Illinois may ban police from using raw cannabis odor as cause for car searches
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTVO) — Illinois is moving toward prohibiting police from using the smell of raw cannabis as probable cause to search a vehicle. Police argued against the bill, saying it would prevent the use of K-9s to sniff out other illegal drugs.
In September 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the smell of burnt cannabis was not cause enough for law enforcement to search a person's vehicle, but another ruling said the smell of raw cannabis was.
'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.'
would remove odorless packaging requirements while continuing to require that cannabis be stored in a secured, sealed or re-sealable child-resistant container. Under the bill, law enforcement would not be able to stop, detain or search a vehicle whose driver or passengers are 21 or older solely based on the odor of cannabis.
The Illinois Sheriff's Association the bill, arguing that drug traffickers often co-mingle cannabis loads with other illegal drugs and blunt the use of K-9s to alert officers to the presence of those drugs.
Police said that in 2024, authorities seized 24,000 pounds of illegal cannabis with a street value of $63,726,647, which they said would not have been possible without the use of K-9s.
The bill passed the Senate on Thursday.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
The scale of Trump's power claims
Presented by Bayer Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond. Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben President DONALD TRUMP's attempt to maximize presidential power — and the resistance he's faced in court — has been the defining story of his second term. As he prepares to be feted with a military parade in Washington, D.C., Trump's detractors see these 'power grabs' as a reflection of authoritarian impulses, a dangerous trajectory for a republic born from the rejection of a king. His supporters scoff, describing Trump's unprecedented assertions of power as a corrective to the JOE BIDEN era in a dangerous world. Some consistent themes have emerged in the hundreds of legal cases we've been tracking challenging the president's push-the-bounds policies: The right to due process, and Trump's attempt to curtail it; his assertion of emergency powers in unprecedented ways; and his efforts to repurpose dormant laws to achieve modern ends. It can be hard to capture the extraordinary breadth of these ongoing confrontations: the news cycles and ensuing legal battles move so fast that we're often careened from one crisis to the next. So, here's our best attempt to capture the parts of Trump's agenda with the most far-reaching implications — and that have generated some of the most consequential legal fights thus far: The military's role in immigration: Many of the legal challenges in this area question the military's authority to be involved in domestic enforcement operations at all. Among the Trump moves currently being litigated: Mass deportation: No policy, except perhaps tariff power, more closely resembles Trump's raison d'etre in public life than his demand for mass deportations. His aggressive strategy centers on quickly removing people — often with limited or no due process — and telling the courts to stay out of it. They haven't listened, instead taking up and often rejecting Trump's most aggressive immigration actions: Federal funding: Trump is exercising sweeping authority to mass terminate federal contracts, slash disfavored programs and axe employees by the thousands. This has raised concerns, reflected in dozens of lawsuits, that he is doing so in violation of Congress' power of the purse. The administration contends it is not illegally 'impounding' these funds, just pausing things to realign them with administration priorities. And no court has ruled directly on the impoundment question. Personnel firings: To carry out his agenda, Trump has sought to remove appointees from federal boards and purportedly 'independent' agencies despite laws restricting their removals. The courts have largely allowed these firings to take place, and the Supreme Court also appears poised to bless them. Still, there are a host of lawsuits challenging Trump's actions related to the federal workforce: Emergency powers for tariffs: Trump's push to levy broad-based tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners has been at the core of his political identity for a decade. But a federal court declared his use of emergency powers to implement them illegal. An appeals court has offered a temporary reprieve, but a consequential fight over the policy is slated for July 31. Retribution: A hallmark of Trump's early tenure has been his effort to exact punishment on his perceived political adversaries. These efforts have met stiff resistance from judges, who say the transparent motives render them unconstitutional in many cases. They include: MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@ Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe! POTUS PUZZLER Which president was a terrible bowler? (Answer at bottom.) Agenda Setting ANOTHER WAR LOOMS: While the White House was in the midst of negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal, Israel delivered a massive strike to its Middle East neighbor on Thursday night, which many fear will morph into a larger, deadly conflict in the region. And Trump is now taking the opportunity to pressure Tehran to make the deal, our SEB STARCEVIC and GISELLE RUHIYYIH EWING report. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' Trump wrote this morning. