People v. One 1998 GMC
2011 Ill. LEXIS 2238
Ill.2011Background
- This case consolidates three vehicle-forfeiture proceedings under 720 ILCS 5/36-1 through 36-4 (West 2006) brought by the State in Du Page County.
- Seizures: 1998 GMC (George Reardon and Reardon Painting, Inc.) July 24, 2007; 1996 Chevrolet (Michael Adams et al.) August 8, 2008; 2002 Chevrolet (Robert Messina et al.) October 4, 2008.
- Notice of seizure and certified-mail notices were sent; the State filed forfeiture complaints within about 20 days in each case; claimants answered.
- The circuit court held the statute facially unconstitutional for due-process defects and dismissed with prejudice.
- The State appealed; the Court held the forfeiture scheme provides due process and not facially unconstitutional; proceedings may be remanded to apply updated statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the forfeiture statute facially unconstitutional for lacking a prompt postseizure probable-cause hearing? | Claimants argue lack violates due process. | State contends the statute provides due process via the forfeiture proceeding. | Not facially unconstitutional; no mandatory prompt postseizure hearing required. |
| Do the forfeiture proceedings themselves satisfy due-process requirements under 8,850/Von Neumann and Barker? | Claimants contend a postseizure hearing is necessary. | State argues Barker-based analysis shows adequate process. | Yes; proceedings meet due process and Barker factors favor efficiency. |
| Is Krimstock controlling or distinguishable in Illinois vehicle forfeiture? | Krimstock supports requiring a prompt postseizure hearing. | Krimstock distinguished; Von Neumann/8,850 control. | Krimstock distinguishable; controlling precedents are 8,850 and Von Neumann. |
| Should remand apply new 36-1.5 provisions requiring prompt probable-cause determinations? | Remand should apply updated procedure. | Remand appropriate but retroactivity considerations apply. | Remand allowed; new 36-1.5 provision to be considered where practical. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars in United States Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1983) (postseizure hearing framework; Barker test affinity)
- United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (forfeiture proceeding itself satisfies due process when timely)
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002) (prominent Krimstock framework for postseizure rights)
- Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1996) (innocent-owner defense not constitutionally required)
- People v. 1998 Ford Explorer, 399 Ill. App. 3d 99 (Ill. App. 2010) (Illinois appellate on pre-amendment facial constitutionality)
- People v. Lexus GS 300, 402 Ill. App. 3d 462 (Ill. App. 2010) (as-applied challenges to vehicle forfeiture provisions)
- People v. 1996 Honda Accord, 404 Ill. App. 3d 174 (Ill. App. 2010) (similar Illinois appellate consideration of procedural due process)