Politics
New Chicago Police Policy Discourages Searches Based On Marijuana Odor
Chicago police officials intend to update city law enforcement guidance to discourage officers from searching vehicles based merely on the smell of raw, unburnt marijuana, according to documents filed in an ongoing lawsuit seeking reform.
The revised policy comes in the face of ongoing efforts to respond to a state Supreme Court ruling late last year that said police are justified in searching a vehicle if they smell raw marijuana. Justices wrote that the smell means it’s “almost certain” the unused product isn’t in sealed an odor-proof container, as is required by law.
Advocates and some lawmakers say the ruling is incongruous with a separate high court decision a few months earlier that found that the smell of burnt cannabis was insufficient cause to search a vehicle. That opinion said that there “are now a myriad of situations where cannabis can be used and possessed, and the smell resulting from that legal use and possession is not indicative of the commission of a criminal offense.”
In the state’s biggest city, the Chicago Police Department is responding to the changes in the legal landscape by amending its proposed policy and removing a reference to the unburnt cannabis ruling, known as People v. Molina, from an agency guidance document about police encounters and due process rights.
ACLU of Illinois (ACLU-IL), one of the parties in a federal court case seeking to reform Chicago PD, said in a court filing that it “applauds” the change, which it called “an improvement” over past guidance. It says the agreement prevents officers from “conducting an investigatory stop or search of an individual based solely on an officer smelling cannabis/marijuana without any other specific and articulable facts of criminal activity.”
“Additionally, CPD has now acknowledged that its officers cannot conduct vehicle searches based on the odor of raw cannabis unless and until they are adequately trained to distinguish between the odors of raw and burnt cannabis,” says the filing on behalf of a coalition of parties in the consent decree case.
“The recent change clears up potential confusion where officers may have believed they were entitled to search people (pedestrians or drivers) based on the odor of raw cannabis,” Alexandra K. Block, director of the ACLU-IL’s Criminal Legal System and Policing Project, said in an email to Marijuana Moment, adding the group and other parties in its suit were “pleased that a compromise was reached.”
Chicago PD representatives did not respond to requests for comment sent this week.
The newly proposed language would appear in a revised police document that Chicago PD has said would take effect sometime this year. ACLU-IL’s Block said she didn’t know precisely when the policy changes would kick in, but she noted that existing policy doesn’t mention marijuana whatsoever.
“In the meantime, the governing policy is the 2017 version of the Investigatory Stop Policy (which does not reference cannabis at all, given that it was adopted before cannabis possession for personal use was legalized in Illinois),” Block wrote.
A public draft version of the new policy document from December of last year mentions cannabis in two places: in a section on “Plain Smell Doctrine” and vehicle searches as well in as a second section on “prohibitions” around investigatory stops or searches.
The second reference said the Molina case was an “exception” to a general prohibition on “conducting an Investigatory Stop or search of a person based solely on an officer smelling cannabis/marijuana without any other specific and articulable facts of criminal activity.”
Revised language from May of this year, included as an exhibit in the consent decree case, removes the latter “exception” reference to Molina.
The document retains the first reference, which says in full:
“In People v. Molina (2024), the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois held that the odor of raw cannabis coming from a vehicle being operated on an Illinois highway, alone, is sufficient to provide police officers, who are trained and experienced in distinguishing between burnt and raw cannabis, with probable cause to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle.”
What advocates would prefer to see is a more sweeping legislative solution to the situation. ACLU-IL and others are pushing to a change to state law eliminating the requirement that cannabis in cars be packaged in odor-proof containers.
“If that change were made,” Block explained, “it would overrule People v. Molina and prohibit officers from searching cars based on the alleged odor of raw cannabis alone.”
“In the meantime, we also have suggested a change to CPD’s policy that would prohibit officers from asking for consent to search cars based on the odor of cannabis,” she added.
The new policy changes were first reported by local PBS affiliate WTTW.
Last month, a House committee in Illinois had an initial hearing on a Senate-passed bill that would clarify that police may not stop or detain drivers, or search their vehicles, based solely on the smell of cannabis.
But the House sponsor of the proposal—which would further remove a requirement that marijuana be transported in odor-proof containers—said at the time that he didn’t think it was yet ready to become law, adding that he’d like to see it held on the House floor while authors iron out concerns raised by law enforcement.
The legislation was since referred to the House Rules Committee but has not moved for more than a month.
—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
Critics of the use of marijuana odor as probable cause for vehicle stops and searches argue that that police disproportionately enforce drug laws against Black Americans and other people of color, and allowing stops based on the claimed smell of cannabis could increase enforcement bias.
A number of other states have passed laws around the smell of cannabis to justify police searches. Prior to legalization taking effect in Maryland, for example, Gov. Wes Moore (D) allowed a bill to become law that prevents police from using the odor or possession of cannabis alone as the basis of a search. GOP lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to reverse that policy.
The Minnesota Supreme Court also ruled last year that police can’t use the smell of cannabis alone to justify vehicle searches—a ruling that has since been codified by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz (D).
And in New York last month, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a budget bill into law that notably does not include a controversial marijuana provision she proposed that would have allowed police to use the smell of marijuana as probable cause that a driver is impaired and then force them to take a drug test.
Amendments by lawmakers removed the provision, which a coalition of 60 reform groups had argued in a letter to Hochul and top lawmakers would “repeat some of the worst harms of the War on Drugs” and allow law enforcement to “restart unconstitutional racial profiling of drivers.”
Meanwhile in Illinois earlier this year, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) touted the state’s record-setting $2 billion in marijuana sales in 2024, applauding the “thriving” industry while criticizing the “proliferation of the unregulated intoxicating hemp market.”
“The numbers are clear: Five years after we legalized adult use cannabis in Illinois, we’re seeing the economic impact of a thriving cannabis industry,” he said.
But the governor said while he’s “pleased with the continued success of cannabis sales and revenues in Illinois, the market is being undermined by the proliferation of the unregulated intoxicating hemp market.”
“Licensed cannabis businesses comply with strict state regulations, pay significant taxes, and undergo rigorous product testing,” he said. “This unchecked market not only undercuts legal operators but also puts consumers at risk by flooding the industry with untested, potentially unsafe products.”
Pritzker has been vocal about his concerns over the unregulated hemp market, and he said in January that he was “tremendously disappointed” that a bill to impose restrictions on the sale of intoxicating hemp products that he advocated for stalled out in the legislature.
Separately, a report from the state Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office that was released late last year detailed how 2024 saw the single-largest expansion of stores since Illinois began opening medical marijuana dispensaries, with 82 new retailers opening for business—many of which are owned by social equity licensees.
“As additional dispensaries open their doors, that increased competition leads to increased availability of product and better prices for consumers—just as we anticipated,” Cannabis Regulation Oversight Officer Erin Johnson said on Thursday. “We look forward to the continued growth and success of Illinois’ cannabis industry, leading to further economic development and public awareness and support for responsible consumption.”
Last summer, officials also announced the award of $35 million in grants to 88 local organizations, using funds generated from taxes on adult-use marijuana sales to support community reinvestment efforts. Since launching the program, Illinois has awarded over $244 million in marijuana revenue-funded grants to that end.
The governor has frequently joked about the fact that Illinois is benefiting from the lack of legal access in surrounding states. Going back to his State of the State address in 2020, he said out-of-state dollars will end up coming to Illinois and paying taxes for cannabis products that bolster the state’s coffers.
State senators last year also took up a bill that would have legalized psilocybin and allowed regulated access through service centers, where adults could use the drug in a supervised setting.
Read the May 2025 version of the Chicago Police Department due process policy guidance below:
