Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* From back on September 19…
The stench of smoked pot doesn’t give a police officer the right to search an adult’s car without a warrant, according to a new ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court.
The searches were allowed when marijuana was illegal in the state. But in a 6-0 opinion issued Thursday, justices say that changed when it became legal for adults in Illinois to use cannabis due to a change in state law.
“Since Jan 1, 2020, the use and possession of cannabis is presumptively lawful, subject to certain restrictions,” Justice Scott Neville wrote in deciding the case (The People v. Redmond). “We hold that the odor of burnt cannabis, alone, is insufficient to provide probably cause of police officers to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle.”
Still unresolved is how far police can go if they smell raw cannabis, in potential breach of a state law that requires cannabis to be stored in an odorless container when a car is moving. […]
“The odor of burnt cannabis is a fact that should be considered when determining whether police have probably cause to search a vehicle, but the odor of burnt cannabis, standing alone without other inculpatory facts, does not provide probable cause to search a vehicle,” Neville wrote.
The earlier ruling is here.
* Today…
The smell of raw cannabis is grounds for police to search a vehicle, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The decision runs counter to the court’s previous ruling that the smell of burnt cannabis by itself is not sufficient reason for a vehicle search.
The two rulings create a situation in which, though it is illegal to smoke pot in a vehicle, drivers are protected from a search based only on the smell of burnt cannabis, but are not protected from a search based on the smell of raw marijuana. […]
“In short, while cannabis is legal to possess generally, it is illegal to possess in a vehicle on an Illinois highway unless in an odor-proof container,” the court wrote in the Molina case. “The odor of raw cannabis strongly suggests that the cannabis is not being possessed within the parameters of Illinois law. And, unlike the odor of burnt cannabis, the odor of raw cannabis coming from a vehicle reliably points to when, where, and how the cannabis is possessed — namely, currently, in the vehicle, and not in an odor-proof container.”
Today’s ruling is here.
* From the statute in question in both cases…
(625 ILCS 5/11-502.15)
Sec. 11-502.15. Possession of adult use cannabis in a motor vehicle.
(a) No driver may use cannabis within the passenger area of any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State.
(b) No driver may possess cannabis within any area of any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State except in a secured, sealed or resealable, odor-proof, child-resistant cannabis container that is inaccessible.
(c) No passenger may possess cannabis within any passenger area of any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State except in a secured, sealed or resealable, odor-proof, child-resistant cannabis container that is inaccessible.
(d) Any person who knowingly violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this Section commits a Class A misdemeanor.
* From the conclusion to today’s ruling…
In sum, we hold that the odor of raw cannabis coming from a vehicle being operated on an Illinois highway, alone, is sufficient to provide police officers, who are trained and experienced in distinguishing between burnt and raw cannabis, with probable cause to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle. See Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 18 n.2 (“the smell and presence of cannabis undoubtedly remains a factor in a probable cause determination”). Our finding of probable cause is consistent with the Vehicle Code’s odor-proof container requirement. In other words, an officer trained and experienced in distinguishing between burnt and raw cannabis who smells the odor of raw cannabis in a vehicle stopped on the highway would logically suspect that there is cannabis in the vehicle that is not properly contained as required by the Vehicle Code. See 625 ILCS 5/11-502.15(b), (c) (West 2020). Therefore, the circuit court erred when it granted the motion suppressing the raw cannabis confiscated from Molina. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court’s decision reversing the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence seized in the warrantless search of Molina’s car.
* Justices Mary K. O’Brien and Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis dissented…
We have concluded that neither the odor of alcohol nor the odor of burnt cannabis, absent any other factor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a vehicle. We should reach the same conclusion as to raw cannabis: the odor of raw cannabis, absent any other factor, is not a sufficiently inculpatory fact that reliably points to when, where, or how the cannabis was possessed
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:05 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What an absurd result. Something tells me we’re about to see a bunch of bills filed on this.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:17 pm
So cops can still lie about what they smell, they just have to be very specific in their lies. Wonderful.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:21 pm
If I may borrow from Lincoln’s storied quote about General Grant and whiskey, let’s find out what Justices Theis and O’Brien are smoking and order a round of that for the other justices because Theis and o’Brien clearly see through the smoke.
Comment by Strategy Geek Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:27 pm
Any idea as to how many weed impaired drivers kill other motorists in a year? After all, if just one death or injury is prevented, then this is an outstanding decision
Comment by one toke over the line Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:29 pm
I have no idea how to distinguish between the smell of burnt and raw cannabis, and I do not think any amount of training can do that.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:34 pm
===I have no idea how to distinguish between the smell of burnt and raw cannabis,…===
I learned how to that in high school. Maybe it’s more experience than training, but it really isn’t that difficult.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:38 pm
Confusing to say the least. Rather than focusing on vehicle searches, I’d prefer law enforcement simply issue tickets to motorists (and enforce DUI laws if necessary) to motorists who smoke weed. Based on what I smell during a regular drive around town, there’s way too much of that going on.
