People v. ex rel. Hartrich v. 2010 Harley-Davidson
2016 IL App (5th) 150035
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petra Henderson owned a 2010 Harley-Davidson trike (purchase price $35,000); her husband Mark had no ownership interest.
- On April 25–26, 2014, Mark, whose driver's license was revoked for a prior DUI, became intoxicated after tavern visits; he drove the motorcycle from a tavern to the Hendersons’ home while Petra rode as a passenger.
- Officer Strauch observed erratic riding, activated lights and siren, the motorcycle failed to stop, and Mark was arrested with a BAC of .161. Mark pled guilty to aggravated DUI.
- The State filed a civil forfeiture action under Illinois statutes alleging the motorcycle was used with the owner’s knowledge and consent in offenses that make it forfeitable.
- The trial court found Petra’s testimony not credible and concluded she consented to Mark’s use; it ordered forfeiture. Petra moved to reconsider claiming lack of consent and an Eighth Amendment excessive-fines violation; the motion was denied and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petra consented to Mark’s use of the motorcycle (forfeiture predicate) | Petra’s act of riding as passenger and surrounding facts support an inference she consented; credibility issues favor State. | Petra never consented; she told Mark to stop and only rode to avoid walking home; directed verdict should have been granted. | Court affirmed factual finding that Petra consented — trial court credibility determinations and inferences supported forfeiture. |
| Whether forfeiture of a $35,000 motorcycle violated the Eighth Amendment excessive fines clause | Forfeiture is a permissible remedial/punitive tool to deter impaired driving; similar prior cases upheld vehicle forfeitures. | Forfeiture is grossly disproportionate: Petra was not the offender, she was more culpable only for acquiescence, limited temporal/spatial use, and penalty severity outweighs her culpability. | Court reversed: forfeiture was constitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment given Petra’s lesser culpability and the severe monetary penalty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) (civil forfeiture may serve punitive as well as remedial goals and is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (forfeiture violates Eighth Amendment if grossly disproportionate to the offense)
- People ex rel. Waller v. 1989 Ford F350 Truck, 162 Ill. 2d 78 (1994) (three-prong test for excessiveness: gravity v. harshness; instrumentality; temporal/spatial extent)
- People v. One 2000 GMC, 357 Ill. App. 3d 873 (2005) (application of excessive-fines analysis to vehicle forfeiture)
- People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300, 402 Ill. App. 3d 462 (2010) (forfeiture policy aims to prevent crimes when vehicles are used; factual-review standards for forfeiture proceedings)