of that word so for this the purposes of this argument since that is not the city's argument the city's argument is that this is in fact a fine i will address the questions and brought up whether it's believe she had noticed what she was doing was hot basically no cases cited by either the city or petition in this case in even the motion for summary judgment in response in either labeling it through out the ordinance as a fee not apply not penalty states that the fee is based on the amount of resources expended by the police department and is designed to recoup the costs associated with processing certain arrests at it no where in that language is it to deter crime no where in any of the paragraphs of this ordinance does it say it's to deter crime if that if every other controlling aspect of the fee and the attributes to it i would say that yes that could be evidence of the fact that it would be a fine however other cases have had sight that were cited in both quite frankly say that just because it's a two tier system or not not to your system just because the amount of the charge varies based on the gravity of the fence means that it is clearly a fly that independent of a defendant being convicted of an underlying ascents suggest that it's a again cited in the brief these may find is after a trial or after a finding vehicle and quite frankly knowing how some of these cities operate it may be imposed prior to the charges even being filed with the circuit clerk depending on how each human being how the city the family lost their cases over to the circuit box office before the individual is prosecutor before the individual is found to have done something wrong because it has all of the attributes and i'm sorry i can not be found to be rationally related to the legitimate interests if this were let's say thirty seven dollars fifty cents for the clerk to write that that we see out hand it to the individual that might be walk in just to the city clerk's office and get a receipt and go take it to the tony arms of the get their vehicle it's basically being held hostage in till they get that greasy under no circumstances can i find where five hundred dollars for this is rationally related claim to pass officially that the fee is not rationally related to the cost of writing this your say and there is a question of fact as to the reasonableness of this each conviction or each court supervision probation whatever the case there is nothing here the city has not provided anything to the court that shows that this five hundred dollars is rationally related to that court writing that receipt finally resolution of this issue requires actual determination as to whether or not this can be considered reasonable and can be rationally deemed rationally related  only reimburse is the government for some cost in prosecuting the planet that is the dispositive issue in this case and the answer the question is the charge in this case absolutely does not do that in any way shape or form and even the plaintiff's argument as to why this is a fee he acknowledges that and i cite from page twenty  that's the plainest belief they believe that for that purpose and for a purely punitive purpose but that purpose means their argument means that it is not a fe not part of the kind of language and the ordinance it's not part of the statutory language that's akin to legislative history but i'm fine with plaintiff considering that grama because it drives home th point that this is not about prosecution costs the plaintiff attempts to avoid that rule by expanding it and claiming that it's broader than what it is and and and basically meant fighting in  their breach and there's two problems with that st it's misquoting the rule and you know for that reason i'd like to just briefly quote directly from mel my supreme court and grades because this is the most important and like i said the dispositive issue in this case and in grades illinois supreme court said the most important factor is whether the charge seeks to compensate the state for any costs incurred as a result of prosecuting them and that this is the central characteristic which separates it from a fine and this is the most important for a charges a fee if and only if it is intended to reimburse the state for some cost incurred and dependents prosecution and appellate courts have gone on to say a prosecution contest is something tax by a court like a filing fee or a jury obviously that's not what this charge actually refers to this being a fine or a no and that that's not if i were arguing on behalf of plant that's what i'd be pointing out but it's a very very weak argument because they always bring court says despite the fact you look the statutory language and you give the ordinary meaning to the plain language they want supreme court says in these cases you have to look at the attributes of the charge costs therefore it doesn't meet the test and it's a fine and i can tell you just as overstreet we've been let again this case for a long time i've reviewed probably every case out there i've reviewed legislative history i've reviewed the city mislabeled you know the charge but whether they mislabeled or not can't overcome the actual attributes and since this has all of the attributes of the fine and none of the attributes t the mislabeling is irrelevant and most importantly go back to the the prosecution cost factor that is the the dispositive issue and this is not to fun prosecution costs and therefore it's a fee well noise supreme court just does but players making the argument now know that sweeps far too broadly law enforcement costs are not and said that even though the the state police operations assistance fee is labeled fee it is a fine because it does not reimburse the state for prosecution cause and if you look at the ordinance it absolutely has nothing to do prosecution this is not charging somebody a feat for the like an administrative hearing that would be a feat that would be a prosecution because this is and posing a charge because somebody violated a law now plant saying that charted there to generate revenue for the city's police department plaintiffs can say that the result is the same as not a prosecution cause that's the end of the case there's nowhere else for plaintiff to go here that is the dispositive issue there's no getting around it  the ministre seat which is a fine was imposed no matter what and was imposed hearing i don't really understand where the plaintiff is getting that from because that's exactly not what the statutes are but they wouldn't says the things then you're charged amount of money now you have options when you're charged that of that