Alright, let's simplify this into a story for a 7-year-old:

You know how sometimes you bring your lunch to school in a special box because it's yucky if it spills out? That's sort of what happened with some rules about having cannabis (that's like the grown-up version of "special snacks") in a car.

1. **First, there was confusion:** Kids at school could smell someone's special snack when they shouldn't have been able to. Some people thought this meant the kid did something wrong, but others said maybe the kid just ate some outside and we couldn't tell what they were doing inside their backpack (or in this case, car).

2. **The teacher (judge) made a mistake:** At first, the teacher said smelling the snack was enough to check if something bad happened. But then another teacher said that's not fair because maybe it wasn't happening now, just before.

3. **Now it's time for the principal (big judge)**: The big teacher said it's only fair to check if the bad smell is coming right now from inside the car. If the kid smells like they ate outside school, we shouldn't make them open their backpack because that's private.

4. **But there's still a problem**: Even though the big teacher made a new rule, some teachers are confused and might still not follow it properly. The kids (people) are also confused and might not know what to expect.

So, everyone is trying to figure out the best way to handle this – whether it's having a special box for snacks or leaving backpacks alone if there's no proof of trouble right now. Read from source...

Based on the provided article, here are some aspects that critics might point out:

1. **Inconsistencies in Rulings:**
- The court ruled that raw cannabis odor suggests a violation but burnt cannabis odor doesn't.
- This seems inconsistent as both could indicate cannabis is present and potentially accessible for use.

2. **Bias towards Law Enforcement:**
- Critics might argue that the ruling favors law enforcement by giving them more power to justify car searches based on their "sense of smell."
- Some may see this as an overreach, as it opens up potential for abuse or discrimination.

3. **Lack of Scientific Evidence:**
- The ruling is based solely on the officers' ability to smell cannabis.
- Critics might argue that there's no mention of specific concentrations or types of odors required for a search, which could lead to arbitrary decisions.

4. **Emotional Language in Dissent:**
- Justice O'Brien's dissent uses emotive language ("makes no sense"), which could be seen as more passionate than analytical.
- This might suggest an emotional bias rather than a purely logical interpretation of the law.

5. **Legislative Mismatch:**
- The court itself acknowledges the confusion caused by Illinois lawmakers' actions, suggesting a lack of clear direction from the legislative branch.
- Critics could argue that this reflects poorly on both the courts and the legislature, as it leads to legal uncertainty.

6. **Broader Privacy Concerns:**
- Some critics might not limit their concerns to cannabis laws but also raise broader privacy issues related to vehicle searches based solely on smell.
- They might see this as a step towards reducing motorists' expectation of privacy.