*1 ILLINOIS, Plаintiff-Appellee, OF v. PETER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE DePALMA, Defendant-Appellant. M. No. 2—92—0179
Second District Opinion January filed 1994.
DOYLE, J., dissenting. Appellate Hamill, J. both of State Joseph and Kathleen
G. Weller Office, Elgin, appellant. Defender’s (William Browers, Rob- L. Ryan, Attorney, of Wheaton E. State’s James Attorneys Appellate Turpin, Biderman, all State’s and Elliott
ert J. counsel), Office, People. for the
Prosecutor’s court: opinion delivered JUSTICE McLAREN DePalma, defendant, 29, 1992, M. Peter January On of vehicle charged by indictment with (VIN) removed, had been the vehicle the Illinois provisions Vehicle Class 2 under anti-theft (b)) (now (Code)(Ill. 103(a)(4), 95½, pars. Code Rev. Stat. ch. (b) (West 1992))). 103(a)(4), The trial court denied 625 ILCS 5/4 — statutory provisions un pretrial motion to declare the defendant’s *2 of the constitutional overly constitutional broad and violative guarantees process proportional penalties. of due 1992, 13, the trial February a trial on stipulated
After bench him to guilty charge and sentenced court found the defendant of the in the discharge days’ and 41 confinement months’ conditional already county jail; given days credit was for the 41 served. constitutionality provi- Defendant’s motion to reconsider the denied, judgment timely appeal sions and in arrest of was and this followed. again appeal,
On defendant contends that section 4— overly the Code is broad because it criminalizes innocent conduct and, 103(b), conjunction with which makes the offense a section 4— felony, guarantees process Class 2 of due violates constitutional Const., XIV; proportionate penalties. U.S. amend. Ill. Const. 1970, I, 2, Among things, argues in art. other defendаnt his §§ initial brief that his conviction should be reversed because the evi possessed dence was to show with the insufficient that he the vehicle knowledge accompanied by identification number with a purpose. parties supplemental The were ordered to submit at develop briefs to further the issue whether the evidence adduced support beyond trial was a reasonable doubt sufficient to conviction is, state, as to defendant’s mental whether defendant’s conduct "knowledge knowledge” plus crimi accompanied was "criminal 436, 441, purpose” nal under v. Johns 153 Ill. 2d People v. Tolliver 403. The State maintains defining the that no "criminal intent” should be read into the statute disagree offense. We and reverse defendant’s convictiоn for the reasons that follow. charged with the offense
The record reveals that defendant was Mustang, gray when he was found in of a 1985 Ford bearing According to temporary buyer plate a Texas No. P—5748. evidence, Village of stipulated Officer Brian Siebrasse of the Bloomingdale testify responded that he police department would January 1992, regarding sleeping who was police call on preserve in a car the Meecham Forest Preserve. He went to the at had a Mustang plate, had no license but and observed that the 1985 buyer registered plate Texas dashboard Intercontinental Houston, dashboard ve- He Auto Brokers of Texas. observed (VIN) missing. He appeared to be plate hicle sleeping car. observed defendant defendant, he knew the and defendant said spoke
Siebrasse they missing as jambs door were VIN on the dashboard and previous owner. vehicle was stolen from were removed when the stopped he weeks had been past couple said that in the Defendant Rolling police Meadows connection police the Elk Grove and the testify that defendant told would also plates. with the VIN Siebrasse time and had been him he was owner of the car the lawful Siebrasse, thorough According to after sleeping in the car. jambs car, plates were located on the door inspection of the no VIN engine of the vehicle. thorough inspection of the a more January On after car, passenger side portion plate was located under VIN contacted, was quarter Insurance Crime Bureau panel. The National using portion the VIN bureau was able to reconstruct and that quarter panel. the passenger located under the number plate, and it temporary buyer on the the VIN that was matched Orlando, reported been stolen in the car had was determined Florida, May and was on 1991. recovered police testimony Syverson of the Elk Grove of Officer *3 28, 1991, that, he observed on November department would show vehicle and would opportunity stop he an the same VINs when time, told to At that defendant was identify as the driver. defendant registration for the vehicle. and obtain problem take care of the VIN evidencе, the trial court found de- the stipulated On the basis of agreed an imposed sentence. charged and guilty fendant of the offense 103(a)(4), which in is defined section question The offense 4— provides: relating and other vehicles— to motor vehicles "Offenses
