People v. One 2005 Acura RSX
77 N.E.3d 783
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The State filed a civil forfeiture complaint seeking forfeiture of Keith D. Osborn’s 2005 Acura RSX under 720 ILCS 5/36-1 based on alleged use of the vehicle in possession of burglary tools incidents in June 2015.
- Police seized the vehicle after surveillance allegedly placed Osborn at multiple car washes where vending-machine (coin vault) keys were used; two vending-machine keys were found in the car.
- Osborn was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor theft charge (allegedly involving $0.50); he was not convicted of possession of burglary tools (the Class 4 felony that formed the basis of the forfeiture complaint).
- At the forfeiture hearing the parties stipulated the vehicle was otherwise subject to forfeiture under Article 36, and the sole contested issue became whether forfeiture would violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
- The trial court applied the three-factor proportionality test (from Zumirez Drive as adopted in People ex rel. Waller) and denied forfeiture as grossly disproportionate; the State appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forfeiture of the vehicle violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause | Forfeiture is authorized because the vehicle was used to transport and secrete burglary tools and the vehicle’s value (~$17,600) is comparable to penalties for the felony offense | Forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate: crime was nonviolent, resulted in a misdemeanor theft plea for $0.50, vehicle was not integral to the offense, and use was limited in time/space | Court held forfeiture would violate the Excessive Fines Clause and affirmed denial of forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Waller v. 1989 Ford F350 Truck, 162 Ill. 2d 78 (Illinois 1994) (adopts three-factor proportionality test for forfeiture under the Eighth Amendment)
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1993) (civil forfeiture can be punitive and thus subject to the Excessive Fines Clause)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (forfeiture violates Eighth Amendment if grossly disproportional)
- Real Property Located at 6625 Zumirez Drive, 845 F. Supp. 725 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (articulates nonexhaustive factors for proportionality review)
- Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 373 Ill. App. 3d 838 (Ill. App. 2007) (addresses punitive character of forfeiture and proportionality principles)
- People ex rel. Waller v. 1996 Saturn, 298 Ill. App. 3d 464 (Ill. App. 1998) (distinguishable forfeiture decision where vehicle played extensive, integral role in theft ring)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (appellate presumption in favor of trial-court order when record is incomplete)