Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

In Springfield, doing something legal in your own back yard is the police’s business

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

[Springfield Police Chief Kenny Winslow], addressing the Springfield City Council, said adult residents over the age of 21 will be able to consume marijuana products in their homes and on any structures attached to it, such as a porch, deck, patio, stoop or stairs. […]

According to WMAY radio, Springfield Mayor Jim Langfelder earlier this month said city attorneys told him that an adult could smoke on their front porch or in their own yard without legal consequence, a view that Winslow wanted further clarification on.

“We tried as law enforcement to get these addressed in the veto session and couldn’t get a direct answer,” Winslow said. “So, these are things that the legislators have created, they are aware of these issues and our concerns in law enforcement. Hopefully they will go back in the spring session and correct some of these or clarify. Until that time, we will do our best we can to get through this.”

Until that clarification comes, it was determined that the city would be slightly more restrictive, allowing it in places like a porch but not necessarily in a backyard.

Not necessarily? So if someone is sitting on their back deck all is well, but if they step off the deck into their back yard it could result in a police response?

C’mon, man. How about just letting people consume their own legal products on their own property.

And, yes, I may live to regret this post since I reside in Springfield. But this is nonsense.

…Adding… There seems to be a little confusion in comments. This is what the law actually says…

“Public place” does not include a private residence unless the private residence is used to provide licensed child care, foster care, or other similar social service care on the premises.

The Springfield police chief is trying to define “residence” as only the structure, not the land. Your back yard is definitely part of your residence, so they’re just trying to nitpick this for whatever reason.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:14 pm

Comments

What is this, Decatur!!! This will not stand man.

Comment by Rutro Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:19 pm
How about the Illinois Attorney General put out a statement or opinion or maybe ask those who wrote the bill. I believe I should be able to do it in my yard as well.

Comment by DocNoyes Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:21 pm
At least they were nice enough to give you a heads up before they drag you to jail. /s

Comment by Bruce (no not him) Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:21 pm
So a product you can legally buy and transport to your home can’t be used in your property. Good to know.

Comment by SSL Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:21 pm
Police across the state have been tying themselves in knots trying to find ways to restrict what the state legislature has deemed to be legal. I’m astounded every time I read something like this.

Comment by Alrighty then Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:22 pm
This (SPD’s) policy seems like the best-case-scenario interpretation of the law right now (as porches, etc. are certainty questionable under the plain language of the law as it is currently). What needs to happen is an amendment to the law to make clear usage in yards of private residences is allowed. Then no more question on how to interpret the law.

Comment by Simply Sayin' Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:24 pm
=== … we will do our best we can to get through this. ===

Poor souls. I hope they can cope with the victimhood.

Comment by Cadillac Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:25 pm
The real problems going forward aren’t going to be from the legalization, they are going to be from police departments that have lost their cash cow in low-level cannabis arrests replacing those arrests with even more draconian responses.

Remember, police DO have discretion. They are choosing exactly what they want to do here for a reason.

Some small town department is going to make a mistake that leads to the death or injury of someone simply for smoking a joint. It will happen.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:25 pm
Also, while we are talking about amendments;

I want to see an amendment that states no town shall recieve any state tax distributions from the sales of cannabis, if they have opted out of local sales.

If a town wants to opt out. That’s fine. But there has to be a carrot and stick here otherwise towns like plainfield will opt out(they did) while already planning how to spend their first state check from sales happening exclusively outside their borders(they are).

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:28 pm
Cops haven’t cared about this for a long time.

They especially aren’t going to after 01/01/20.

How would they even know?

Seems to me Winslow probably wants this cleared up too. It has headache written all over it for him. But I doubt he cares that someone is smoking cannabis in their back yard.

Comment by Winderweezle Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:28 pm
Law enforcement is addicted to the drug war and the money that flows to “fight it”.

Comment by A Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:28 pm
This will be all be subjective and controversial. Some will say they were on their “property” (porch, yard, car roof) when consuming or others will be on the public sidewalk and simply say they were on the porch, etc.

It’s going to be a headache for local/county police statewide.

But then again did Prohibition work in the 1930’s …

Comment by Billy Sunday Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:29 pm
“Cops haven’t cared about this* for a long time.”

