Weed Is Legal in Illinois. Police Searched His Car Anyway.
An officer conducted the search of Prentiss Jackson's vehicle after claiming he could smell "a little bit of weed." It ultimately resulted in a lengthy prison term.

In June 2022, police in Illinois pulled over Prentiss Jackson for driving without his lights on. An officer with the Urbana Police Department subsequently claimed he could smell "a little bit of weed" coming from the car, leveraging that to search Jackson's vehicle and ultimately kicking off a legal odyssey that would result in an 84-month sentence in federal prison.
At the officer's request, Jackson handed over two grams of unburnt cannabis he kept in a baggie in his glove box. Possessing up to 30 grams is permissible under Illinois law.
But when the officer demanded Jackson exit the vehicle, he ran—dropping a gun in the process. Prentiss was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon. Although Jackson sought to suppress the evidence from that search—invoking Illinois' legal cannabis threshold and alleging that the officer lacked probable cause—Judge James E. Shadid of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois came down in favor of police, ruling that Jackson had run afoul of the state requirement to keep marijuana in an odor-proof container.
In April 2023, Shadid sentenced Jackson to 72 months in prison for possession of a firearm as a felon and an additional 36 months for violating the terms of his supervised release for a 2010 federal narcotics case. A year of the latter punishment will run consecutively with his firearm conviction, with the remainder finishing concurrently, for a total of 84 months in prison.
"The sole fact [the police] used to justify his search—the smell of unburnt cannabis—gave no clues as to whether the smell stemmed from a legal or illegal use," wrote Daniel Nelson, a Law & Liberty fellow at the Institute for Justice (I.J.), in an amicus brief supporting Jackson's appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. "[The officer's] suspicion rested on a hunch—and that's not enough to search anybody's property."
Twenty-three out of 50 states, along with Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational marijuana. "The simple smell of something that has a host of perfectly legal uses in a state should not be sufficient grounds for police to prolong a traffic stop," Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at I.J., tells Reason.
At the core of Jackson's appeal, and I.J.'s brief, is the Fourth Amendment's promise that people be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In that vein, Nelson maintains that unless the judiciary clearly defines probable cause under such circumstances, police may be incentivized to weaponize their power in perverse ways.
"Vigorous judicial enforcement of probable cause is particularly important in the context of automobile searches, which are typically conducted without a warrant issued by a neutral judge," said Nelson in a statement. "Because of abusive practices like civil forfeiture—which allows police departments to seize and keep cash and other property merely suspected of being involved in a crime—those officers often have strong financial incentives to search, regardless of whether probable cause really exists. If judges don't closely review those decisions, drivers are left with no protection from abusive searches."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Am I supposed to feel sorry for this dummy?
My thoughts exactly. I don’t believe the cop could smell the weed, but still, handing over shit and running and dropping a gun? Dumber than dirt. He could have sat there, denied everything, and refused a search. At least make them work (lie, call in the dogs, etc.) for it.
I can be upset at an unwarranted search, but what he is charged for probably should be a crime. It seems reasonable to me that a violent criminal out on probation shouldn't be carrying a firearm for the term of probation. Make the cops call in for a warrant. Don't run from them. Don't violate probation. There's certainly aspects I don't like, but I don't feel sorry for the guy in this specific case.
It says 'felon'; what was the violence?
All I can find is it was related to a 2010 federal narcotics investigation.
You guys are perpetually sure that Lucy is actually going to hold the football for Charlie Brown too aren't you?
WRT the 2022 arrest that Reason omitted:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/champaign-illinois-gun-offender-sentenced-36-months-prison-violating-supervised
WRT to priors:
https://www.news-gazette.com/news/brothers-charged-in-separate-cases-with-selling-drugs/article_0c9c9159-6e1e-5c30-bc14-a2d7b96525f6.html
You fucking blockheads.
There are a few real crimes there: trespassing and theft. But still not clear that there was any violence.
So were you, coincidentally, selectively blind to the "unlawful use of weapons" charge or did you omit it on purpose?
I'm a pretty pro-violence libertarian guy who wouldn't intrinsically consider (e.g.) taking a baseball bat to the printer at work to be a strictly violent act but even I'm not so retarded as to, after being serially lied to by Reason, pretend that it's not a gray area that normies who don't suck Koch 24/7 wouldn't look at and say, "Theft, criminal trespass, *multiple* weapons charges over the course of a decade... WTF is wrong with you people?"
I mean, is your guys' idea of libertopia that you really want to sell to other people that "Lie, cheat, steal, use weapons illegally all you like, in the press, between and among private citizens... as long as weed is legal and you don't confuse lying, cheating, and stealing with *actual* physical violence."?
