goal is to show you that all these people were entitle to jury trial i traffic offense it's use in your car to commit certain offenses oh it was as if it was never passed and that that drone or promise really hasn't been challenge if in fact there is a lack of you know they give the statute number and they rushed from some and two of them are dui and license revoked and without going into any percentages for that number car because you used your car to commit dui and that's on the face and i'm saying that it's the same thing it's the same thing it adds nothing no no new element to the offense to say we use the car if you drive by license revote your driver my license revoked if you say it was committed with a car's redundant it makes no sense so whether it's sixty percent of the time those two charges or two percent i'm just trying to illustrate how this works works now and i for get into my main case i'd like to just touch upon some of the the police can move your car or relocated say you two need rated to drive you don't have a driver present that is so or you're in an accident and the car has to be moved that's a to but it's not the same thing as an empowerment were if you don't pay for example your car can be forfeited that's a sub that's a separate thing and i want to make sure i'm clear on because fourth amendment protections do apply to empowerment so it's clear and in the cases we've presented in our brief mention that distinction about the second thing is the defendants as well there is no determination of guilt this is in a criminal matter it should be administrative and so forth and i would propose to the court that ordinance violations these types are at best cording to supreme court decisions and the reason they are cause i come in there is some criminality involved here when you say all felonies certain to the rules of civil procedure in large part such as the burden of proof but there is a criminality and i would also suggest that you've got a prosecutor you've got a i would just say that the authority relied by defendant basically for cases and i would suggest that they don't touch upon the issues i'm going to present to the court today the issue that i'm going to using your automobile to commit an offense you are being regulated by ordinance as to the operation or use of your view and this makes sense that this is a political because i was charged with dui i'd be in court and i d s for jury trial or i could have that available if you am used your car to commit that support that notion which i can get into as they get a little farther into my argument but basically what we're saying is that when you use your car a facilitator this offense  or the fine is this position in the case it's not an element of the offense and the elements of the offense here should determine where the trial is so if you have reckless driving and they because let's say my client goes because now we're getting off kind of the face of the document the end of a witch richie had indicated we should stay on but i want to turn that around with that because i think it's a good observation i'm thrown it out or he goes to fact finding trier of fact we're jury or judge and they throw it out that isn't binding on them they go they can  it's an apartment situation it's not really a violation because it's not on the record or have been fine and that's all it takes is the phone it's punishment a part of it is if you have four pneumatic tires you can go twenty miles an hour if you have two hard rubber tires on that car you can only do fifteen and the definition of a motor vehicle was something that wasn't propelled by muscular force and i will add one other thing there was another violation which was three which you up were allowed a jury trial and that's  fine and it is sane you use your vehicle in a home lawful way a forfeiture says the same thing except that the value of the cars the punishment the value of the car so there is a clear analogy or pirlo between the two so even if you go that far he will versus o'malley says in room four pitchers have a right to jury trial that's going round that's were the car or the house that was used to facilitate like drug whatever drug offenses that house or that product can be forfeited and they say you know crime or violation has been proved correct and there are only be a forfeiture if the underlying offense has been proven so that's why i say there's an analogy there's a difference in value  but the now is yours clear it's using your property to commit an offense and the supreme court says you can't do that i mean if you do that they were right to jury trial that's a pretty license or any other number of felonies that are listed in the ordinance that drivers who can be allowed to drive away from the scene something has to be done with the car something has to be done with the truck whatever people the police reports must be completed paperwork filled out for several hours the officer is going to be completing this work and time is money now typically of course taxpayers pick up the tab for officer time but this is a situation where extra time can be attributed to one wrongdoer one person and that's the the owner of the car who allowed the vehicle to be used by a driver who was not a valid driver at the time in reality the owner created the circumstances which caused the extra paperwork in this is just to the shifting thing allowing a portion of public resources police time to be attributed to a person who created that that's the rationale for this ordinance and that rationale has been expressly held proper and reasonable in people versus ratliff now the ordinance here those is directed against the owner of vehicles all this stuff is directed against the driver of the vehicle who violates the code the entire plaintiff's argument is premised on the idea that those people are is one in the same you heard his argument he said you driving your car your he was assuming they were always one in the same sometimes they are but not always ironically in this case alone and not there  name plaintiffs in this case t c christian sr owner of record of the car calvin christian jr was the driver it doesn't his argument does not apply to his own plaintiffs in this case moreover the plaintiffs are asserting a facial constitutional violation on these ordinance is now a facial constitutional challenge as opposed to an as applied constitutional challenge we kreider requires that they prove that there is no circumstances there are no sets of facts under which that ordinance could be v we have one right here a different owner the owner is different from the driver so that driver it's ticketed for red reckless driving as happened in this case the driver has all the rights all the jury trials all the protections of any vehicle code violator in state court the owner who entrusted his car to an invalid driver has the procedures allowed for in the administrative code under this under this ordinance virtually all of their arguments apply only when the owner and the driver are the same thing that's not the case here and it's not always the case however even when it is the case the case laws of provides that veritas is a distinction between civil liability of a vehicle owner and a criminal liability of the driver there's a long standing distinction