Measure removing cannabis odor as probable cause for warrantless vehicle search passes Senate
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) — A bill clarifying that law enforcement cannot search a car based on the smell of marijuana alone has passed through the Senate.
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in two cases last year whether the scent of cannabis is probable cause to perform a warrantless search. In People v. Redmond, the court ruled burnt cannabis odor is not enough evidence to search a vehicle. But in People v. Molina, law enforcement could search a car with the smell of raw cannabis because current state law requires odorless packaging.
Homeschool Act stalls in House ahead of April 11th deadline
'A recent state Supreme Court ruling gave a conflicting directive between raw and burnt cannabis, shifting a huge burden to law enforcement to know the difference,' said Sen. Rachel Ventura (D-Joliet). 'This bill aims to bring clarity by directing law enforcement to consider all factors — not just odor — in deciding if the law has been broken.'
The bill removes the requirement for odorless packaging, while still keeping the directives for secured, sealed or re-sealable child-resistant containers. Law enforcement would not be able to search, stop or detain vehicles solely with passengers 21 years old or older because of any cannabis odor.
Advocates said this is another step forward in modernizing Illinois cannabis laws.
'Removing the odor-proof container rule will provide drivers the peace of mind of knowing they cannot be stopped solely for possessing a legal product,' said Peter Contos of Cannabis Equality Illinois. 'Senate Bill 42 will also relieve the burden on law enforcement to decipher the difference between raw and burnt cannabis.'
The bill passed the Senate on Thursday and now heads to the House.
Recreational marijuana has been legal in Illinois since 2020.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Power bills in California have jumped nearly 50% in four years. Democrats think they have solutions
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers this week advanced several efforts aimed at reining in utility profits and slashing electricity bills as part of their agenda to tackle the sky-high costs of living. The proposals would make sweeping changes to how utilities fund expensive infrastructure projects like putting power lines underground to guard against wildfires. They also would add more oversight around wildfire mitigation spending and put new requirements on utility requests to increase rates. Supporters said the goal is to make the big investor-owned utilities start sharing some of the costs to fight wildfires and build new transmission infrastructure. 'This is not a set of modest tweaks that will make minor improvements at the edges of a problem without offending anyone,' said Democratic State Sen. Josh Becker, the bill's author. 'This is a big deal.' One of the bills is part of the state Senate's package to address affordability amid growing concern about the high costs of everything from gas to groceries. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order last year urging lawmakers to do something to address skyrocketing electricity rates, which rose 47% on average for residential customers between 2019 and 2023, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. But Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, say Democrats are not meaningfully addressing high prices. They did not support the energy reform bills, saying it wouldn't lower costs, and they unsuccessfully tried to force a vote on a proposal to limit utilities from raising power rates above the rate of inflation. Utility rate increases in recent years have been approved by state regulators in part to help investor-owned utilities bury power lines aimed at stopping wildfires. Some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in recent years have been sparked by power equipment. Pacific Gas & Electric, whose equipment sparked a 2018 wildfire that killed 85 people in 2024, raised its rates six times to help cover the costs of putting power lines underground and other improvement projects. While one in every five ratepayers can't pay their power bills, utilities like PG&E raked in record-breaking profits last year, according to The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group. The group supports Becker's measure and has sponsored a similar effort in the Assembly. 'There are no limits to how much the utilities can ask for in rate increases. There are no limits to how many times a year they can ask,' said Mark Toney, the group's executive director. 'You can't blame them for asking for the sky.' Under Becker's proposal, utilities would be required to use public financing to fund the first $15 billion spent on capital investment projects. The option would allow utilities to access funding with lower interest rates, and utilities also would be prohibited from collecting a return on that investment for shareholders. That would save customers $8.8 billion over the next 10 years, Becker said. The bill would also set up a state-backed fund to reimburse utilities for wildfire projects, among other things. But the state may not have money to pay for that this year. The bill would also increase oversight of utility budgets and their wildfire spending. Utilities would have to include at least one rate increase proposal that doesn't exceed the rate of inflation in their requests. The proposal also calls for $60 billion worth of credits to apply on bills over the years during the summer months when usage is often at its peak. Senate Democrats overwhelmingly advanced Becker's measure this week. But Republicans, utilities and the California Chamber of Commerce said it would only drive up more costs. The legislation 'moves today's utility costs around without eliminating them,' the chamber said in a letter in opposition. New regulations around rate increase and shareholder returns also could halt utilities' investment in preventing wildfires or enhancing the grid, the letter said. Republican State senators said rising power bills are caused by Democrats' policies and push for more electric vehicles and less reliance on fossil fuels. In the Assembly, meanwhile, Republicans have called for permitting reforms to make it faster and cheaper to build better utility infrastructure. 'The regulation regime that we have in this state is oppressive and definitely drives prices,' said Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican. 'Your package of affordability is rather modest in number, but it is even more modest in its potential impact.' Lawmakers also advanced a slew of other measures aiming to provide relief to ratepayers, including one that would prohibit utilities from using rates to pay for lobbying efforts and one that would allow California to join a regional energy market with other Western states to help increase grid reliability.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bipartisan group of Georgia lawmakers pushes back on proposed federal 10-year ban on state AI limits