I'm only one guy, buddy. I am only talking about the narrow circumstances of this incident. For all I know this guy does deserve to be in prison. But if weed is legal, then the smell of unburned weed is not evidence of any crime.
I am only talking about the narrow circumstances of this incident.
Right. Take the L. This guy is not the spokesperson for the Legalize It movement you're looking for. If anything, he's the very kind of person that would undermine your movement the way people like George Floyd and Michael Brown have undermined the police reform movement.
The cops kept using the smell of marijuana as a pretext for warrant,EV’s searches here in WA even after it was legalized. Until a judge put a stop to that.
I omit it on the assumption that if he had done something violent with the gun he would have been charged with a more specific crime.
Bingo. Merely having a gun on you while dealing in arbitrarily disfavored substances is "unlawful use". You don't have to threaten, much less actually harm, anyone. It's just one more way to jack up drug charges. As Glen Frey said, "You gotta carry weapons, 'cause you always carry cash".
more specific
Ah, so you aren't looking for *any* violence, you're looking for a specific kind of violence.
So, pray tell, does your Classical Liberalism advance a relatively hard and fast Non-Aggression Principle or is it more of a "Anti- Specific, Narrow Forms of Violence When It's Politically Expedient Principle"?
Still not seeing any evidence of violence. Merely possessing a gun in proximity to the devil weed counts as "unlawful use" even if you never harm or even threaten anyone with it. This might occur to anyone who doesn't suck cop 24/7.
He was hit with federal charges so it means he was convicted of a serious crime which meant he was no longer allowed to possess a gun. Wouldn't matter if he was on probation or had completed his full sentence, he lost his 2nd amendment right unless he granted a pardon.
Principles like that are suspended because Biden's son is being charged with similar crimes. Unjust laws are fine and dandy if they're applied to the other team.
No. Why should sympathy for this guy matter? Trumped up, weak pretexts for searching people's cars are outrageous bullshit no matter what kind of moron you're dealing with.
Wow, someone with some actual libertarian principles? How'd you sneak in her?
Most of us here oppose that kind of thing. Consistently too. Unlike certain poster, and their fellow travelers.
The point is to stand up for people's rights whether you like them or not.
Weed is legal. Driving while high is not.
how does l'Etat measure?
No DUI though? From the sound of it, they just smelt the unlit weed which can be very pungent in and of itself.
Don't carry weed and a gun as a felon. Though this guy doesn't sound like a rocket surgeon.
Sure, but so what? This guy is an idiot. Doesn't make it OK for cops to make up bullshit excuses to search people.
I don't think you know or fully comprehend what "made up bullshit" means in this context. Especially considering that their made up bullshit more accurately predicted and modeled/models reality than your own "truth".
What the fuck are you talking about? They used something that is not evidence of any crime as a pretext to search. That is all I am objecting to.
Apparently, as noted in the article, weed can only be transported in an odor proof container in IL. So if the cop could actually smell unburned weed it was evidence of a crime. Seems pretty silly to me but is obviously relevant to the suppression of the gun evidence.
Except all we have for evidence is the cop's word. I once had cops smell pot on me. Not only had I not been smoking recently, I'd never smoked it in my life. Even if the cop was telling the truth, it's a completely bullshit law intended solely to provide a pretext for otherwise unjustified searches.
They used something that is not evidence of any crime as a pretext to search.
Every pretext to every search is not evidence of a crime... until actual evidence is discovered. This is how police work, and all of human knowledge, since forever, have worked. The idea that you can forbid police from acting on hunches for your pet cause or any cause in general is stupid. There are certainly cases where they have and can abuse their authority on hunches. There are certainly laws you/we can and do disagree with.
The hunch was valid, the crimes were empirically committed, with evidence. To insist they weren't; you may as well assert Nicholas Cruz is innocent too.
In fairness, it's the legislature that made up a bullshit excuse to search people. The cops were using this law exactly as intended.
That's as may be, but the 4A protects idiots just like the 1A protects Nazis. Once you start making exceptions, the exceptions eventually swallow the rule.
I'm not the leading expert on weed, but I'm pretty sure you have to smoke it or eat it to get high. I see zero evidence of driving under the influence.
Citing the smell of marijuana as a pretext to determining sobriety is a different discussion than using it as a basis for a vehicle search.
Technically weed is still illegal under federal laws, this has allowed lots of people to lose their money through civil asset forfeiture. Until Federal weed laws are eliminated it really isn't a good idea to have weed regardless of the state laws.
So like all other lying stories at Reason, the lead-in is a misdirect. If this was alcohol we'd be starting with an open vodka bottle in the cupholder then escalating to the felon with a firearm and breaking parole restrictions.
Just hide your shit and don't panic.
Exactly. Just shut up, and lawyer up.