Felonies, (a) Chapter for: It of this is a violation (4) A person buy, receive, [*] [**] possess, sell or dispose of vehi knowledge thereof, cle, any part or essential part any essential thereof or number of vehicle identification or falsified.” having number has been removed an identification (now 103(a)(4) (Ill. 1991, 95½, par. ch. Rev. Stat. 4— 1992)).) 103(a)(4)(West 5/4— guilty is of a Class that section of a violation of convicted A three, not more than but for not less felony imprisoned 103(b) (now 95½, 1991, seven, par. years. Stat. ch. Ill. Rev. than 4— 103(b) (Wеst 38, 1992)); par. ch. Ill. Rev. Stat. 625 ILCS 5/4 — 1992)). 8—l(a)(5)(West 8—1(a)(5)(now 730 ILCS 5/5 — 1005— 103(a)(4) anti-theft statutory scheme of part Section is 4— " protect purpose laws in 4 of the Code whose 'is to chapter found general public against protect automobile theft and to owners ” against involving stolen automobiles.’ the commission of crimes v. One (People quoting People v. Morris 136 Ill. 2d 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix Automobile
Grouped knowingly under section 4—103 are offenses such as possessing, concealing, selling or converted disposing or stolen vehicle; removing, destroying or knowingly altering, defacing, falsifying an a manufacturer’s vehicle identification number or thereof; part knowingly concealing essential or misrepresenting thereof; knowingly identity part of a vehicle or essential pоssessing, buying, selling exchanging any or manufacturer’s vehicle 95½, plate. par. See Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 103(a) (now 103(a) (West 1992)). 625 ILCS 4— initially affirmatively points
Defendant out that conduct such as concealing misrepresenting identity or of stolen vehicles changing, destroying removing plates their to the VIN contributes problem culpable serious of vehicle theft and more this conduct is However, justifiably argues as a 2 felony. criminalized Class he section overly is broad and because it unconstitutional criminalizes as a Class the conduct of one who has no connection with a vehicle theft if he does no more than come into possession innocent aof vehicle with that its identification number has been removed. The statute criminalizes the mere missing plate by persons of vehicle which is its VIN need anything plate not have had to do with the removal of the —let any Furthermore, alone aspect penalty of a vehicle theft. disproportionate to the imposes seriousness of the offense because it innocently the same possesses on one who a car with a plate culpability greater as one far whose because he vehicles, knowingly possesses deliberately tampers stolen with VIN engages in other in vehicle theft. involvement points Defendant out that there was no evidence that he was not lawfully police report vehicle and included the common-law record stated that the car was recovered Florida *4 urges possessiоn and was now "clean.” Defendant that one who takes of a car expected should not be to ascertain that the VIN belonging dashboard, engine, jambs, body compart- on the door main parts place ment and other essential wiU aU in and of the vehicle be display possible the correct quite person number. It is
210 only legitimately car and purchase possession of a or come into gone, plate if is plate especially is afterward discover that VIN missing importantly, of the car. More from a location on the underside car is person discovers that his defendant observes that report discovery the Secre- plate would not be able to admitting to the commission tary of or the State Police without State 2 Class starting reviewing constitutionality of point all rea “are constitutional and presumed statutes is that the statutes validity.” upholding favor their sonable must resolved in doubts be 442.) (Johns, construe acts of the This court must 153 Ill. 2d at if constitutionality validity affirm it can legislature so as to their 252, (1991), 3d (People App. v. 208 Ill. reasonably done. Steffens 258.) constitutionality aof statute that party challenging It is clearly establishing the constitutional violation. bears the burden of (1985), 2d 188. People v. Bales 108 Ill. defining and gist argument is that the statutes defendant’s arbitrarily and overly they