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left.' The attack on Iran late Thursday targeted its nuclear facilities, regime officials, military leaders and key atomic scientists. Tehran responded with more than 100 drones. PLEASE, COME BACK: Amid the conflict in the Middle East, the U.S. Agency for Global Media began notifying employees within Voice of America's Persian Service today to report to work immediately, according to a copy of the email sent to employees, and reviewed by West Wing Playbook. The entire Persian workforce was put on administrative leave earlier this year. TAKING HIS SHOT: In his first few months on the job, HHS Secretary ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. has moved to upend the people and processes that guide decision-making about vaccines, our LAUREN GARDNER and SOPHIE GARDNER report. The sweeping actions underscore the broad mandate Trump gave him to remake the federal health department. Kennedy has said his mission is to reestablish trust by rooting out corruption in the health agencies — stemming, he believes, from the symbiotic relationship between regulators and industry. In the Courts FIRED, THEN UNFIRED: Two Biden-appointed federal judges dealt the Trump administration a small setback today in its bid to win legal precedents that give Trump the authority to hire and fire anyone within the executive branch, our HASSAN ALI KANU writes in. Judge MATTHEW MADDOX in Maryland ruled that Trump's purported terminations of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission were legally invalid. He ordered the White House to reinstate the commissioners and their staff and blocked administration officials from cutting off their salaries or access to agency offices, email and other resources. And, in Washington, D.C., Judge SPARKLE SOOKNANAN refused the administration's request to revisit her earlier order reinstating SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Those officials are among more than a dozen political appointees at independent oversight bodies whom Trump has summarily terminated. Although many could only be legally removed for malfeasance, the administration is winning the broader battle: most remain out of office, formally or practically. And the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that it will soon broaden the president's removal powers. THOSE PESKY JUDGES: A federal judge today blocked an executive order from the Trump administration which sought to make it more difficult to register to vote in federal elections, including a requirement for voters to prove their citizenship, Hassan reports. Massachusetts U.S. District Judge DENISE CASPER, a BARACK OBAMA appointee, ruled that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate elections and that lawmakers have not passed any laws that authorize the president's order or delegate their powers to him. WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT IS IT WORTH IT? KIM SAJET, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, is stepping down from her role even as the network of museums disputed the president's announcement he was terminating her last month, our KATHERINE LONG reports. KEVIN GOVER, undersecretary for museums and culture, has replaced Sajet as acting director of the museum. Last month, Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that he was firing Sajet, referring to her as a 'highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.' SO LONG: More than 1,300 EPA employees are expected to leave the agency, representing more than 8 percent of the workforce and amounting to likely the single largest exodus in its history, POLITICO's E&E News' SEAN REILLY and ELLIE BORST report. As of this morning, 1,334 staffers had followed through on 'early out' offers that require them to start paid administrative leave on Monday. What We're Reading Playing Secretary: As war looms, Pete Hegseth's Pentagon is beset by infighting over leaks, drugs, and socks. How long will Trump stand by his man? (NY Mag's Kerry Howley) What's Israel's Endgame? (POLITICO's Nahal Toosi) The Elon Musk DOGE legacy that just won't die (Axios' Emily Peck and Marc Caputo) MAGA Warned Trump on Iran. Now He's In An Impossible Situation. (POLITICO's Rachael Bade) How Kennedy's Purge of Advisers Could Disrupt U.S. Vaccinations (NYT's Apoorva Mandavilli) POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER Obama could not bowl to save his life. While on the campaign trail in 2008, he scored a 37, which for you non-bowlers out there, is laughable. On average, he knocked over fewer than two pins per roll, according to the New York Times. 'My economic plan is better than my bowling,' he said at the time. 'It has to be,' a man then called out. In comparison, former President RICHARD NIXON, known for his bowling prowess, had an average score of 165 and once rolled a 229.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge rules Trump's firings at federal product safety agency illegal
A federal judge ruled Friday that President Trump's firings of three former President Biden-nominated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) members were illegal, enabling them to return to their posts. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee who serves in Maryland, ordered the administration restore the commissioners' pay as well as their access to office spaces, computers and email accounts. The three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — sued the administration after Trump fired them last month. Maddox is the latest district judge to block Trump's efforts to fire Democratic appointees at independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy despite federal law providing them with for-cause removal protections. The president did not purport to have cause in firing the CPSC members or those at other agencies. His administration seeks to invalidate the protections as unconstitutional by intruding on the president's authority to oversee the executive branch. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has signaled a willingness to agree with that view, but it has not yet formally overruled the court's 90-year-old precedent that paved the way for Congress to provide the removal protections. In its latest signal, the nation's highest court last month lifted lower injunctions blocking Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), saying the agency leaders could be terminated until any appeals are resolved. Maddox acknowledged that decision Friday but distinguished it from his case. He stressed the Supreme Court rooted its decision in how the NLRB and MSPB leaders faced a whiplash of removals and reinstatements throughout the lower court proceedings, insisting the decision did not eviscerate the constitutionality of removal protections. 'Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,' the judge wrote. 'The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.' The Justice Department declined to comment. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' Nick Sansone, the commissioners' lead counsel who works for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement. 'Congress structured the CPSC as an independent agency so that the safety of American consumers wouldn't be subject to political whims and industry pressure,' Sansone continued. 'The court's ruling upholds that sound legislative choice.' He added, 'We are thrilled that our clients can get back to work keeping us safe from hazardous products.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats have lost their way on education policy. Here's how to get back on track.