Six Georgia lawmakers joined more than 250 of their colleagues nationwide to ask Congress not to hamper their ability to regulate artificial intelligence. Midjourney/AI-generated art A bipartisan group of state lawmakers, including six from Georgia, is calling on Congress to cut a provision out of the massive federal spending bill that freezes state regulations on artificial intelligence for 10 years. 'As state lawmakers and policymakers, we regularly hear from constituents about the rise of online harms and the impacts of AI on our communities,' the lawmakers wrote. 'In an increasingly fraught digital environment, young people are facing new threats online, seniors are targeted by the emergence of AI-generated scams, and workers and creators face new challenges in an AI-integrated economy. Over the next decade, AI will raise some of the most important public policy questions of our time, and it is critical that state policymakers maintain the ability to respond.' The Georgia signers were Sen. John Albers of Roswell and Reps. Todd Jones of South Forsyth and Gary Richardson of Evans, who are all Republicans, as well as Democratic Reps. Scott Holcomb and Tanya Miller of Atlanta and Sam Park of Lawrenceville. In all, 261 legislators from all 50 states signed the letter. Georgia lawmakers from both chambers met over the summer last year to discuss potential AI regulations. Albers, who chairs the Senate AI study committee, often stressed that he did not wish to overregulate, saying that he saw lawmakers' duty as balancing protections for Georgians with creating a friendly environment for businesses. During this year's legislative session, no major AI bills passed into law, including broadly popular provisions like increasing penalties for using AI to create child pornography or deceptive 'deep fake' campaign advertisements. An Albers bill intended to create a new state advisory board on artificial intelligence and to require local governments to report on their use of the technology died in the Senate Economic Development and Tourism Committee on the advice of Suwanee GOP Congressman Rich McCormick. Then-committee chair Brandon Beach, who now serves as U.S. Treasurer, said at the time that McCormick told him not to take any action on AI because Congress would take care of it. Senators created a new committee this year to examine artificial intelligence and digital currency, but members have not yet been appointed and no hearing dates have been set. The GOP's megabill, which has become the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, passed the House by a single vote and is now in the hands of the Senate. Getting the legislation through the House was a challenge the first time, with factions within the Republican Party at odds over the size of cuts to federal programs and the expected increase in the deficit. The new focus of the AI provision could prove to be another sticking point. Members of the House including Rome Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene have indicated they were not aware of the regulation ban when they voted for the bill and will not support it when it comes back to the House unless the rule is removed. 'I voted for President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill because it delivers his MAGA campaign promises and he endorses the bill and wants Congress to pass it in order to fund his MAGA agenda,' Greene said on social media. 'Do I love the price tag? NO. But I want OUR policies funded. I campaigned across the country for YEARS with Trump, more than any member of Congress, and the man NEVER said he would destroy state rights for 10 years to let AI tech companies run rampant!!! TAKE IT OUT OR I'M VOTING NO WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE HOUSE!!!!!' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Dems Get Bonus Hearing on Crypto Market Structure, Assail Trump Conflicts
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump's crypto ventures were once again under the microscope during a House Financial Services Committee hearing that otherwise saw legal experts express worries about how regulators might police digital assets under a market structure bill. The committee held a "minority day" hearing — meaning the witnesses were primarily picked by the Democrats, the current minority party in the House — on Friday, letting lawmakers ask questions more targeted on concerns they have with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the Republican-led market structure legislation that will receive a markup vote next week. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the committee who'd demanding this extracurricular hearing after the panel met earlier in the week on the same topic, pointed to Trump's various crypto efforts in her opening statement, saying her goal was to stop Trump from profiting off of his crypto ventures to the extent he has been. "What I'm opposed to in this act … is the crooked president of the United States of America, who's decided to use the office of the presidency to enhance his access to profits," Waters said. Republicans focused on a different tack: "Currently, there is no federal framework for non-security digital assets," Committee Chair French Hill said in his own opening statement, a stance echoed by his colleagues Bryan Steil and Warren Davidson. They contend that Democrats and the administration of former President Joe Biden allowed years to pass in which they failed to protect consumers by offering no rules to oversee crypto. Crypto has driven an ideological wedge into the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill, with many Democrats — typically skewing toward the younger members — supporting the advancement of digital assets legislation despite the direction of their leadership. Most of the Democrats attending this bonus hearing on the Clarity Act were in the crypto-critical camp, though Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, has supported crypto bills in the past and questioned witnesses at the hearing about his concerns that the bill may include loopholes that could allow financial firms to dodge oversight. Himes, a yes vote on last year's predecessor to the Clarity Act — the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21 — said some of the provisions in the new effort may allow for a carveout that can be abused by certain types of issuers under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. The Clarity Act itself is more complicated than it needs to be and does not address some of the cybersecurity risks posed to the cryptocurrency industry, said Carole House, a former White House adviser who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center. She pointed to recent crypto hacks, including crypto exchange ByBit, as an example. Amanda Fischer, policy director at Better Markets, a Washington group advocating for financial policies that favor the public, said her bigger issue was with the exceptions that exist for companies to seek regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that it might provide loopholes for issuers or other crypto companies that otherwise would be regulated under the SEC and be subject to securities registration and reporting requirements. But as has been seen in other recent hearings, Trump's crypto ties again reappeared as the star of the show. Bart Naylor, a policy expert at Public Citizen and a former investigator for the Senate Banking Committee, said he believes Trump is specifically soliciting gifts through his memecoin and selling favors through actions like his memecoin dinner or by terminating SEC lawsuits against companies which donated money to him. White House officials have routinely denied Trump is exhibiting a conflict of interests in his pursuit of digital assets business gains. Waters had staged a walkout last month from what was meant to be a joint hearing of this and the House Agriculture Committee on crypto policy, though industry insiders were careful to note that not all the panel's Democrats followed Waters' departure.
