2020 IL App (1st) 190922-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Police stopped a work van driven by Allen Tyler for a vehicle light violation; officers smelled cannabis and found drugs and five bundles of cash in a soft-sided bag on the passenger seat totaling $223,743.
- Vehicle registration listed Ameen Salaam d/b/a Infinite Heating and Cooling as the owner; Tyler was arrested and the cash and drugs were seized.
- The State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint seeking forfeiture of the $223,743 and served statutory notice on Tyler (certified and regular mail) and published notice; no claimant answered and the court entered a default forfeiture judgment in January 2016.
- More than two years later Salaam moved to vacate the forfeiture judgment, arguing he was an "owner or interest holder" entitled to statutory notice and that lack of notice rendered the judgment void; the trial court denied the motion.
- The appellate majority affirmed, holding Salaam was not an owner/interest holder of the money (Tyler had immediate dominion and control) and, alternatively, that Salaam had or should be charged with actual notice; Justice Hyman dissented, arguing van ownership gave Salaam a sufficient interest and the State failed to give statutory or actual notice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Salaam) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forfeiture judgment is void for lack of statutory notice to an "owner or interest holder" | Salaam: As owner of the van, he had an interest in its contents and was entitled to service of the forfeiture complaint; absence of notice voids the judgment | State: Served statutory notice on Tyler (possessee) and published; Salaam was not an owner/interest holder of the cash | Court: Judgment not void; service on Tyler satisfied Act because Salaam lacked sufficient interest in the cash |
| Whether Salaam qualified as an "owner or interest holder" of the seized cash | Salaam: Ownership of the van gave him a legally cognizable interest in contents; possession not the sole test | State: Possession and immediate dominion over the bag lay with Tyler; no evidence Salaam exercised control over the cash | Court: Salaam was not an owner/interest holder of the cash; possession presumptively establishes interest and Tyler had dominion |
| Whether actual notice (or constructive notice from the seizure) satisfies due process absent statutory service | Salaam: Actual knowledge of arrest/seizure is insufficient; statutory/formal notice of the forfeiture proceeding required | State: Salaam had actual or imputed notice (news reports, acquaintances, counsel) and failed to act for years | Court: Alternatively found Salaam had actual notice or at least should have known and failed to protect any claimed interest |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the default forfeiture should be vacated | Salaam: Lack of notice to an interest holder deprived the court of jurisdiction; default judgment void | State: Proper in rem jurisdiction; statutory notice requirements satisfied as to known interest holder (Tyler) | Court: Trial court retained jurisdiction; motion to vacate properly denied; forfeiture affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- People v. Schmalz, 194 Ill. 2d 75 (2000) (possession requires dominion and control; joint possession principles)
- People ex rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency, 199 Ill. 2d 142 (2002) (consider character of proceedings and practicalities in assessing notice)
- People v. $9,290 in United States Currency, 372 Ill. App. 3d 267 (2007) (possession creates an interest entitling claimant to notice)
- People v. $5,970 United States Currency, 279 Ill. App. 3d 583 (1996) (currency derived from drug sales is forfeitable)
- People v. Strong, 151 Ill. App. 3d 28 (1986) (forfeiture is an in rem civil proceeding)
- White v. Ratcliffe, 285 Ill. App. 3d 758 (1996) (judgment entered without proper service is void)
- People v. Wade, 326 Ill. App. 3d 396 (2001) (forfeiture extinguishes rights and must be narrowly construed)
- Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit Dist. No. 1, 133 Ill. 2d 413 (1990) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- People v. One Residence Located at 1403 E. Parham St., 251 Ill. App. 3d 198 (1993) (purpose of Act includes deterring drug trafficking by civil penalties)