This year, legalized recreational cannabis was supposed to dominate the news in Illinois and elsewhere (other things happened). In their October Illinois Bar Journal article, “What’s That Smell?,” Emily L. Fitch and Brenda M. (Duke) Mathis revisit Illinois’ new cannabis-related laws and follow the legal issues sprouting from cannabis legalization. They conclude multiple issues remain to be clarified by legislative action and caselaw, including questions surrounding probable cause with the scent of cannabis alone and whether a free air sniff is sufficient when the dog has been trained to detect cannabis. Up to this point, Illinois courts have placed only limited restrictions on free air sniffs. However, it does appear that the reviewing courts are prepared to throw out a prosecutorial-minded approach to the free air sniff and write new caselaw in the face of cannabis legalization. Fitch and Mathis also summarize new cannabis laws and compare Illinois with other states revisiting probable-search caselaw in light of cannabis legalization.

As with any new technology, the use of biometrics comes with complications. If it is suspected that the device has been used to commit a crime, law enforcement is authorized to apply for a warrant to search the device. If the device is protected by a biometric feature, the government will seek authorization to compel the owner to unlock the device. In his October Illinois Bar Journal article, “I Can’t Quite Put My Finger on It,” Thomas A. Drysdale asks whether a person can be compelled to provide a biometric feature to unlock a device and finds that, due to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, courts have struggled to find an answer. Drysdale examines the constitutional implications of compelling biometric features, compares differing judicial opinions, and provides background information for the Illinois practitioner approaching the issue.

Child custody laws, driving with cannabis in one’s system, probating wills and estates—state laws addressing these and many other matters are often crafted with feedback from the ISBA, whose members have a seat at the legislative table because of their ISBA section involvement and the Association’s legislative affairs program. It is often said that the Association’s dozens of sections (and its special committees and task forces) represent its beating heart. Most of the ISBA’s networking, continuing legal education, and legislative involvement take place through these specialized groups. The October Illinois Bar Journal devotes its cover story to the tactics and strategies of the ISBA’s rigorous, hands-on legislative affairs program in which ISBA members are given an opportunity to shape the bills that often end up on the governor’s desk.

Ordinarily, an estate is taxed based on the value of its assets as of the decedent’s date of death. But for federal estate tax purposes, an alternate valuation date could be selected if it results in both the gross estate and the estate tax being reduced. The alternate valuation date is the date six months after the date of death. Utilizing the alternate valuation date would thus necessitate the filing of a federal estate tax return. In his September Illinois Bar Journal article, “COVID-19, Death, and Taxes,” Richard Hirschtritt discusses whether an Illinois resident who owns publicly traded stock, commercial real estate with an Illinois situs, and/or a business that has been adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and has died within six months prior to the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak is subject to state or federal estate taxes.