punishing the are broad because offense unreasonably conduct and therefore violate penalize innocent Alternatively, argues defendant principle process. due of substantive pо Under the State’s disproportionate. penalty provided prescribe penalties legislature has wide discretion to power, the lice 161.) However, (Morris, 136 Ill. 2d at for defined offenses. only where is constitutional police power legislature’s exercise public relationship to the bears a reasonable question the statute adopted must be a reasonable the means protected, to be interest (1985), (People v. Wick objective. the desired accomplishing method of stated, a crime 'classification of Ill. “the 107 2d Otherwise designed remedy reasonably provided [must] and the pub determined to be a threat which the the evils ” (People v. health, general welfare.’ Toliver safety and lic (1993), 241 Ill. 1092, 1100, People App. Bowen quoting v. App. Ill. 3d for the is matter The determination reasonableness 3d 161), process test "focuses (Morris, 2d and the due 136 Ill. at courts (Johns, in question” of the enactment purposes objectives on the 162). Morris, 445; Ill. at 2d Ill. 2d charged defendant Tolliver v. assignment complete without a title the offense (Ill. 95½, 104(a)(2) Stat. ch. the Code Rev. under section 4— 104(a)(2)(West (now 1992))), a related par. registration. of titles and law to the pertaining anti-theft assign it the title and complete provision, failure Under case, the title owner law. In that against the specific to a *5 document, not been buyer name of the had signed the but the car, buyer, noticed that Murphy, the the purchased filled in. After he by the Hayes, but not signed by David the back of the title had been unsuccessfully Murphy. Murphy tried defendant who sold the car to get money back. sign the title or his get either to the defendant State, State’s Secretary of the Murphy complained to the When charges brought County subsequently Attorney Montgomery of against the defendant. a overly broad and argued the statute was
The defendant that where innocent behavior process punished violation of because it due a of title with no intention person incomplete held an certificate Murphy, purchased committing a The court noted that who crime. defendant, charged a have been with car from the also could incomplete title before knowingly possessed since he the same possible he there were various scenarios tried to return it. Beсause parties during purchase a for the of a vehicle where the transaction incomplete an nonculpable possession could be in or innocent title, assignment that such supreme court determined conduct, knowing wholly which is devoid of devious "innocent but Tolliver, intent, guilty felony.” a should not render Ill. 2d at 402. that, legitimate has a
The Tolliver court observed while State statute, an preventing through type interest in car theft this it has equally important protecting interest in otherwise innocent conduct in Expanding prior from criminal on its decision prosecution. a require
v. Gean that the offense contain element, "knowledge” "knowledge” court modified the Tolliver requirement to mean that an accused it had read into the statute only possessed incomplete could if he be convicted of the offense knowledge” "knowledge an intent title with a "criminal with crime,” is, "knowledge plus a that criminal defraud or commit added.) 400-01, (Tolliver, purpose.” (Emphasis 147 Ill. 2d at a criminal Since was no the defendant had there evidence attempted perpetrate a purpose or that defendant stole the car or fraud, finding guilt supreme court reversed the trial court’s discharged the defendant. should be analysis
We believe that the and rule of Tolliver knowledge of section requirement followed the instant case. The 103(a)(4) knowledge,” of the Code must be read to mean "criminal 4— is, "knowledge with an or commit a crime.” intent to defraud missing had no possessor platе Otherwise a of a vehicle a who VIN Here, felony. purpose subject be to a de whatsoever would fendant, though missing which was the result of aware of the VIN theft,
prior came into lawful of vehicle buyer’s registration. of defendant’s Neither the lawfulness Texas challenged by the State. registration has been possession nor There no was involved fraudulent evidence that defendant this activity theft-related in connection with vehicle. suggests, persons with interpreted
If as the State the statute no criminal come into of vehicle purpose tag automatically has a would it or altered Any attempt report plate difficulty a VIN guilty of a Class 2 felony, and there would would constitute an admission to legal anyone ensnared in this "catсh-22.” protection or defense for Therefore, knowledge requirement section we conclude read include the criminal must be in order to requirement adopted by the Tolliver *6 pro- constitutionality of due uphold the of the statute on basis Otherwise, that there was no cess. we would be forced to conclude creating felony statute this relationship reasonable between the conduct deterring theft or fraudulent purpose and the offense penalizes innocent conduct involving automobiles where it plates without the commission acquisition of new VIN precludes because that distinguishable Tolliver is The dissent claims that title, whereas incomplete of an certificate possession case involved disagree. missing VIN number. We present matter involves Gean, case, of matters arises out present like Tolliver and court Tolliver governed by Vehicle Code. the Illinois Indeed, the court holding of that case. limit its to the facts did not that, a clear general proposition absent clearly reaffirmed the contrary, felony penalty "a cannot legislature to the indication (one liability requires which offense” imposed for an absolute (Tolliver, pointed out 2d at As we guilty knowledge). 