Assclown... Fuck him.
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1709691184526786871?t=VwRgLwpG4ee-HYyPjbAuvg&s=19
One of the best pitchers in baseball is currently playing in Japan because of a false sexual assault allegation.
The guy nicknamed "Punt God" is currently not on an NFL roster also because of a false sexual assault allegation.
Both of the women who falsely accused them have faced no consequences for doing so.
Tell me more about this evil patriarchy we're living under.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1709687396848091462?t=5BbCYvfznjlK3IM7Qd26og&s=19
BREAKING: GoFundMe for girlfriend of far-left activist brutally murdered raises over $50,000 in 24 hours after she refused to give black suspect's description to police
[Link]
Arrest her for abetting a crime
Maybe you're new around here. That makes you, the police, or both, a/the bad guy. Even if her actions are actively abetting ongoing murders and your arrest amounts to nothing more than an over-the-weekend, 72-hr. catch and release. You're the bad guy because you exercised a use of force *without* anyone getting stabbed in the chest. The obvious bad outcome of your intentions makes you wrong and evil, but the obvious bad outcome of her intentions is just how private citizens in a moral society act you evil Statist.
She should track him down herself. So she can establish a dialogue, and help this poor oppressed lamb……. and so he can finish the job and get rid of the loony Marxist.
Yeah, nothing makes witnesses more cooperative than throwing them in jail. Great way to build trust in policing!
I should make up scenarios like this on the crowd finding sites and bilk leftists out of millions. If I’m caught, I’ll just chalk it up to ‘reparations’ for my suffering due to their Marxist idiocy.
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1709733010503844203?t=ctdAtkVw-2LvX5fUE6bLmQ&s=19
There’s a new war on terror. Buckle up.
[Link]
Round up the usual suspects.
Trump voters?
The democrat party are the real terrorists.
"Nothing personal officer, but I don't consent to searches and I don't answer questions. Am I being detained or am I free to go?"
He probably could have been arrested for driving without the lights on, suspicion of driving under the influence.
My guess is he tried to cooperate to get off on that.
He tried to cooperate by making a run for it?
Driving without lights generally results in a civil citation at worst, and usually just a warning. The weed was specifically described as "unburned", so DUI would be a huge stretch.
"Judge James E. Shadid of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois came down in favor of police, ruling that Jackson had run afoul of the state requirement to keep marijuana in an odor-proof container."
This is the nuttiest logic that I've heard for a long time. First that this is in the law and second that the judge used this as the excuse. By this logic the judge probably violates various STUPID LAWS every day.
This is the nuttiest logic that I’ve heard for a long time.
- Don't want your house broken into? Close and lock the doors.
- Don't want to get filmed naked from across the street? Close your blinds.
- Don't want to be suspected of a DUI? Keep your alcohol in a closed container.
- Don't want to be suspected of keeping a decomposing body in your trunk? Keep it wrapped in a sealed container.
I suppose if you live in a world where police investigating things that actually are criminal even by libertarian standards is, somehow, an utterly dysfunctional Statist hellhole it might seem like nutty logic. If however, you managed not to eat too many paint chips as a kid, this isn't really that hard.
Neither possessing weed, peaceably possessing a gun or even both at the same time are "criminal by libertarian standards". Then again we all know you wouldn't recognize a libertarian principle if it walked up and bit you in the ass. The only thing this guy was doing wrong was forgetting to turn on his lights. That typically warrants nothing stronger than a warning or maybe a civil citation if the driver goes out of his way to be a dick.
What's even better is that IL requires it to be stored in an odor proof container when traveling in a vehicle BUT DOESNT require (or enforce) dispensaries selling weed in containers that are odor proof.
If there is such a thing. Its a stupid traffic law that is being challenged in the appellate courts right now.
But ya, you can go to the dispensary, buy up to an ounce of pot (or 2.5oz if med card holder), get pulled over and then be arrested/ticketed if the cop smells the weed you just legally purchased.
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
Do they even have a metric for an "odor proof" container? Is there some test to know what would or would not qualify such as leakage no greater than 15 ppm per hour measured at a distance of 39.37" when pressurized to 20" of water column using butyl mercaptan as a test gas? Does it only need to be odor proof to a person? What about the dog or a truffle sniffing pig? Does said container need to be constructed in a certain way like 3 mm of nalgene, HDPE, or polycarbonate with a lid containing a silicon seal that is at least a 2.5 mm wide that is compressed a minimum of 33%?
My guess is it just needs to be a highly vague definition of "odor proof". Whatever the that means.
Hey it is an odor proof container! The container doesn't stink, it's contents do.
Of course not. The law provides a handy pretext for unjustified searches, and that's it.
In your conception, is Justicia just blind or blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid by the respective UL or NIST metrics?
