Illinois bill would remove cannabis odor as probable cause for police to search car
The Brief
The Illinois Senate passed a bill to remove cannabis odor as the sole reason for probable cause for police officers to search a car.
The Senate sponsor argued the bill clarifies what law enforcement can do during a traffic stop involving cannabis after contradictory Illinois Supreme Court rulings.
S.B. 42 still needs approval from the House of Representatives and Gov. JB Pritzker to become law.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - State lawmakers are weighing a bill that would remove cannabis odor as the sole probable cause for police officers to search a car.
The Illinois Senate passed S.B. 42 on Thursday by a vote of 33-20. It was sent to the House of Representatives for passage in that chamber.
What we know
The bill, sponsored by State Sen. Rachel Ventura (D-Joliet), would still require that cannabis be stored in a secure, sealed, or re-sealable container.
Still, if passed into law, law enforcement would not be able to stop, detain or search a car whose driver or passengers are 21 and older solely because of an odor of cannabis.
Ventura cited two Illinois Supreme Court rulings that contradicted each other about whether cannabis odor alone was sufficient for probable cause for police to search a vehicle without a warrant.
She argued S.B. 42 would clarify how officers could handle such a situation by "directly law enforcement to consider all factors – not just odor – in deciding if the law has been broken."
What they're saying
Peter Contos, of Cannabis Equity Illinois, a nonprofit that advocates for equity in cannabis policies and industry in the state, argued the bill 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. Senate Bill 42 will also relieve the burden on law enforcement to decipher the difference between raw and burnt cannabis," Contos said in a statement.
What's next
The Illinois House of Representatives will have to pass the bill and Gov. JB Pritzker will have to sign it for the measure to become law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Boost Subsidies for Rich Farmers
It should be clear by now that, despite the assurances from President Donald Trump and his allies in government, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month—not only won't reduce the federal budget deficit but will in fact increase the nation's debt load by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Given that Trump came into office promising to cut federal spending, it's worth looking at how Trump's bill does the opposite of what he and other Republicans say it does. And one of the more egregious things it does is boost corporate welfare for wealthy farmers. "The government provides agricultural subsidies—monetary payments and other types of support—to farmers or agribusinesses," says the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "While some subsidies are given to promote specific farming practices, others focus on research and development, conservation practices, disaster aid, marketing, nutrition assistance, risk mitigation, and more." "In reality, this support is highly skewed toward the five major 'program' commodities of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice," according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental advocacy organization. "Despite the rhetoric of 'preserving the family farm,' the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations." The new bill will only make the problem worse: According to an analysis by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the bill "would increase agriculture-facing programs spending by $56.6 billion over the next decade," of which "$52.3 billion is tied to enhancements in the farm safety net." That "farm safety net" comprises most agricultural subsidy spending in any given year. It includes price and revenue guarantees for certain crops, ensuring farmers earn a set minimum on staples like corn and soybeans, as well as crop insurance assistance, covering up to 60 percent of farmers' insurance premiums in the event of price declines or poor harvests. The programs are a bad deal for taxpayers—indeed, for anybody but the very wealthiest agribusinesses. "Just in the last 10 years, crop insurance agents and the 14 companies the USDA allows to sell and service crop insurance policies…received almost $33.3 billion from the federal Crop Insurance Program," EWG Midwest director Anne Schechinger wrote in 2023. "In some years, up to one-third of crop insurance payments are made to companies and agents, not farmers." The new bill would make the program even more generous, tying payouts to inflation and putting taxpayers on the hook for even more insurance company operating costs. The bill would also increase the price minimums for many staple crops, though the increases for those grown in southern U.S. states go up exponentially: While corn would go up by 18 percent, and wheat and soybeans by more than 70 percent each, minimum prices for seed cotton, peanuts, and rice—grown primarily in the southern states—would each more than double, with the minimum price of rice going up 185 percent. Price minimums inherently distort the market, causing farmers to prioritize favored crops even if others would be better suited to the growing conditions—after all, if you're guaranteed a minimum price for what you sell, and you're covered for what doesn't grow, what do you have to lose? At the same time, "subsidies increase land prices, which benefits wealthy landowners at the expense of the many farmers who rent," writes Nan Swift of the R Street Institute. "Young farmers can't afford to rent or buy land at inflated prices. Likewise, young farmers often have smaller farms that don't benefit from the primary federal subsidy programs." Not only does the "Big Beautiful Bill" keep these programs intact, it expands them; it even introduces an "insurance pilot program" for "poultry growers." "The farm subsidy increases in the reconciliation bill are brazen. The GOP lavished the biggest subsidy increases on GOP parts of the country," writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. "More importantly, in a supposed spending reform bill, the GOP doesn't just spare millionaire farmers from cuts, they aggressively expand inefficient farm giveaways by $57 billion." The post Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Boost Subsidies for Rich Farmers appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Maine lawmakers push to expand ranked choice voting to governor's race
