McGrath v. The City of Kankakee
55 N.E.3d 51
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Kankakee enacted Municipal Code § 22-85 (2002) authorizing seizure/impoundment of vehicles involved in certain crimes and imposing a $500 "administrative penalty" plus towing/storage. A post-impoundment hearing is available if requested within 24 hours and held within 48 hours.
- The City posted signs describing sections 22-80–22-86 only in 2008, years after the ordinance was adopted.
- Barbara McGrath filed a class action alleging (1) the ordinance violated due process because drivers lacked reasonable notice (claiming signs were not posted during enforcement) and (2) the $500 charge was an unconstitutional attempt to raise revenue under the guise of police power.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead: when McGrath’s car was impounded (so as to show lack of notice), failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to allege payment under duress.
- On appeal the court affirmed. It held McGrath lacked standing for the facial due-process challenge because she did not allege she personally suffered lack of notice, and it upheld the ordinance as a constitutional deterrent fine reasonably related to public-safety purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordinance violated due process for lack of statutory signage/notice | McGrath: ordinance was enforced without signs or reasonable notice, so deprived owners of due process | City: ordinance complied with law; plaintiff failed to plead she lacked notice when her vehicle was impounded | Dismissed for lack of standing — plaintiff did not allege she personally was deprived of notice at the time of her impoundment |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded prerequisites (exhaustion/duress/payment) | McGrath: brought class action; alleged enforcement and injury to class members | City: complaint omitted facts showing exhaustion of administrative remedies and that payment was made under duress | Complaint deficient; dismissal affirmed for failure to plead required facts |
| Whether $500 administrative penalty is an unlawful revenue-raising measure under state constitution | McGrath: $500 plus towing/storage functions as revenue generation beyond police power | City: charge is an administrative "penalty" (fine) serving deterrence/public-safety—legitimate police purpose | Court: term "penalty" shows a fine; $500 fine is reasonably related to deterrence/public-safety and is constitutional |
| Whether impoundment scheme is invalid as applied to innocent owners | McGrath: ordinance can unjustly burden innocent owners and thus may not serve legitimate deterrence | City: impoundment deters negligent entrustment and encourages greater care by owners | Court: rejected plaintiff’s argument; held deterrence of criminal activity (including owner-care incentives) is legitimate even if innocent owners are affected |
Key Cases Cited
- Rozner v. Korshak, 55 Ill.2d 430 (Ill. 1973) (police power may not be used as means to raise revenue)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (Ill. 2006) (use of term "penalty" indicates fine rather than fee)
- A & H Vending Service, Inc. v. Village of Schaumburg, 168 Ill. App. 3d 61 (Ill. App. 1988) (fees must reasonably relate to enforcement costs)
- People v. Jaudon, 307 Ill. App. 3d 427 (Ill. App. 1999) (forfeiture/impoundment laws may be constitutional without innocent-owner exception)
- Towers v. City of Chicago, 173 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 1999) (upheld municipal administrative penalty paired with impoundment as deterrent)
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1974) (forfeiture/impoundment can induce owners to exercise greater care)
- Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1996) (innocent-owner defenses not always required for forfeiture statutes)
- People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236 (Ill. 2011) (discussing constitutionality of forfeiture/impoundment statutes)