Comment by TNR Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:40 pm
==Any idea as to how many weed impaired drivers kill other motorists in a year? After all, if just one death or injury is prevented, then this is an outstanding decision==
Any idea how many people are killed by police in encounters that started with a pretextual vehicle search? Got any evidence showing that police searching vehicles based on supposedly smelling the odor of RAW cannabis does anything at all to reduce the incidence of impaired driving or vehicle crashes?
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:46 pm
“Our finding of probable cause is consistent with the Vehicle Code’s odor-proof container requirement.”
Being in an odor-proof container, does not automatically mean the exterior of the container is not also going to smell like cannabis. It simply means the contents of the container are not going to contribute to the odor.
While it would be rare for this to be the case immediately upon purchasing and leaving a dispensary, it is almost equally as not rare for an existing and in-use container to have acquired this odor. It’s not against the law for me to store my odor-proof container right next to raw unpackaged cannabis in my house. If I take that container into my vehicle, even after never opening it in the vehicle I will now be subject to a warrantless search even though at no point in this situation has a law been broken.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:56 pm
So the police are shooting people over weed absent any other actions on the part of the motorist? Is that what you are saying?
Got proof of that?
Comment by one toke over the line Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 2:59 pm
Seems to me if you want to smuggle weed the best plan would be to be smoking at it the same time..?
Comment by jolietj Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:00 pm
I can’t wait to see defense attorneys tests cops smelling abilities
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:04 pm
One Toke Over the Line, Remember Philando Castile?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/21/officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-smell-of-marijuana-made-him-fear-for-his-life/
Comment by Macoupin Manny Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:10 pm
==So the police are shooting people over weed absent any other actions on the part of the motorist? Is that what you are saying?==
No I’m saying that police encounters that should never have happened in the first place often turn violent or even fatal. It’s quite well documented.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:14 pm
Todays cannabis is not what compressed bales smelled like 20 years ago. Its much stronger smell.
Likewise, burned cannabis smells different and is easy to distinguish. After all, it’s been on fire. Kind of like the difference between the smell of a pile of raked up grass clippings and a pile of grass clippings that your neighbor is burning.
I personally find the premise that if you legally smoke cannabis at home that somehow the car you drive will smell like burned weed is laughable. The esteemed justices are solving some mighty hypothetical concerns.
Comment by HSI Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:29 pm
Is that the case where the officer was found not guilty and the motorist pulled or reached for a gun? I watched the video. No mention of weed. Do you know something the jury did not hear?
Comment by one toke over the line Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:30 pm
“if just one death or injury is prevented, then this is an outstanding decision”
Far more than one death or injury would be prevented of we made automobiles illegal.
Nevertheless, that would be foolish.
IMHO, so was this ruling.
“So cops can still lie about what they smell, they just have to be very specific in their lies.”
Exactly so.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:35 pm
For fun: Does a car with a guy who just went to Portillo’s smell different than the guy who went through the drive through that has a couple beef and sausage sandwiches in a bag on the front seat?
Comment by HSI Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:36 pm
So I guess light a joint to mask the smell of raw weed when getting pulled over. It’s legal to possess weed. This is why we should all stop taking the court seriously. Show up in pajamas and eat your cheetos because it literally doesn’t matter.
Comment by Ak Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 3:37 pm
I’d rather the cops be able to search you for the smell of burnt cannabis. I for one am sick to death of that smell being everywhere when I go out in public.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:02 pm
For some reason, regarding this discussion, all I think about is Cheech and Chong exiting their van in a cloud of smoke.
Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:02 pm
=After all, if just one death or injury is prevented, then this is an outstanding decision=
So searches based on the smell of raw weed will save lives?
Got proof of that?
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:12 pm
- One Toke- Last I checked the justice system isn’t perfect and only the cop said he was reaching for a weapon, Castile’s girlfriend didn’t see him reach for a gun, and seems odd to reach for a gun when your girlfriend and their 4 yo kid are sitting in the same car with you.
Also, you may not have read that Castile’s murderer was dumped from the PD, and you know how that rarely happens. Last I heard, he couldn’t even get a job teaching because the Minnesota Teachers won’t license him because he doesn’t meet their moral code.
But aren’t we digressing. You wanted to hear a situation where a cop killed someone related to marijuana, and just to be clear I provided proof that it’s happened. By the cops own admission, he feared for his life because he smelled pot.
Comment by Macoupin Manny Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:16 pm
===After all, if just one death or injury is prevented, then this is an outstanding decision ===
You should prolly rethink your uber-authoritarian mindset.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:17 pm
===Maybe it’s more experience than training, but it really isn’t that difficult.===
It smelt like weed to me when I was around burnt cannabis, and when I was around people holding way too much of it, which is when it really smells. It just smells like weed to me.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:20 pm
Very mystified how the majority reached this absurd result that encourages people who legally buy weed at dispensaries to light up in their cars to avoid the legal risk of getting pulled over with unsmoked weed on the way home.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 4:52 pm
- I for one am sick to death of that smell being everywhere when I go out in public. -
So people should be hassled by police because you don’t like a smell? That’s nice.
How about cops shouldn’t be able to search people based on smells alone, period. This is an absurd ruling.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Dec 5, 24 @ 5:15 pm