147 Ill. holding require of Gean to "criminal earlier, refined the Tolliver registration. knowledge” involving auto in cases contrary, readily can we dissent’s contention to Despite the come into vehicles persons in which envision cases Further, we find the tags innocently. altered or with (1983), inappropri Ill. 2d People on v. Brown 98 reliance dissent’s of a defendant conviction upheld Brown the misdemeanor ate. a removed or an with possession of automobile charged with was decided before That case was falsified number. VIN. It is because for this crime. felony punishment 2 Class
imposed "crimi that we must insist felony sentence that now carries crime knowledge” be found conviction. nal
213
conclusion,
this offense
observe
reaching
we
this
is, an
prohibitum,
regulatory or malum
originally considered
carrying
requirement
a scienter
liability offense without
absolute
(See
(1983),
Ill. 2d
v. Brown
penalty.
People
it a misdemeanor
with
knowledge with
read
jurisdictions
have
Other
(Ala.
Crim.
State v.
similar statutes.
purpose or intent into
Self
(firearm
аnalogized
1986),
So. 2d 319
App.
misrepre
VIN;
knowledge and intent to conceal
constitutionality
uphold
identity
read into statute to
sent
of firearm
(1990),
App. 3d
220 Cal.
felony
see also
v. Suk
penalty);
(intent
damage, injure or defraud
prejudice,
Rptr.
269 Cal.
statute).
v. White
But
Commonwealth
expressly stated
cf.
intent or
(requirement of criminal
Since we have statutory Class 2 alternative contention address defendant’s unconstitutionally disproportionate considerеd penalty must be directly theft-related conduct did not involve because defendant’s knowingly possessed activity is as severe as if he had penalty and the plate. In deliberately tampered with the VIN a stolen vehicle or similarly the defendant made People v. Morris There, charged with the the defendant was argument. successful knowingly an altered possessing Class (Ill. 95½, Stat. ch. registration permit for his own vehicle. Rev. (West (b)(2) (now (b)(2) 104(a)(3), 104(a)(3), pars. 625 ILCS 5/4 — 1992)).) unconstitutionally found the The trial *7 by the defendant. the offense committed disproportionate to the defendant had altered court observed that the supreme The vehicle, was no but there registration permit on his own way any vehicle any in alteration contributed evidence that the court was the trial crime. The court concluded theft-related felony penalty of Class holding in unconstitutional the correct applied process as penalty violative of due that offense and found the violated also found the the facts of that case. The court the State constitu- guarantee proportionate penalties under the tion. penalties "All I, provides: the constitution
Article section offense according of the both to the seriousness shall be determined citizenship.” restoring offender to useful objective and with the the (Ill. the I, determined that Const. art. § temporary registration of an altered classifying statute the permit) at same level as (license-applied-for registration permit the. making Class 2 both offenses possession of a stolen motor vehicle requirements of process proportionality felonies the due violated by an the offense was committed the Illinois Constitution where court found no no theft has occurred. The owner of vehicle and by one who owns relationship offense when committed between the legislative purpose legally or who is entitled to the vehicle public against general theft or the protecting owners automobile involving against of crimes stolen automobiles. the commission Morris, 167-68. knowledge of
Here, shows that defendant evidence in have been lawful appeared VIN and relationship his conduct the stated There was between vehicle. higher require- legislative purpose. Absent the 103(a)(4) Code, into ment have now read section which we 4— require finding the Class 2 the rationale Morris would case if the defendant’s the facts this penalty disproportionate interpreta- to be affirmed accord with State’s conviction were tion of.the statute. case, determine, pursuant we to Tolliver facts of this
Under the (147 397), of the Code constitutional Ill. 2d section 4— with "crimi to be committed requires that it the offense the extent is, "knowledge intent with an defraud knowledge,” nal stipulated in the record was a crime.” Since the evidence commit requisite criminal possessed this to show that defendant insufficient Defendant is ordered knowledge, must be reversed. his conviction discharged. Page County is Du reversed. judgment of the circuit сourt of discharged.
