Court Opinion

ID: 9819237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:42.558316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.613618
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RATHJE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The forfeiture of claimant’s vehicle was a violation of his eighth amendment right not to have an excessive fine imposed upon him. Lost in the majority’s extensive legal analysis is the fact that the actual crime committed by claimant involved the theft of items worth a little over $100. For that, he has lost his automobile and, very possibly, his chance to come to grips with the problems that led to the subject offense. Further, the majority discounts claimant’s contention that, in determining the intangible value of the property involved, a higher value should be placed on his car because he was homeless and living in it. The majority states that it is cognizant of the hardship caused by the forfeiture but that any hardship is outweighed by the gravity of the crime. When looking at the actual crime involved, I am hard-pressed to view the term “gravity” as having any relationship to this circumstance. Also, I would submit that few of us are fully cognizant of the hardship imposed upon a person by the forfeiture of the one piece of property that has any substantial monetary value to him. The cases cited by the majority are instructive. People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile, 52 Ill. 2d 37 (1972), involved a crime of violence, namely, armed robbery. In People v. Dugan, 109 Ill. 2d 8 (1985), when the subject vehicle was seized, it contained various gambling materials and $30,000 in cash. The defendant in People ex rel. Carey v. 1975 Mercedes 4-door, 86 Ill. App. 3d 893 (1980), used his vehicle to deliver controlled substances. Conversely, the instant offense is not a crime of violence. Nor does it involve large sums of money or narcotics trafficking. Indeed, when one considers the many criminal activities in which an automobile plays an integral part, one can hardly imagine a more petty offense involving a car than the instant one. Moreover, the majority’s conclusion will encourage an overzealous prosecutor to inflate charges against an unknowing defendant whose crime ostensibly involves an automobile and to later reduce the charges to fit correctly the crime in order to obtain the very type of forfeiture found here. Finally, the ends of justice are not served by this result. Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor retail theft and received his proper punishment for those acts. Unsatisfied with that just result, the State has now taken from claimant one of the very few means by which he could begin to rebuild his life. This punishment does not fit the crime. It should be reversed.