The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the odor of raw cannabis is sufficient to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle, setting a significant precedent in cannabis-related legal cases.
On Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision regarding a case involving Vincent Molina, a passenger in a car stopped by a police officer for speeding on a highway.
The officer, detecting the odor of raw cannabis, conducted a search of the vehicle, discovering several rolled cannabis joints. Molina was charged under Illinois’s Motor Vehicle Code, which prohibits passengers from possessing cannabis in any part of a motor vehicle unless it is in a secured, odor-proof, child-resistant container that is inaccessible.
Molina contested the search, arguing that the odor of raw cannabis alone did not establish the probable cause necessary for a warrantless search. The trial court sided with Molina, granting his motion to suppress the cannabis evidence. The trial court’s reasoning was based on the idea that the smell of raw cannabis could have an innocent explanation, such as work or medical use, which would not justify a search.
However, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s decision. The Court held that police officers do not need to eliminate innocent explanations to establish probable cause.
According to the ruling, probable cause only requires that the facts available to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe there is a “reasonable probability” that a search of the vehicle will uncover contraband or evidence of criminal activity. The Court emphasized that in this case, the officer, trained to distinguish between raw and burnt cannabis, had reason to believe that raw cannabis was present in the vehicle, and it was not in a proper, odor-proof container.
The Court did clarify that the odor of burnt cannabis, by itself, does not provide probable cause for a vehicle search. However, the odor of raw cannabis, the Court explained, reliably indicates that the cannabis is currently in the vehicle and not stored in an odor-proof container, which is required by law.
While the majority of the Court ruled in favor of allowing the raw cannabis as evidence, a dissenting opinion argued that the odor of cannabis, whether raw or burnt, should not carry significant evidentiary weight, especially in light of cannabis legalization efforts. The dissent also expressed concern that the decision continued to stigmatize cannabis use despite legislative moves toward legalization.
Molina’s trial will continue, but the prosecution may now use the cannabis retrieved from the vehicle search as evidence in court.
The ruling marks a key development in cannabis law enforcement, particularly in relation to the growing legalization of cannabis use across the United States.