Defendant is ordered
Reversed. J.,
QUETSCH, concurs. DOYLE, dissenting:
JUSTICE today’s interpretation I I dissent. am concerned respectfully 103(b) (West 1992)) (625 103(b) may unneces- of section theft anti-vehicle sarily of this State’s most essential impair one and is at view, precedent contravenes my decision measures. the facts. odds with (VINs) numbers system A of vehicle identification uniform
215 theft. key and deterrence of vehicle long been a in the detection tool original unique, a vehicle place to required Manufacturers are as as on certain well produced, on each vehicle (West 1992).) (See Strong 107(g) 625 ILCS parts of the vehicles. 5/4 — for and law State Federal imposed under both penalties criminal are (625 ILCS defacing, destroying the numbers. removing, tampering, or 1993).) 511(a) (West 103(a)(2) (West It 1992); Supp. 18 U.S.C.A. § 5/4 — with receivе, dispose any vehicle illegal buy, possess, sell or (625 103(a)(4) (West 1992)), deficiency ILCS VIN 5/4 — affixing a for substitute explicitly provides procedure and the law (625 regulations a of these plates VIN on found violation vehicle 107(h) (West 1992)). system An this important element of titling registration. is the use of and VINs title, VIN, conjunction and By registration, reference a documentation, history any can be ownership other vehicle from the access informa- Computerized traced manufacturer. to this conclusively agencies swiftly law and tion enables enforcement identify stolen vehicles. removing, apparent knowingly
It is the usual for motive par- a altering, defacing, destroying, falsifying or a VIN is render tracing ownership, ticular vehicle for and purposes unidentifiable cоmmonly exclusively it known that are such acts almost performed shop” personnel. and In the context "chop auto thieves as the (commonly of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act known Act) (18 (West 1993)), Dyer through Supp. 2311 2313 U.S.C.A. §§ changing of on a motor has been numbers vehicle held to constitute concealment, effective purposeful physically which is not less than hiding discovery by prevent the vehicle itself to its the owner or (7th 1936), officers of the States Cir. law. See Donaldson v. United 680, 681; Annot., (1957); Am. Jur. 2d F.2d 56 A.L.R.2d 7A (1980). Automobiles & at 541 Highway § Traffic Because the alteration and of identification numbers destruction theft, inextricably enterprise is so related to vehicle considering magnitude enterprise the inherent this shop” "retag” investigative curtailing "chop obstaсles punish operations, such conduct to be declared 103(b) (West 1992); as a Class 2 see able ILCS 5/4 — 353, at 542 7A Am. Automobiles Highway also Jur. 2d & § Traffic (1980).) system, may impossible VIN it Without an effective often or, suspected auto thief disprove ownership false claim of matter, has been particular whether a vehicle to establish irregularity related to stolen. Unlike an innocent which odometer, title, discovering that a registration, and even its vehicle’s been is a clear impressions have removed vehicle’s previous theft. indication written, law, of this majority validity questions "with against it individuals who imposes punishment