Jun. 11—AUGUSTA — Lawmakers advanced a bill this week to allow ranked choice voting to be used in statewide elections, including for governor. If enacted, the bill may set up a confrontation in court. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued a 2017 advisory opinion that using ranked choice voting for state-level offices conflicted with the state Constitution, which says such offices are determined by who gets the most votes. Currently, ranked choice voting is used in Maine for federal offices and in gubernatorial and state-level primary elections. Some cities, such as Portland and Westbrook, also use ranked choice voting for local elections. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Cameron Reny, D-Round Pond, cleared both chambers this week in mostly party-line votes, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. It narrowly passed in an initial 72-70 vote in the House of Representatives on Wednesday with seven people absent and it cleared the Senate 20-14 without debate on Tuesday. The bill faces additional votes in each chamber before it can be sent to Gov. Janet Mills, whose aides did not respond to questions about the proposal. Opponents argued that the bill would conflict with the Maine Law Courts' advisory opinion and would expand a system that is confusing to some voters. But proponents said a case decided by the Alaska Supreme Court dismantled Maine's advisory opinion and upheld the constitutionality of the system. Rep. David Boyer, R-Poland, said Maine's Constitution is clear that state offices must be decided based on a plurality, meaning that whoever gets the most votes is the winner even if they don't win an outright majority of votes. He accused ranked choice voting supporters to doing an end-run around the Maine Law Court, rather than seeking an updated opinion in light of the ruling in Alaska, which has a similar constitutional provision for state offices. "Instead of going back to (the court) today in 2025, we are instead going to redefine what the word 'plurality' means so that we can pretend like it's constitutional," Boyer said. "I know it's a prickly issue, and facts are a stubborn thing, but if we did pass this, it would be unconstitutional, and we should have reached out to the Maine Supreme Court, rather than trying to do this end-run around." But Rep. Adam Lee, D-Auburn, said Maine's advisory opinion was dismissed by Alaska's court. He said Maine's court ruling hinged on the idea that a candidate must win in the first round, while Alaska's court ruled that the vote is not completed until the final round. "The Alaska Supreme Court compellingly took apart the Law Court's opinion and demonstrated the flaw of its reasoning," said Lee, who is an attorney. "This legislative change would align us with how the Federal Elections Commission and other federal courts and the Alaska Supreme Court have come to understand ranked choice voting — not as multiple votes but as a single iterative process." Maine became the first state in the nation to adopt ranked choice voting in 2016, after it was approved through a citizen's initiative and has withstood subsequent efforts by Republicans to repeal it. The process allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the least number of votes in each round is eliminated. Ballots listing an eliminated candidate as their top choice then have their second choice adding to the remaining candidates. That process continues until a candidate surpasses 50% of the vote. The push for ranked choice vote came largely as a response to the 2010 governor's race, in which longshot Republican candidate Paul LePage took office with just under 38% of the vote, after the Democratic candidate and a third party challenger split the opposition. LePage won reelection in 2014 in another three-way without receiving more than 50%. An advisory opinion from the Maine Law Court in 2017 said the voting method could not be used to elect a governor, state senator or state representative, because the constitution says those offices are to be elected by plurality. The court ruled the method could be used in other elections, including federal races and state-level primaries. LD 1666 would extend ranked choice voting to gubernatorial and legislative races by clarifying the definition of ranked choice voting by changing several references to "votes" to "ballots" and adds that the final round "of tabulation is determined to have received a plurality of the votes cast." "It refines the statutory language that each ranking is not a separate vote, but rather a single expressive vote, counted through successive rounds, until one candidate earns a plurality," Lee said. "Let's follow the reasoned path laid out by the Alaska court and the will of our constituents and move forward with a voting system that reflects both legal soundness and democratic values." Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, joined Senate Democrats in supporting the bill, while Democratic Reps. Ed Crockett of Portland and James Dill of Old Town joined House Republicans in opposing it. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate panel takes testimony on renewed policies seeking accountability from Michigan polluters
