As predicted on The Cole Memo, the Illinois Supreme Court has delivered a pivotal decision affirming that the state’s odor-proof container requirement for cannabis remains enforceable, solidifying its status as the law of the land. In People v. Vincent Molina (2024 IL 129237), issued on December 5, 2024, the court ruled that the smell of raw cannabis alone provides police officers with probable cause to conduct warrantless vehicle searches, provided the officer is trained to distinguish between raw and burnt cannabis odors.
The Illinois Supreme Court stated in its opinion:
In sum, we hold 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.
In other words, an officer trained and experienced in distinguishing between burnt and raw cannabis who smells the odor of raw cannabis in a vehicle stopped on the highway would logically suspect that there is cannabis in the vehicle that is not properly contained as required by the Vehicle Code.
It’s worth noting that footnote 7 highlights:
We are mindful of pending legislation where (1) the Senate has proposed an amendment to section 11-502.15 of the Vehicle Code that would provide: “The odor of burnt or raw cannabis in a motor vehicle by itself shall not constitute probable cause for the search of a motor vehicle or person.”
From what I understand, the proposal that ILSC referred to in footnote 7 was ultimately scrapped due to objections from law enforcement—a development that received little to no media coverage.
Dissenting Opinion
“It makes no sense to treat raw cannabis as more probative when the odor of burnt cannabis may suggest recent use, whereas the odor of raw cannabis does not suggest consumption.”
“Common sense would indicate that a sober person can come into contact with an alcoholic beverage through drinking it or having some spill on his clothing and that odor would remain with him for a period of time. The same is true of raw cannabis. A person coming into contact with raw cannabis, through touch or simple proximity, or possibly by opening and resealing the odor-proof container, would also carry that odor with him for a period of time even if the person did not possess the raw cannabis on his person or in his vehicle in violation of the odor-proof requirement.”
The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice O’Brien and joined by Chief Justice Theis, argued that the odor of raw cannabis alone should not constitute probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search. They highlighted the inconsistency with the court’s earlier ruling in People v. Redmond, where the odor of burnt cannabis alone was deemed insufficient for probable cause.
The dissent compared raw cannabis to alcohol, noting that its odor does not reliably indicate criminal activity, and warned that this ruling risks perpetuating the stigmatization of cannabis users despite legalization. They called for a consistent standard, emphasizing that the mere smell of raw cannabis carries a low degree of suspicion.
Next Stop: US Supreme Court?
The Chicago Tribune is reporting that defense attorney James Mertes said he would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This means that the privacy rights of motorists in Illinois have been turned over to the police officer’s sense of smell. While we certainly respect the decision of the court, we share the view of the dissenters that this creates a constitutional absurdity.”
Quote by defense attorney James Mertes
What Does This Actually Mean?
For cannabis consumers in Illinois, the message is clear: improperly* storing cannabis in a vehicle can lead to serious legal consequences, and the odor-proof container law remains firmly in place.
*This topic is explored in-depth in my mini-documentary, now available to stream for free. Interestingly, law enforcement officers who work with K9s have shared with me that, in their experience, no container is truly odor-proof. If such containers existed, K9 units would lose their effectiveness—and their purpose in law enforcement.
I discussed the implications of this ruling with legal professionals on episode 151 of The Cole Memo Podcast.
You can read the full opinion below.
Previous Ruling
You can read my coverage on the first ILSC ruling on this issue here.
The Cole Memo 
Leave a comment