On Thursday, December 5, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the smell of raw cannabis is sufficient grounds for the police to search a vehicle. Previously, the court had ruled that the smell of burnt cannabis was insufficient in itself to warrant the search of a vehicle. Together, the rulings create a problematic situation.
Apparent Contradictions in Illinois Marijuana Law
It is illegal to smoke marijuana in a vehicle. However, in the wake of this new ruling, drivers are both protected from a search based solely on the smell of burnt cannabis while not being protected from a search based solely on the smell of raw marijuana.
As such, the driver’s susceptibility to a search is entirely dependent on the officer’s ability to discern the difference between burnt and raw marijuana, creating a lot of room for legal complications.
In a similar contradiction, state lawmakers had already removed the requirement for storing pot in an odor-proof container in a vehicle in the law that legalized marijuana but failed to remove that requirement from the vehicle code.
Background on the People v. Molina
The court’s opinion comes following a ruling from People v. Molina, a case in which Vincent Molina was stopped by a state trooper for speeding while a passenger in a vehicle traveling on I-88 in Whiteside County in December 2020. The trooper stated that he smelled raw cannabis from the window of the car, for which reason he searched the vehicle and found marijuana joints in the console and cannabis in a separate sealed box.
Molina was subsequently charged with misdemeanor possession for not transporting the joints in a proper container, but the trial court ruled that the search was not justified. They argued that possession of small amounts of marijuana has been legal in Illinois since 2020, but the appeals court reversed the ruling.
The Court’s Recent Ruling
Molina’s case was then combined with that of Ryan Redmond in a high court hearing, where the court concluded that the smell of burnt cannabis was not grounds for a search in itself. They suggested that the smell could come from smoking before entering a vehicle rather than smoking in the car.
“While cannabis is legal to possess generally,” the court wrote, it is illegal to possess in a vehicle… unless in an odor-proof container. The odor… 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.”
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Mary K. O’Brien and Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis objected to the 4-2 ruling—Justice Lisa Holder White did not participate in the vote.
“I dissent from the majority opinion simply to point out the absurdity of this inconsistency,” O’Brien wrote. “It makes no sense to treat raw cannabis as more probative when the odor of burnt cannabis may suggest recent use, whereas the odor of raw cannabis does not suggest consumption. “If the crime suggested by the odor of burnt cannabis is not sufficient for probable cause, then certainly the crime suggested by the odor of raw cannabis cannot be either.”
Increasing the Stakes of the Issue
“I have always understood that the issues at stake are much more important than just my case,” Molina said in a statement provided by his lawyer. “I am discouraged by the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision, but I am encouraged to ask now that this matter be decided by the United States Supreme Court.”
The ultimate resolution of this matter remains to be seen, but the contradictions in Illinois law may need to be addressed to alleviate confusion.