Sen Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) testifies on a slate of bills aimed at improving polluter accountability during a June 11, 2025 meeting of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. | Kyle Davidson Lawmakers from the state House and Senate called for an update to Michigan's laws on environmental contamination on Wednesday, arguing the current system does not offer enough protections for individuals impacted by pollution. Testifying before the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, Sens. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), Sue Shink (D-Northfield Township), and Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), as well as Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor), underscored how the state's current regulations have impacted Michigan residents, arguing that they focus too heavily on limiting exposure rather than cleaning up pollution, leaving Michiganders to bear the costs. Last week, members of the House and Senate announced they would be reintroducing 'polluter pay' legislation in each chamber, with House Democrats introducing H.B. 4636–4640 and Senate Democrats introducing S.B. 385–387 and S.B. 391–393. 'Some people are calling for a restoration of a model that requires strict liability and full residential cleanups on every site. In fact, I proposed legislation like that in the past. But that's not what is being proposed today,' Irwin said. 'What is being proposed today is a modest change that preserves the current risk-based system, but that makes modest changes to improve protections for our water, improve protections for our land and improve protections for our health.' As a whole, the package aims to implement stricter pollution reporting and cleanup requirements, extend the statute of limitations for citizens bringing claims against polluters and allow residents impacted by pollution to sue companies for the cost of medical monitoring, Irwin explained. With more than 25,000 polluted sites across the state and 4,603 sites with land or resource controls, Irwin questioned how many aquifers the state is willing to give up to pollution. He also warned the panel that industry lobbyists would testify against these additional measures, arguing they would harm investment in Michigan business. 'Not only do I think that's not true, but we developed these bills in consultation with industry stakeholders,' Irwin said, noting that the sponsors had held workgroup meetings on the policies introduced during the previous Legislative session. The end result was more modest, but would still provide real benefits to the public, Irwin said. Andrea Pierce, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition and founder of the Anishinaabek Caucus said these laws are the beginning step in addressing environmental contamination in Michigan, not the end. Should these bills become law, Michigan would return to the pollution accountability standard it had before the state's polluter pay law was restructured in 1995, Pierce said. 'We need to go back to stronger laws that protect the people and communities of Michigan. Michigan needs a comprehensive legal framework for strengthening accountability and real recourse from those who pollute in our communities,' Pierce said, emphasizing that Michigan's most marginalized communities were also the ones most affected by pollution. Mike Witkowksi, director of environmental and regulatory policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association argued shifting the system to require more from businesses would hinder the state's brownfield redevelopment efforts. 'These are not technical fixes or minor clarifications. These are fundamental changes that would undermine one of Michigan's most effective tools for addressing environmental contamination and supporting economic growth,' Witkowksi said, criticizing the additional requirements and arguing the package would increase clean up costs and liabilities for businesses. During his testimony earlier in the hearing, Irwin predicted industry stakeholders would argue that the legislation would hamper redevelopment by requiring polluted sites to be restored to pristine condition. 'That's not what this bill does,' Irwin said, arguing that pollution already hampers redevelopment efforts. With the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy lacking both the funding and the personnel to address the thousands of contaminated sites throughout the state, Witkowski said private-sector investors and developers are essential to cleaning up contamination throughout the state. Should these bills take effect, those sites would sit idle and remain polluted, he argued. Shink countered, noting that she'd served on Washtenaw County's brownfield redevelopment board during her time as a county commissioner. 'I can assure you that it isn't just private funds that's cleaning up these brownfield sites. There's a lot of public funds. That means the taxpayers, after the company has made its profit and maybe taken that profit out of state, the community is paying to clean that up,' Shink said, noting that the state is paying to clean up the former Federal Screw Works site in Washtenaw County. Alongside testimony from several environmental advocacy groups, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy also offered its support for the package with Aaron Keatley, the department's chief deputy director, noting that the bills aligned with their priorities for environmental legislation. Those priorities include transparency, ensuring predictable processes, securing assurances that companies will manage any releases of contaminants until the contamination is cleaned up, ensuring sites are redeveloped and streamlining the department's cleanup criteria so that the standards match the science, Keatley said. 'It is unfortunate that I look at you and I say I cannot tell you how many sites right now are managed by responsible parties, because they're not obligated to inform me of their day to day activities to keep that property safe,' Keatley said. The committee did not take votes on the legislation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