amount money which is a penalty no other way to put it and you get you're given options and you can paid the fine and be done and that's what the planets did in this case alternatively you can say no i want to hearing and i'm i'm going to prove that i didn't violate the ordinance in that situation you don't pay the fine you post a bond that bond is returned to you if you later prevail in your case your ministry of hearing if you don't it's applied the bond is shifted over  if you if there's a not guilty judgement in your criminal case or whoever the violator is and in the criminal case you come back we refund your fine now that's not demonstrating that it's punitive in nature that you get returned a fine returned if there's a not guilty finding your criminal case i don't know i don't know what is but it is under true that the ordinance requires the payment without any your options so if a person comes in say hypothetically they get a dui on a friday night they come in on monday tuesday they pay whatever the amount is to go get their car  you said they are essentially pleading guilty correct if they don't slack the hearing process if they say we don't we're not electing a right to have a hearing then it's no different than you know a criminal case where you'd be saying i paid a fine i'm not going to like you get a speeding ticket i'm not going to pay i'm not going to challenge and i'm going to send my payment i'm not challenging but a dui has far more drastic outcomes and what it may have on your driving privileges whatnot and say a speeding ticket my point being or my question is if that person goes to trial at a later date is the fact that they paid that early on is that users during that trial to say they admitted guilt things i said that no it is just the bond is just an unfortunate mechanism this is civil not criminal so you're not determining whether somebody actually had a dui or this is a this goes to the vehicle owners and these these ordinances been challenged and court seven circuit  is considered i believe that the u s supreme court is considered with the n s a and owner provisions and stuff like that but you it is a civil penalty for tied to somebody using or allowing their vehicle to be used so you're not getting convicted why you're not pleading guilty and it's not used evidence of that do you why you're just you know you are submitting a bond as an important mechanism so you can get your vehicle back and the city can in court you know on a weekly basis attempting to recover on so this is the civil penalty it's not it's not a criminal county and and the bond is not admission  violate an ordinance and impose one charge at the end of it if they did and that's called a fee it doesn't exist in law and it doesn't exist in illinois i don't think it exists in a state you don't have a hearing procedure to determine whether you're going to these are collateral consequences of fines and they're automatically imposed that's not what this is so the fact that there isn't a ministry project adjudication procedure which is  demonstrates it cannot be a fee and clearly that the charge is punitive in nature it's saying if you use your vehicle or allow your view vehicle to be used in the commission of crimes and it's proven by proponents of the evidence which is a civil penalty standard you have to pay an amount of money and doesn't get more to be more punitive than that and is no different than getting a speeding ticket or having some other criminal offense it's just it's a civil standard and the th circuit has held that civil penalties can be used to supplement criminal can act and impose penalties up to seven or fifty dollars so this is well within the city's rights to do this and they you know the plaintiff may not like it but the city can use it is a fine and there is no question it's a fine because it does this spring court rule on graves and jones that it has to go to prosecution costs reimburse the state prosecution costs obviously the sudden significant and severe criminal issues are our criminal laws that are involved in the ordinance imposing a fine of five hundred dollars and two hundred and fifty slope which is one i would point the court to and that's where the city of chicago imposed a fine for the exact same ordinance up to two thousand dollars and it was found to be not grossly disproportionate  so clearly the city's fine is not grossly disproportionate and for that reason and that reason alone it's it's constitutional just like to hit on the point one more time argument's been rejected and it's no good jones and millsap over that because of that it is a fine and it's not grossly disproportionate and for those reasons the decision of the circuit court to grant summary judgment should be thanking the good counsel th bond is not an admission of guilt so i know you can't have it both ways either he's admitting guilt when he case the fee or he's not admitting guilt when and this is not a fine and admission of you know that he has done that that this is car the hearing would come later after he has paid the state you do not pay a fine and then have a hearing to determine whether or not you should have been charged that you are fine after you have been found  guilty or have the only thing i can think of is found guilty he likened it to getting a traffic ticket you don't pay the traffic ticket when you receive it you pay the traffic ticket either most don't have trials but after a trial or  finding of courts the provision or probation or something that it's not like a traffic ticket this is a fee plain and simple he like that the trial court is asking you to disregard all of the case law including the charge is only imposed after a conviction and to whom the payment is made this is great citing jobs so again there are at their case goes on and determines whether if it is a charge for labor only because then they go on to explain and that there are other factors that determine whether this is a fee or a fine painting a hat on just that one sentence of that one case quite frankly is wrong because the rest of the case law states that you have to look at everything in totality and you have to look at what the bees are or the costs are what this charge is to do is it to punish or is it to recoup costs this one is to recoup cos fees and they have attributes that can't get in i can't explain it any differently i'm not sure how this can be determined fine when there is nothing in it that is attributable to a even being prosecuted a clear and huge distinction in my canyon and i politics that it's not because in a word but it's a huge distinction to me that i would believe that this would be a fine if the