because *** come into of vehicle purpose *9 (256 is, This tag.” App. Ill. 3d at it has a or altered VIN has however, legislature precisely the conduct which the nothing lawful plainly prohibit. intended There can be еither to receiving purchasing, possessing vehicle innocent about knowledge comply or altered. To VINs have been removed its involving law, any transaction required with the are to avoid persons and, any if proper VINs by a vehicle known them to without discovered, replacement affix subsequently immediately is to violation pursuant statute. numbers to by recognized regulations been importance
The of the VIN has problems auto of this since the of legislature the and the courts State constitutionality also emerged, provisions such and of theft the & Am. 2d Automobiles generally 7A Jur. been well established. (1980).) provisions in laws have Early our Highway 353§ Traffic proper against possess vehicles without imposed penalties those any markings, lacking even of violation. VIN Annot., 319 Ill. example, For in v. Billardello "unlawfully charged with the defendant was A.L.R. original possession of a motor vehicle the having custody the and altered, removed, destroyed, engine number of which had been (Billardello, The defen 319 Ill. covered and defaced.” [sic\ conviction, arguing that constitutionality of his challenged dant the knowledge that with no purchased good vehicle faith he had the law, upheld the engine defaced. the number been noting: necessary protection it to the "The has deemed use, unregulated from arising
the from the evils the public vehicles, crimes commit- motor from the sale and transfer of use, they readily so the which are ted their from thefts to and subject, system registration identification. provide to numbers, engine factory on part is based This every manufac- in the bill of sale which which must be shown vehicle, dealer, required motor any on the sale of turer or required, within give purchaser. purchaser to the for a certificate apply Secretary of State days, ten factory registration, application must state his *** Thus, if purchasers engine vehicle. numbers of the law, provisions of the plain will observe the motor vehicles readily may be traced any vehicle ownership of motor is no any time. There owner at to the from the manufacturer hardship provisions to observe every citizen requiring *** By all citizens. protection for the of the law enacted the owner of he becomes care when the exеrcise of reasonable assure himself that vehicle, can purchaser a motor changed and that engine have not been factory and numbers with, they or if complied law have been provisions the have Billardello, 319 Ill. not, See purchase.” he can decline at 127. statutory was a recognized that there specifically Billardello (1921 Ill. Act the Motor Vehicle section 35 of method available under 574), replacement Laws which allowed for the having possession if a Secretary of State obtained from the had, engine original number its a motor vehicle discovered that removed, altered, consent, destroyed, knowledge or been without his 127-28.) (Billardello, provision This Ill. at or defaced. duty with the complied one whо
recognized
protection
to afford
proper
VIN when he
imposed by
the existence of
law and verified
discovered that some
came into
of a vehicle but later
numbers
tampering with identification
subsequent, unlawful
See Bil
violative of the law.