*If you’re white

Comment by Batman Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:32 pm
Look for some decks to get a little bigger.

Comment by A Guy Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:34 pm
=== I want to see an amendment that states no town shall recieve any state tax distributions from the sales of cannabis===
While I understand what you are trying to encourage that wouldn’t necessarily be fair. There was a lot of talk about that with video gaming. The problem is, let’s say I live in a town that doesn’t allow. But I go across the street to the town that does and I buy my weed or wager on video gaming. I am spending the money but my town gets penalized and as a result as a resident projects I want don’t get funded. Doesn’t sound fair to me.

Comment by Been There Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:36 pm
=It’s going to be a headache for local/county police statewide=

It’s going to be a SELF INFLICTED headache for local/county police statewide

Fixed it.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:37 pm
@batman

Lol. The experience of three decades of throwing weed in the ditch speaking here. “User amount” weed arrests are a pointless pita no matter what the race of the person is.

Comment by Winderweezle Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:39 pm
It basically should be the same as it is with alcohol. On private property it’s ok. Public property not.

Comment by Been There Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:40 pm
“Cops haven’t cared about this for a long time”

Except for the constant stake-outs of garden centers, and getting warrants to raid peoples homes after they buy a 1lb bag of fertilizer.

The middle aged white woman who had her home raided in this exact scenario, has about an eight of cannabis, in her art box.

The officer statement in front of the judge when swearing the ‘facts’ were that the warrant should be issued because ‘fertilizer can be used to grow cannabis’.

You are 100% going to see more raids on peoples homes because it will be the only thing the police have left to do.

With the spreading of the ‘agreements’ between Amazon and local police departments, it will be a simple no-warrant-needed request to Amazon to provide a list of anyone who bought hydroponic equipment, and that will be enough to get a warrant to raid the house.

You not paying attention, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:40 pm
“projects I want don’t get funded. Doesn’t sound fair to me.”

That’s exactly the consequence of your town opting out.

If you don’t like the priorities of your town government, tell them.

Otherwise, those should the consequences of their choice.

In fact, I’d say it is the definition of fair. You made the choice to buy outside of your town and give your taxes to another town who allows sales. That town now has more money for their projects. And maybe you will even eventually move to that town.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:43 pm
=Jim Langfelder earlier this month said city attorneys told him that an adult could smoke on their front porch or in their own yard without legal consequence, a view that Winslow wanted further clarification on=

What ambiguity exists in the above because I certainly don’t see it. This is nothing more than a red herring and I have know doubt that if Winslow did get the clarification he claims to need he would simply concoct some other construct to say “we’re confused.”

But maybe the simple test is to treat this no differently than alcohol consumption or cigarette smoking. If there are limitations imposed on either of those (can’t drink and drive, can’t smoke in a public area) then apply the same standard to pot. Of better yet simply use the judgement you’re tasked with applying every day in enforcing other laws that are “amibiguous.”

Comment by Pundent Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:53 pm
== Until that clarification comes, it was determined that the city would be slightly more restrictive, allowing it in places like a porch but not necessarily in a backyard==

Translation: “As law enforcement, we have the power to exercise discretion. Since we feel this law isn’t clear, we’ll refuse to exercise that discretion, and brings the hammer down.”

Wait, what?

Comment by fs Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:54 pm
An in-depth investigation has concluded that people who smoke marijuana are much more likely to have paranoia than people who don’t use the drug.

https://tinyurl.com/w4ljbdz

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 12:59 pm
It shouldn’t take time to sort out, but it will.

I do think cops will parallel this to legal use of alcohol pretty quickly.

There are always hiccups when the law changes. There shouldn’t be, but there are.

Comment by Winderweezle Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:01 pm
Smells like “we are afraid there will be an outside block (might not have used the correct vowel there) party, everyone will be high on weed, and we don’t like it and want to stop it.

Comment by Papa2008 Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:02 pm
“allowing it in places like a porch but not necessarily in a backyard.” Another words, no smoking grass on grass.

Comment by Bobio Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:02 pm
@Bobio In the words of Steppenwolf, “Don’t step on the grass, Sam.”

