrelated people, which have different zoning and property maintenance requirements.
We had an incident 3 years ago or so, where a local church was dumping registered child offenders into a small single family home. At times, they were trying to stick more than 6 people into a house with only 2 bedrooms. This also meant people there were often using the backyard for a bathroom.
There was no security considerations, supervision, or any response to the complaints about the residents putting out lawn chairs in the morning and evening to catcall children waiting at the school bus stop. One of these residents did end up attacking a minor and was using this house without registering their address as required by law.
It was this zoning rule which finally allowed something to be done about the situation.
Are there bad ways the law is used? Absolutely, but there are also good reasons for the law. 2 people is way too low. If you want to run a group home, follow those zoning rules and don’t try to sidestep them by claiming they are all just renters while the owners intent is to obviously run a group home but avoid all the regulations which go with that.
Municipalities should be able to create this upper limitation for single family zoning using the minimum residency limitations of group homes within their zoning regulations.
However, throwing it all out will have more negative unintended consequences than positive intended consequences. As I said earlier - wanting to help people is much different than actually helping people.
- Donnie Elgin - Monday, Feb 3, 25 @ 12:04 pm:
= each city with a population of 25,000 or more shall allow the development of all middle housing types on lots or parcels with a total area greater than 5,000=
Another effort to destroy local control - in every community, there are Zoning Boards and Village boards, and residents are the best equipt to inform these Boards of their preferences - rather they Springfield.