party
third
had rendered
vehicle
lardello,
Prior to Elinois maintained missing or altered VINs. The possession the first, misdemeanor, of motor vehicles with any buy, person made it a "to violation *** receive, if the manufacturer’s possess, dispose sell or of a vehicle falsified, and thereon has been removed or removed or knowledge such has no the number is 102(a)(3).) (See 95½, The par. ch. falsified.” Ill. Rev. Stat. knowledge felony penalties if the individual did have provided second 95½, par. Stat. ch. оf the tainted VIN. Ill. Rev. 103(a)(4).) 4—102 was revised in the former When section 4— absolute (see legislature the Public liability provision was deleted 1, 1991), although January its Act 86—1209 eff. § 4— only permitting imposition the of provisions complied with the rule (see liability People offenses v. misdemeanor sanctions for absolute 401) (1992), constitutionality had and its been Tolliver 374). (see clearly Ill. 2d established v. Brown 98 strikingly are similar arguments present Defendant’s in the case Supreme Court in Brown. directly rejected the Elinois to those formerly offense analyzed knowledge” the "no misdemeanor Brown legislature’s recognized contained in section 4— illegal designed profitability the actions "to inhibit both were automobiles and and the ease with which stolen stolen car market (Brown, legislature The Ill. 2d at parts their are sold.” placed upon determined that be focus of such efforts must plates as as possessors of or removed VIN well vehicles falsified 380). own, sell, (Brown, buy 98 Ill. 2d at those who them Although Brown the case law from Billardello to would constitu possession of a tionally permit to criminalize the vehi VINs, knowledge, ma improper cle with even in the absence of statute, knowledge, jority requires present now holds that the which of only by engrafting can be validated our an additional element "knowledge In requiring with intent to defraud or a crime.” commit by analogy v. majority upon People this additional element the relies however, analogy, 2d do not find valid Tolliver Ill. 397. I title, possessing incomplete between one’s an certificatе Tolliver, proper discussed and the of vehicle without any explains, may As number innocent VINs. Tolliver there why might incomplete. it reasons a certificate of title be left "Since simultaneously signed completely out filled instanta cannot or are at risk neously by parties, buyers, all sellers middlemen process can be either during process. the execution execution (147 interrupted variety out for a innocent reasons.” stretched or understandably Tolliver refused Ill. 2d at showing of liability scienter impose in the absence view, great. my potential for inadvertent violation was where however, the identifica a vehicle with reasonably be or altered cannot tion numbers have been removed innocent an act. Unlike characterized as inadvertent title, in the execution of certificates of omissions which occur removed, altered, destroyed as a routinely part VINs are never selling Knowledge is buying and vehicles. practice common required by section 4—3 of the one of the alternative mental states (West (720 1992); see also Criminal of 1961 Code 5/4 —3 (West 1992)), appears appropriate to me to be an and it ILCS 5/4 —5 in question. VIN statute applicable to the mental state an agree majority I individual who discovers with the cannot is in the "catch-22” identification numbers that his vehicle admitting the than having no alternative other predicament of no worse presumably Such an individual commission of a *11 that someone unsuspecting person discovers position than the person, car. Provided that in the trunk of his placed has cocaine his report delay, authorities to unnecessary contacts without knowingly possessed he said discovery, it cannot be hand, prompt he to corrective if fails take On the other contraband. with knowl- but, instead, operate his automobile continues to steps contents, he risks of edge conviction its unlawful initial lack substance, notwithstanding his a controEed criminality acquiring the substance. to his alternative case had similar present Defendant in the vehicle, i.e., having new VIN of the tainted continued 107(h) (West (See 625 ILCS to statute. pursuant affixed 1992).) to but, instead, knowingly continued comply to He elected not after more than a month for by possessing the law the vehicle violate therefore, case, This being by authorities of the violation. notified in an unavoidable unwittingly trapped not an individual does involve comply with situation, who refused but rather defendant opportunity being ample afforded requirements despite of the law do so. apparently there would majority’s interpretation,
Under the way compel comply for the State ever to defendant rare reasoning, except in the requirement. Under the same "knowledge with prove is able to circumstance which the State crime,” any possess with could intent to defraud or commit vehicles, stripped knowing them to have been impunity one or more universal appears questionable It that the of identification numbers. tо function in numbering system could continue vehicle identification prohibit possessing a vehicle with a State which cannot the act knowledge missing or altered VINs. addition, 136 Ill. 2d majority
