In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment that the odor of burnt cannabis alone does not justify a warrantless search of a vehicle. The court emphasized the impact of changes in cannabis laws, which have made its use and possession legal under various circumstances. This ruling underscores the evolution of legal expectations and protections under the Fourth Amendment regarding searches triggered by the detection of cannabis odor. The case originated in Henry County after Ryan Shavor Don Redmond was charged with possession of cannabis during a traffic stop by the Illinois State Police on September 15, 2020.
On September 15, 2020, Trooper Combs saw a car with an improperly secured license plate traveling at a speed of 73 miles per hour in a 70-mile per-hour zone on Interstate 80 and initiated a traffic stop. Combs approached on the passenger side, and when Redmond rolled down the passenger-side window, Combs smelled burnt cannabis. According to the complaint, Combs searched Redmond’s car and found one gram of cannabis in the center console in a plastic bag.
On June 29, 2021, Ryan Redmond filed a motion to suppress the cannabis the police found in his car. The court heard the motion on August 4, 2021. Trooper Combs said the search of the vehicle did not find any cannabis lit or actively emitting the order of burnt cannabis, nor was any cannabis in plain sight. Trooper Combs placed Redmond in his police vehicle and couldn’t recall smelling the order of burnt cannabis on Redmond’s person. Trooper Combs also said he saw no signs of impairment while speaking with Redmond. Although Redmond didn’t provide his license and registration, Trooper Combs retrieved a record for a valid Illinois Driver’s license with a Chicago address. Trooper Combs said that Redmond said he lived in Chicago but had stayed at a friend’s residence in Des Moines, Iowa.
In an order dated November 10, 2021, the circuit court granted the motion to suppress, finding Combs lacked probable cause for the warrantless search. The appellate court held that “ ‘the smell of the burnt cannabis, without any corroborating factors, is not enough to establish probable cause to search the vehicle.” The court also found a lack of evidence supporting Trooper Combs’s testimony that Interstate 80 is known drug corridor and that Des Moines and Chicago were “hubs of criminal activity.”
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment suppressing the cannabis seized in the warrantless search of Redmond’s car.
Redmond did not contest the validity of the odor-proof container requirement. In People v. Molina, a case dealing with an Illinois State Trooper who detected the odor of raw cannabis coming from a vehicle is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court.
“Therefore, based on our precedent and the state of cannabis laws at the time of the search, we hold that the odor of burnt cannabis is a fact that should be considered when determining whether police have probable cause to search a vehicle, but the odor of burnt cannabis, standing alone without other inculpatory facts, does not provide probable cause to search a vehicle. In light of our holding, Stout’s core holding—that an officer’s detection of the odor of burnt cannabis emanating from a vehicle, standing alone, establishes probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle—is no longer valid for searches that occurred on or after January 1, 2020.”
The Vehicle Code Provisions does not prohibit the possession or use of cannabis within a motor vehicle as long as that vehicle is not “upon a highway in this state.” “Thus, it would not have been a violation of the Vehicle Code for Redmond to have used cannabis in a motor vehicle before he left Des Moines or in any location within Illinois not considered a “highway”.”