Comment by Stuff Happens Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:07 pm
Let me be the first to ask Capt Fax how police patrols roll by his estate on a daily basis?

Comment by Annonin Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:10 pm
==== and give your taxes to another town who allows sales====
If the town wants to add their own taxes I don’t have a problem with that. But dictating state tax revenues only go to towns that opt in is wrong.
And of course I will move two blocks away from a house I have lived in for decades and raised my family just so I can have a couple of capital projects that my town can’t get. No problem.

Comment by Been There Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:22 pm
Rock Island County States Attorney, Dora Villarreal, has taken a very restrictive stance. “Anything that anyone can see” is her interpretation, including privacy fenced back yards “if someone can peek over and see you smoking marijuana, then it is considered public view.”

I plan to smoke inside and blow my smoke directly out of the windows.

Comment by RIA Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:26 pm
Coppers gonna cop

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:30 pm
It seems that at least some law enforcement entities are looking to use to have some additional probable cause.

Your honor, he had one foot on his back lawn so I had probable cause to enter to see if he was smoking the dope illegally.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:31 pm
Can you assure that I will not get high or have any of this in my system which will cause me to flunk a drug test and lose my job?

- So a product you can legally buy and transport to your home can’t be used in your property. Good to know. -

Comment by Asking for a friend Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:34 pm
If you are having a cookout you can take a drink with you while you turn the steaks, what he difference?

Comment by Professor Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:35 pm
===Section 10-35 (a)(2)(f) says you can’t use in any public place===

Read on to the definition of a public place, brainiac. It excludes residences.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:41 pm
I disagree with most here. I doubt the cops themselves particularly care where you do it, it’ll be your reefer madness-suffering neighbors that call them and complain about you using “where the kids can see it” that’ll be the problem. Police will be stuck in the middle.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:42 pm
“But dictating state tax revenues only go to towns that opt in is wrong.”

How is it wrong? Downstate counties get zero state tax money from the counties who charge the additional RTA sales taxes collected in the collar counties.

This is no different.

You might not like the consequences of what your town is doing, and it sounds like it is making it a worse place to live. Why should the places that allow sales dilute their own taxes collected to please you so you don’t have to move?

Allow sales, and you can collect the revenue generated from those sales.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:42 pm
Juuust “legal” enough for the state to profit.

Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 1:58 pm
=== so they’re just trying to nitpick this for whatever reason ===
I think the reason is clear. They hate weed.
They’ll get over it eventually, especially when some local judges throw out some silly cases.

Comment by Boomerang Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:02 pm
===I think the reason is clear. They hate weed. ===

Could be. Also could be an excuse to send squad cars through East Side alleys to look into back yards for scofflaws.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:04 pm
I’ve decided if I ever smoke marijuana, I’m gonna smoke straight into the eyes of law enforcement from my juliet balcony. By the way, I’m only kidding…

Comment by Iamthepita Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:07 pm
@Bobio Keep off the grass while on the grass.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:12 pm
As used in this Section, “public place” means any place where a person could reasonably be expected to be observed by others. “Public place” includes all parts of buildings owned in whole or in part, or leased, by the State or a unit of local government. “Public place” does not include a private residence.

This language is very confusing - mixing “private residence ” with “observed by others” - this should have been fixed in the Weed fix bill SB1557

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:21 pm
Why do I have a vision of the police knocking out a front Port light and then going around in back of the house to investigate?

Comment by Drake Mallard Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:30 pm
All day long, I think of things, but nothing seems
To satisfy. Think I’ll lose my mind if I don’t find something To pacify

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:36 pm
While cannabis isn’t habit forming, apparently going ‘cold turkey’ from low level marijuana arrests is.

Comment by Jocko Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:43 pm
Police love to pretend that they don’t have any discretion and must immediately snap into action like some kind of law enforcement robot, as soon as they see any law being technically broken, with no sense of proportion or concern for societal costs.

Comment by lincoln's beard Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:45 pm
Chief Winslow was on the radio and one of his concerns is the “shared porch” or shared “back yard” when you have side by side condo units. One owner does smoke and the other owner hates smoke.