In cites v. Morris felony concluding imposition of Class 2 authority penalties disproportionate the seriousness of this offense would be underlying of an the absence of the additional element I that conclusion. purpose. supporting do not read Morris as Morris, temporary possessing the defendant was convicted of ("license sticker”), knowing it registration permit applied for vehicle altered, a Class 2 625 ILCS have been 5/4— 1992).) 104(b)(2)(West was "no re court found that there altering registration lationship between the offense legally which one entitled permit for a vehicle which one owns or to gen against owners theft’ or 'the protection and the of 'automobile involving against of crimes stolen public eral the commission ” (Morris, 168, quoting 136 Ill. 2d at One 1979 Pontiac automobiles.’ Prix, the Class 2 Grand 89 Ill. 2d at The court declared offense disproportionate to be seriousness contrast, (Morris, In clear there exists committed. strong relationship require need to valid VINs between the State’s against owners theft protection on all vehicles and the of automobile involving general public against or the the commission of crimes committing might Although stolen those such acts automobiles. *12 220
incidentally registration permits to facilitate use altered crimes, exist for the arguably culpable their other less motivations outstanding conduct, registration e.g., paying same avoid fee or to the parking guiding principles enunciated the tickets. The appear question, in to than the support, court Morris would rather penalties legislature’s provide strong for authority potential to the when, here, they reasonably designed remedy the as are to serious public resulting from crime. problems vehicle-theft-related (1991), Ill. 3d is my App. v. opinion, People In 208 Steffens present concerning proportionality the directly more instructive felony charged with the Class 2 Steffens, issue. the defendant (an the a item not available to knowingly possessing rosette rivet at general which had not been public plates) and to attach VIN used from, to, original the vehiclе. tached or which had been removed (West 1992).) and possessed 625 Defendant business, he and restoration part resold such rivets his Corvette process and argued penalty violated the due that the classification (See Ill. penalty of the Illinois Constitution. proportionate clauses 11.) I, Noting possession of rivets was art. such Const. §§ legitimately or used great to car and not available to value thieves general public, upheld penalty provisions, the court persons possess to rosette permitting unauthorized concluded 2 purpose, and the Class defeat the statute’s rivets would purpose. reasonably designed effect the statute’s penalty was to App. at Steffens, 208 Ill. 3d 261-62. discretion, police to legislature pursuаnt the State’s
The has wide (Morris, 136 Ill. 2d offenses. power, prescribe penalties for defined 260-61.) position It in the 161; App. at is best Steffens, at 208 Ill. 3d confronting and more society is investigate and ascertain the evils offenses. gauging the seriousness of various capable than a of law in court (Pe 319; Ill. (1985), Steffens, 2d 208 ople 105 Ill. Steppan v. 261.) courts, therefore, pro require as a matter of due App. 3d at rea prescribed particular crime be only penalty cess legislature has which the sonably designed remedy the evils health, general public safety, to the determined to be threat 319; 162; (Morris, Steffens, Ill. 2d at Steppan, 2d Ill. at welfare. hand, proportionate at On the other App. 208 Ill. 3d requires Illinois clause of the Constitution penalties restoring an offender goals constitutional consider the according providing and of citizenship to useful penalties. (People defining crimes the offense when seriousness of dis- judicial 2d A determination 153 Ill. v. Johns cruel, degrading, if justified only punishment proportionality as to shock the offense committed wholly disproportionate so Ill. community. People v. Gonzales the moral sense 235, 240; App. 208 Ill. 3d 261. Steffens, 2d in the proportionality
I find no lack of constitutional would signif- State has penalties provided question. for the offense laws, and such insuring with its VIN compliance icant interest associated problems essential the substantial laws are address range for felony penalty By providing a Class 2 with vehicle theft. to have altered persons it possess thоse vehicle numbers, consider- a trial court is vested with removed identification impose a sentencing sentencing. A able discretion significant culpability, prison term where a defendant substantial *13 discharge probation or conditional consider sentence of factors, where, Aggravating here, mitigating present. factors are similar ties offenses or direct as numerous convictions of prior such of a lon- industry, might warrant consideration the auto theft ger seven-year range. It is not unreason- within the three- to sentence view, able, my to have entrusted trial courts for the with this latitude. court of
Accordingly, judgment I affirm the of the circuit would Page County. Du N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SURWOOD
OLD KENT BANK-ST. CHARLES (American al., Defendants-Appellants Resources et CORPORATION Defendants). al., Development Corporation et District No. 2—92—1080 Second Opinion January filed 1994.