People ex rel. Kelly v. One 2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer
2016 IL App (5th) 150338
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On May 17, 2015 Nathaniel Dukes was stopped, arrested for DUI and DWLR while driving a 2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer registered to his live-in girlfriend, Latoya Radford.
- Dukes told police Radford let him use the vehicle whenever he needed and that it effectively belonged to both of them; he said he could not title a vehicle because his license was revoked.
- The State filed a forfeiture action under Illinois Criminal Code art. 36 and sought a preliminary review under 720 ILCS 5/36-1.5, attaching an affidavit describing Dukes’ driving, prior DUI history, and his BAC nearly twice the legal limit; the affidavit identified the vehicle but did not mention Radford or Dukes’ statements.
- At the section 36-1.5 preliminary hearing the court considered only that affidavit and found the State had not shown probable cause that Radford knew or should have known Dukes would be driving the vehicle, ordering return of the vehicle.
- The State moved to reconsider, arguing owner knowledge/consent is not part of the section 36-1.5 standard; the motion was denied and the State appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the State need only show probable cause that the vehicle may have been used to facilitate an enumerated offense, not that the owner knew or consented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 36-1.5 preliminary review requires the State to prove the vehicle owner knew/consented to the vehicle’s use | State: Preliminary review requires only probable cause that vehicle may have been used in an enumerated offense; owner knowledge/consent not required at this stage | Radford: Court required owner knowledge/consent be shown before forfeiture proceeding continued | Held: Section 36-1.5 does not require proof of owner knowledge/consent; State need only show probable cause vehicle may have been used to commit an enumerated offense |
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause that the Trailblazer may be subject to forfeiture | State: Affidavit identifying the vehicle and facts of DUI/DWLR established probable cause | Radford: Lack of evidence that she knew or should have known Dukes would drive the vehicle undermines probable cause | Held: Affidavit sufficiently established probable cause that the vehicle was used to facilitate DUI/DWLR; circuit court’s no-probable-cause finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dugan, 109 Ill. 2d 8 (forfeiture proceedings are civil actions in rem)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (definition of ‘‘manifest weight of the evidence’’)
- People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile, 52 Ill. 2d 37 (State’s burden in forfeiture proceedings)
- People ex rel. Ward v. 1963 Cadillac Coupe, 38 Ill. 2d 344 (State’s burden in forfeiture proceedings)
- People v. Adams, 318 Ill. App. 3d 539 (vehicle use facilitating an offense)
- People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300, 402 Ill. App. 3d 462 (standard for upsetting forfeiture findings on appeal)