Comment by don the legend Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:53 pm
===One owner does smoke and the other owner hates smoke===

Um, why is this police business? How do these shared porch/back yard situations work when one resident smokes cigars and the other hates cigar smoke? Does the non-smoker call the cops?

Please. Let people work this out amongst themselves. The condo board can make its own rules.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:56 pm
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:04 pm:

===I think the reason is clear. They hate weed. ===

Could be. Also could be an excuse to send squad cars through East Side alleys to look into back yards for scofflaws.

That’s the rub…the coppers are losing their best misused tool…I smell/see weed warrant.

Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 2:57 pm
“I think the reason is clear. They hate weed.”

Personally, I think they love weed — for the smell — and they hate that things are becoming less easy. That dank smell has been their E-ticket to probable cause for decades. Now, if they pull someone over and she has a 30 gram sack in her purse, do they get to disassemble her car along the road, or not?

Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 3:02 pm
Some clarification is needed on this, the Smoke Free Illinois Act defines private residence as “the part of a structure used as a dwelling”. Under this definition a back yard, boat dock, gazebo, detached garage, shed, etc. isn’t a structure if you are only including areas or objects physically attached to a dwelling. You can still smoke cigarettes there because they are not public places, but “private residence” is not really defined anywhere else in Illinois Law that I can find.

That same Smoke Free Act also defines a public place as having to be a building accessible to the public and the 15 feet around the building, so again another apparent conflict with the terms used in two Acts, one of which references the other other. Under the Smoke Free definition of “public place”, a backyard (because it isn’t a building) isn’t a public place, but under the Cannabis Act, it could be if a person is observable.

Comment by JSS Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 3:06 pm
Rich, I agree with you and hope the Chief was just playing “what if”.

I’m amazed someone will pay $250,000 or more for a condo that shares a porch and a yard with a neighbor that you don’t know anything about. If I had that money to spend I’d make sure I had a little privacy.

Comment by don the legend Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 3:16 pm
Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the law regarding enforcement provides the opportunity to use it as a means to harass specific populations. Not that our police officers would ever do that of course. . .

Comment by Chippy Dave Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 3:44 pm
===Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the law===

It only seems to be ambiguous to the people who don’t want to follow it.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 3:52 pm
=== Why should the places that allow sales dilute their own taxes collected to please you so you don’t have to move?===
Like I said before. If the town wants to put their own tax in that’s fine with me. And they can keep it. But the state tax should not be restricted to just those towns. Otherwise let’s just give all the tax money that is raised to each community based on their sales. If that was the case Chicago should keep all of their sales tax revenue from every item sold. My guess they would make out great.
And just because a town allows it doesn’t mean their is going to be a dispensary there. There are strict limits on the number of shops in each area. In the end unless every town in a large geographic area such as Chicago opts out the total instate sales will probably be the same.

Comment by Been There Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 4:13 pm
“It only seems to be ambiguous to the people who don’t want to follow it.” And lawyers.

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 4:16 pm
What ever happened to curtilage?

Comment by In_the_middle Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 8:20 pm
When a warrant is issued for a residence do they have to get another for the yard?

Comment by Rabid Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 8:39 pm
Time to get a houseboat

Comment by WH Mess Friday, Dec 20, 19 @ 8:48 am
===so they’re just trying to nitpick this for whatever reason.===

I think that their intention is to continue to be able to harass and arrest people without good cause while completely ignoring that they are empowered by the public through the same legislation which they are actively seeking to undermine the spirit of which it was intended.

I am certain that if local police forces — the same people that lobbied for a significant amount of restriction in Illinois law compared to the laws that it was based on — are heavy handed and ridiculous in the application of the law that the law will indeed be changed to remove the aggressive restrictions.

I am also certain that their discretion in how excessive to be in their enforcement of these statutes will definitely have a disparate racial impact.

Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Dec 20, 19 @ 8:50 am
The police have hurt feelings plain and simple and this, I believe, is their way of public expression. Brings to mind the bitter and enraged faces of the police in places like Alabama when integration was enforced in public schools in the early 60s. Of course it stands to reason that any ham-fisted displays of discretionary enforcement will likely involve the same demographic as has always been the custom.

Comment by Maryjane Friday, Dec 20, 19 @ 11:33 am