I don't know how or why this is so difficult except that people like to play retard in order to undermine good faith, contracts, and libertarianism. If your car smells like a vodka bottle exploded inside, which is totally legal, you should still expect to get investigated for a DUI if you get pulled over. If your car smells like a can of brake cleaner exploded inside, which is totally legal, expect to get investigated for a DUI if you get pulled over. If your car smells like it's got a dead body in the trunk, which as long as it's not human and/or is appropriately tagged is completely legal...
It's illegal to operate a car while drunk or stoned and even exceedingly libertarian types would say it's OK to operate as long as you aren't weaving in and out of traffic or driving around after dark without your headlights on such that other people can't see you. To wit... even by exceedingly libertarian standards a lot of you people are playing retard harder and faster than Tony or JFree for some reason.
Super common for backpacking in bear country. For example https://loksak.com/opsak/ I'm a hiker, not a toker, but I would be stunned if these weren't making inroads in the pot industry. [momentary searching] Sure enough: https://dymapak.com/smell-proof-bag/ Just stop using cheap low-quality baggies.
People are using containers the weed came in when they bought it at the store.
Others are using baggies yes and could be smarter about it.
Or just don't keep your weed in the glove box of your car, where/when it's generally illegal to consume it anyway.
Or do so with an unregistered/illegally held firearm.
Or do any/all of the above while out on parole where any/all of which would be a parole violation.
I mean, the Reason crowd around here sounds like idiot leftists defending Jacob Blake's Constitutional right to own a knife.
The purpose of the law is pretty obvious. It gives cops a pretext for otherwise unjustified searches. If it also gives them an excuse to hassle potheads, well, feature not bug.
^ The police union lobby still has a lot of pull in Springfield and this was the compromise after they lied about having to euthanize all their K-9's that were trained to alert on cannabis.
Its a terrible catch-22 situation. The number of times the odor of pot led to a search but pot wasn't recovered would be helpful information to have. I only see them if the cops find something else and they get arrested. All the one's where someone spends 45min on the side of the road getting their vehicle tossed and don't get arrested...well its like it never happened.
So, Prentiss didn't know his rights - aaaand you're holding that against the cops.
It's not the State's job to give you a civics lesson. If you refuse to uphold your end of your American civic duty; if you confuse rights with entitlements - well, don't be surprised when the system fails you. It's your own fault.
A wise friend of mine once said, "If you don't know your rights, how would you EVER know if you were being deprived of them."
Prentiss learned the hard way.
It’s not the State’s job to give you a civics lesson.
I mean, notionally they even try to. But I'm guessing Prentiss was not a straight A student.
In June 2022... ultimately kicking off a legal odyssey that would result in an 84-month sentence in federal prison.
Uh, it would've seem to have been kicked off in 2010 with the Federal case, that this is no Odyssey, and that you're no Homer.
Maybe more like Lemony Snicket's but, really, not even that.
As a refugee from Hellinois, Reason's statement that it's "legal" is somewhat misleading. Illinois allows pot and pot products to be purchased at highly regulated (and TAXED) to be purchased at those dispensaries. Grow your own or get some from a friend and it's still illegal!
This is not the hill to die on. Weed may be legal but driving under the influence is not. How is this any different than having an open container of whiskey? He was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. This guy just flunked the urban IQ test.
Uh, the weed in question was specifically described as "unburnt", so there's no reason to believe he was driving under the influence. The law is pretty transparently intended to give cops a pretext to search.
violating the terms of his supervised release
This not just isn't the hill to die on. This is not the hill for anyone to try to sacrifice libertarianism on.
Jackson agreed to the terms of his release. That's a plain contract. You may not like the terms, but Jackson did. You may think he was unduly coerced into those terms, but that's a prior case, not this one. From there, even if incorrectly obtained outside the law, we have clear, independent, and objective evidence that Jackson violated his contract. The idea that Jackson should be let off because the means by which his violation of his contract became known were not personally kosher is a distinctly anti-libertarian one. If the assertion were that he was coerced by police into violating his contractual agreements (coercion) or that police planted the evidence (fraud), there may be a libertarian case to be had, but no such assertions are made and it's pretty openly stated and admitted that Jackson violated his contract of his own free will.
To back track on that libertarian standard is to sacrifice the fundamental precepts of libertarianism. Somebody wants to die on this hill? That's fine. I'll make sure libertarianism isn't objectively associated with their grave.
So, the guy violated the law and the judge convicted and sentenced him according to the law.
The law is perhaps silly, but there seems nothing wrong with the conviction per se under current law.
I mean, notionally they even try to. But I’m guessing Prentiss was not a straight A student.
https://hdstreamz.uno
https://krnl.fun/