Years after his presidency, I got a chance to thank Bill Clinton for championing education reform as a Democratic president. I had worked on his campaign and in his White House as a young staffer, and I was in the process of reminding him that he ran for president as a charter school supporter when he interrupted to steal the punch line: 'In 1992 when there was only one charter school in America!' He was proud of that fact, holding up his index finger for emphasis. Clinton's education record is a quaint memory in the wake of Vice President Kamala Harris' losing presidential campaign. She talked about 'choice' and 'freedom' in every speech, but never as it pertained to schools. Presidents Clinton and Barack Obama not only ran as 'education reformers,' they ran broadly as outsiders and change agents. Both challenged Democratic Party orthodoxies, which was a feature — not a bug — of their success. On the other side, Harris, along with every other Democratic nominee who lost a general election since Walter Mondale, effectively ran as a champion of Democratic Party special interests, including teachers' unions. As Chuck Todd noted in the aftermath of the election, that meant Harris didn't have much to say to working-class public school parents trying to dig out of the massive learning-loss hole caused by pandemic-related school closures. I have worked in education reform for two decades. I also have deep roots in national Democratic Party politics. In addition to working in the Clinton White House, I was a paid staffer on five Democratic presidential campaigns, including Harris's. I traveled mostly across Wisconsin towns planning events for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), her running-mate. The only Harris education policy I heard about from Wisconsin voters was that of transgender kids playing sports, on which Trump was attacking her relentlessly. Politics abhors a vacuum. With Harris silent on education, Trump filled the void. Because I care about other issues such as climate change, Ukraine and democracy, I dutifully worked on Harris' campaign despite having sued her when she was California attorney general. She was the defendant in Vergara v. California, a case where I helped nine students sue California, claiming that their quality of education was so poor, it violated their constitutional rights. Our victory created a constitutional right to high-quality public education that California children would still enjoy today, had Harris not appealed that decision up to the Supreme Court as a favor to the teachers' unions. In court, Harris's lawyers conceded that we had proven the system was harming children, but they argued that because there was no explicit right in the Constitution to quality public education, children effectively had no right not to be harmed. The court sided with Harris by one vote, overturning the ruling. It was a constitutional right that could have could have mitigated the impact of the pandemic school shutdowns, as blue-state Democrats with Biden administration support, robbed millions of students, including my daughters, of 18 months of learning — and a piece of their childhood. Eventually, frustrated Los Angeles Unified School District parents sued to reopen all schools for all kids. In its legal reply, the school district cited Harris' arguments in the Vergara case to say the quiet part out loud, claiming that because students had no right to quality education, the Los Angeles Unified School District had no legal obligation to deliver quality instruction, and parents had no right to demand they reopen schools, or do anything else. That was the status quo for children and parents in the Biden-Harris' administration's America. The same crowd that covered up President Biden's cognitive decline crafted his education policy. If we don't change course, we're going to lose the next generation of kids — along with the next election, and maybe our democracy along with it. That is why the time is now for a new generation of Democratic Party change agents to lead and win. That means acknowledging that the Biden-Harris school closures represented a tragic policy failure that demands hair-on-fire action. It also means moving beyond defending status quo institutions to driving an abundant education agenda focused on results, not scarcity. For example, it is politically untenable for Democrats to oppose all forms of school choice when Republicans are offering a free market smorgasbord of choice with loosely regulated vouchers. Democrats need a visionary answer to the question of how American education must evolve to meet the needs of the 21st century. Translating 'high-quality public schools' from a soundbite into a civil right should be the North Star of any populist progressive education agenda. The good news is that Democrats have an exciting bench of 2028 kids-first contenders, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, former Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, among others. Many of these candidates have strong records expanding high quality public charter schools, with the scars to prove it. If Democrats want to reclaim our identity as the party of progressive change, we must reclaim the mantle as the party of public education. Not 'just' for kids — but because the future of American democracy might depend on it. Ben Austin is a former staffer for Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential campaign and founding director of Education Civil Rights Now. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
