Cochran v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12567
7th Cir.2016Background
- Cochran, an Ohio resident, drove on Illinois tollways and used full-speed transponder-only lanes believing (based on Ohio practice) tolls were assessed on exit; he missed three tolls.
- Illinois toll system: transponder lanes (left) and cash lanes (right); signage notifies lane type and approaching plazas; missed-toll owner gets a 7-day grace period to pay without fine.
- After seven days, each missed toll incurs a $20 fine; three fines in two years triggers mailed notice with violation details and right to a hearing; transponder account holders get an additional post-notice grace period to pay without fine.
- Cochran called the tollway line before notice and was told no violations appeared; violations were entered later; he received notice ~one month after the trips, paid tolls and fines totaling $64.50, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging procedural due process and equal protection violations.
- The district court dismissed federal claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Cochran appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process: notice and meaningful hearing | Cochran: signage and delayed info denied constitutionally adequate notice and meaningful process | Tollway: mailed notice, seven-day grace period, hearing rights satisfied due process; signage/regulation suffice | Court: Due process satisfied—notice and hearing opportunity adequate; signage/late database entry not a constitutional violation |
| Adequacy of signage / vagueness of rule | Cochran: signage confusing; regulation vague about "toll evasion" | Tollway: signage and regulation plainly notify conduct; drivers must know local rules | Court: Regulation and signs sufficiently clear; no void-for-vagueness problem |
| Delay in notifying about violations | Cochran: one-month delay prevented payment within grace period | Tollway: only timely notice required; one-month delay not unconstitutional | Court: Delay did not violate due process; notice was timely enough |
| Hearing meaningfulness given strict liability and vicarious liability | Cochran: strict liability and no knowledge defense make hearing illusory | Tollway: strict liability in regulatory fines is constitutional; hearing allows other defenses | Court: Hearing meaningful despite lack of knowledge defense; strict liability permissible |
| Equal Protection: different treatment of transponder users | Cochran: transponder users get extra grace period—unequal treatment | Tollway: extra grace period rationally furthers legitimate interest in promoting transponder use and efficiency | Court: Rational-basis test satisfied; differing treatment constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Gimbel v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 872 F.2d 196 (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (due process principles for notice and hearing)
- Walker Stone, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 156 F.3d 1076 (regulation specificity and notice)
- Becker v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 172 (due process notice to ordinary person)
- Schor v. City of Chicago, 576 F.3d 775 (obligation to inform oneself of local rules; vagueness analysis)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (common-law presumption that persons know the law)
- Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (constitutionality of strict liability in regulatory fines)
- Idris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564 (upholding penalties without fault for deterrence)
- American Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 826 F.2d 1547 (due process does not guarantee success at hearing)
- Srail v. Village of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940 (equal protection rational-basis framework)