between criminal one and civil by ability in this state and in this country if they were one in the same there would be double jeopardy involved that argument was expressly rejected by the appellate court in people versus they argued that hey it would be double jeopardy if we get convicted in one and then you're going to have another fine put on top of it and no that was not double jeopardy this is an administrative  fine assessed against the owner of the vehicle even if that owner is the same as the person not in this case but in that case it was the plaintiff's position would also undermined along recognition that both civil and criminal liability and arise out of the same set of facts if i'm driving a car wreck you'll say and i hit somebody i'm going to be criminally liable for reckless driving and i'm also going to be civilly liable to the people that i a different liability and it's a different set of the same set of facts but we have two different remedies here and both of them are available proceedings under the total ordinance do not determine the guilt in this case there was no determination of the driver's guilt it was the driver still had his rights in state court what was a determination was a product preponderance of evidence that the owner submitted to card to be used in those circumstances and yes the same facts were there but it's a different standard of proof and it's a different topic priority and it is a different fine and i would point out punishable by a fine i think you misread that that section ordinance violations punishable by signed by fines don't require a jury trial anyway now we've gone at length in our brief talking about how administrative procedures do not violate separation of powers they do not undermine the right to a jury trial they have been held long held under illinois law and and throughout the united states is dissatisfied due process i don't think we need to really litigate all those a case law venue in this case the plaintiffs are throwing virtually everything end of the kitchen sink at a valid procedure that's been repeatedly up held auroras ordinance virtually the same up held in ratlif chicago ordinance virtually the same up held in job more recently in jackson versus chicago and then just december thirtieth of last year a case that was decided after our briefs went in you'll find slope versus chicago which is twenty fourteen yo at first one forty seven twelve also up held once again to chicago two o i don't think that has any grounds and i think the court was correct to dismiss this case as it stands there if i have an immediate probable cause hearing the administrative five well now it's two fifty but at the under the under the voice at our long it's been impounded there be so much per day correct you pay that and they throw them and then i later go to trial on the re right to a quick hearing it doesn't require a quick hearing if i were in your situation i would ask for a continuance of the of the hearing until i was able to prove my case at the state court and then i'd come back and say look i exonerated the criminal if you've already had the administrative hearing done that's done you'd need to keep both cases open if you are going to rely on that now so  proceed i ask for a continuance there now bearing in mind of course that there's a different standard of proof and exoneration of not guilty at the state court level only means that the state could not prove it by instead of the evidence the car was used by a driver who violated the cor mentioned to me this is two nineteen or were just that the face of the ordinance but one no opposing counsel tells you what the rationale of their ordinances is going beyond  and i feel it's incumbent upon need to inform this court they mention it's an administrative it's not guilty your fine but if you look at the ordinance on its face all it says is fine penalty fine and all the administrative fee it's not in the store and when you construe legislation what do you do to look at the expressed terms of the organs to determine their mea and they don't use any fee here and i would suggest he is generally thought to be in exchange for services so there's a storage fee because your car was stored for the towing fee because someone to you're fine because you did some law and you're punished and that's clear and they know that they told their city council because he said this is the rationale and i want to tell you it isn't even their rationale to create incentive for following lawful rules and regulations to punish defendants for unlawful activity and to regulate conduct based upon the needs of the community it didn't say anything about the purpose being to recoup their costs on the contrary and the study showed a four by a one hundred dollars not five hundred so they had no role of the c and they know that and the case is that they say owner type of thing so it's not a fee it's a fine now the other thing this owner o but still if you drop it on probable cause and you're still guilty in the ministry of hearing they don't change that you've got a conflict think the solution that the ministry of officer trumps the judge the last thing is this owner operator i consider this i'm the owner and i'm basically innocent but i gave the card to somebody and they committed offense to hold me responsible is basically saying you're going to pay the fine because you own the car and i'll say what do you have to prove against me to pay the fine i'm the owner and they will say responsible for the operator and they have to prove the same elements against the operator as they would in order to hold me responsible as you are and what  mixed up world we have if we say the owner who's innocent but he's being held accountable because he owns the car somehow that helps them a thing of the operator now the other thing you didn't mention and it's in our brief and i want to mention very briefly here fourth amendment it's clear when they stop the car there's no question about this when you ordinance recognize that they use the term probable cause that's fourth amendment but it does two things that are illegal this to us two things and number one it does away with any need for  warm every arrest every seizure can be done without war and if the us supreme court says if your client was see your son yes he was when when when they right of the sutra and then the seizure of his property is also protected by the fourth amendment so he has a right to say they had to have probable cause and if they had at the time and the circumstances were such they should get a war this ordinance those away with the war clause of the constitution because every case they don't need a war all they need if you read the  the guy said in the car it says if you sit in the car a motor vehicle with drivers arrests or cited and which so he's in the car so there's a warrant clause in the fourth amendment and the u s supreme court has said you get a warrant if you if you're able to if the circumstances are emergency like you're expected to get a warrant and even if you have probable cause you didn't get the war we're going to throw it out this ordinance those away with the warm clothes it mollifies the war cause and the second thing it does is a probable cause which this on the face this requires if you want to hear it