2017 IL App (1st) 163390
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- LMP Services, Inc. operates a licensed Chicago food truck (Cupcakes for Courage) and challenged two provisions of a 2012 City of Chicago mobile food vehicle ordinance.
- Challenged provisions: (1) a 200-foot exclusion forbidding food trucks from parking within 200 feet of a restaurant’s principal street-level entrance (with limited exceptions), and (2) a requirement that trucks carry a permanently installed GPS transmitting real-time location data to services with a public API.
- City justification for the 200-foot rule: balance interests between brick-and-mortar restaurants and food trucks, encourage service in underserved areas, and manage sidewalk congestion; City said the rule applies "as the crow flies."
- City justification for GPS: locate trucks for health inspections and complaint investigations; City admitted it had never requested GPS data and previously found trucks via social media.
- Procedural posture: circuit court dismissed LMP’s equal protection claim, denied dismissal of due process and search claims, then granted City summary judgment on due process and GPS/search issues; LMP appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 200-foot rule violates substantive due process (right to pursue a livelihood) | LMP: the rule unreasonably restricts its right to earn a living, is protectionist and arbitrary | City: rule rationally furthers legitimate municipal interests (protect brick-and-mortar businesses that generate tax revenue; manage congestion; spread vending) | Court: rational-basis review applies; rule is rationally related to legitimate public-welfare interests and upheld |
| Whether the GPS requirement is an unconstitutional search under article I, §6 / Fourth Amendment | LMP: mandatory GPS + data transmission is a warrantless search of its movements | City: GPS is a licensing condition to locate trucks for inspections/investigations; City has not obtained data and does not trespass | Court: no Jones-type physical trespass occurred and LMP did not argue a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy theory; GPS requirement is a licensing condition, not a search |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (installation/use of government GPS on vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (police use of narcotics dog on home porch constitutes a search)
- Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (attachment of tracking device to person implicates Fourth Amendment)
- Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (rational-basis test governs municipal zoning/regulation challenges)
- City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (municipality may ban certain street vendors to preserve local character under rational basis)
- City of Chicago v. Rhine, 363 Ill. 619 (no constitutional property right to use city streets/sidewalks for private business)
- Triple A Servs., Inc. v. Rice, 131 Ill. 2d 217 (upholding municipal regulation restricting mobile food vending)
- Grigoleit, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Sanitary District of Decatur, 233 Ill. App. 3d 606 (licensing conditions allowing inspection/enforcement are not Fourth Amendment searches when based on privilege to use public systems)
- Vaden v. Village of Maywood, 809 F.2d 361 (affirming municipal authority to distinguish street vendors from fixed businesses)