In re Dustyn W.
2017 IL App (4th) 170103
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2016, 13-year-old Dustyn W. was charged with armed robbery for an incident at an Urbana gas station in which two juveniles, one holding a knife, took lighters; police recovered six lighters near where they were found.
- In Nov. 2016, following a bench trial the juvenile court adjudicated Dustyn delinquent; at disposition (Feb. 2017) he received 24 months' probation.
- A probation condition forbade Dustyn from being present on the University of Illinois campus unless accompanied by a parent/guardian/custodian or unless he had advance permission from his probation officer.
- The circuit clerk assessed a $50 "Court Finance Fee" and a $5 "Drug Court Program" assessment.
- Dustyn appealed, arguing the campus exclusion unconstitutionally infringed his right to travel; he also challenged the $50 and $5 assessments as unauthorized fines imposed by the clerk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Dustyn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation condition excluding Dustyn from the University campus unconstitutionally restricts his right to travel | Condition is a reasonable means to protect the public and foster rehabilitation given the nature of the offense and location; it is authorized by the Juvenile Court Act | The restriction infringes on fundamental intrastate travel rights and is overbroad / not narrowly tailored (may hinder educational aspirations; lacks specificity) | Court affirmed: condition is a reasonable exercise of discretion and constitutional because it serves valid purposes and contains exemptions (parent/guardian accompaniment or probation-officer permission) |
| Whether the $50 court-finance assessment and $5 drug-court assessment are void fines imposed by the circuit clerk | State conceded the $5 drug-court assessment is a fine here; court-finance assessment also amounts to a fine but was imposed by the clerk without authority | Both assessments are void because they are fines the clerk lacked authority to impose | Court vacated both the $50 court finance assessment and the $5 drug court assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.W., 204 Ill. 2d 50 (2003) (probationary geographic bans implicate intrastate travel; valid only if purpose exists and legitimate-purpose exemptions are provided)
- People v. Pickens, 186 Ill. App. 3d 456 (1989) (probationer must have ability to seek permission from specified authority to enter restricted area for legitimate reasons)
- People v. Rizzo, 362 Ill. App. 3d 444 (2005) (overbroad, categorical exclusion from schools/parks was unconstitutional absent provision for legitimate access)