 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. One 2000 GMC5/27/2005
Claimant, Daniel Durham, appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County in favor of the State on its complaint for the forfeiture of a GMC vehicle owned by Durham. Durham contends that the forfeiture violates the prohibition against excessive fines set forth in the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. VIII). Durham also contends that the State failed to comply with certain procedural requirements for forfeiture. We affirm.
On October 18, 2002, the State filed its complaint for the forfeiture of Durham's vehicle. The complaint sought forfeiture solely on the basis that the vehicle had been used in the commission of the offense of driving with a suspended license (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a), (g) (West 2002)). The vehicle was seized from Durham after he was arrested for that offense and for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11--501 (West 2002)). Durham subsequently pleaded guilty to both offenses. At the time of his arrest, a summary suspension of Durham's driver's license was in effect pursuant to section 11--501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11--501.1 (West 2002)). Pursuant to a judicial driving permit, Durham was allowed to drive between 5:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., but his arrest occurred at 12:54 a.m. The record establishes that the vehicle was worth $28,000. Durham filed an answer to the State's complaint, and following a hearing, the trial court ordered the forfeiture of the vehicle. Durham filed a timely notice of appeal.
Section 36--1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Criminal Code) (720 ILCS 5/36--1 (West 2002)) provides, in pertinent part, that " ny vessel, vehicle or aircraft used with the knowledge and consent of the owner in the commission of, or in the attempt to commit * (g) an offense described in subsection (g) of Section 6--303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code may be seized and delivered forthwith to the sheriff of the county of seizure." Section 36--2 of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/36--2 (West 2002)) authorizes the State's Attorney of the county in which the seizure occurred to file a complaint seeking forfeiture of the seized vehicle. Section 6--303(a) of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a) (West 2002)) provides that a person commits a Class A misdemeanor by driving on any highway when his or her license has been suspended. Section 6--303(g) provides, in pertinent part, that " he motor vehicle used in a violation of this Section is subject to seizure and forfeiture as provided in Sections 36--1 and 36--2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 if the person's driving privilege was * suspended * as a result of a summary suspension [under section 11--501.1 of the Vehicle Code]." 625 ILCS 5/6--303(g) (West 2002).
The record shows that the statutory criteria for seizure and forfeiture have been met, but Durham initially contends that the forfeiture nonetheless violates the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits, among other things, the imposition of "excessive fines" (U.S. Const., amend. VIII). This prohibition "limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, 'as punishment for some offense.' " (Emphasis in original.) Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 609-10, 125 L.Ed. 2d 488, 497, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2805 (1993), quoting Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 265, 106 L.Ed. 2d 219, 232, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 2915 (1989). Civil forfeiture proceedings serve, at least in part, to punish the owner of the property subject to forfeiture and are therefore subject to the excessive fines clause even though the forfeiture may also serve a remedial purpose. Austin, 509 U.S. at 618, 621-22, 1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|