Illinois Appellate Court overturns forfeiture on Eighth Amendment grounds

 A recent ruling from the Illinois fifth appellate district has taken what is apparently a first-time approach to civil forfeiture in Illinois by invalidating a seizure based on the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause.

In People v. 2010 Harley-Davidson, 2016 IL App (5th) 150035, the fifth district held that the civil forfeiture of a $35,000 Harley-Davidson trike was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The vehicle's owner, Petra Henderson, was a passenger when her husband, Mark, was arrested and charged with aggravated DUI while driving the vehicle.

Petra raised two issues on appeal: 1) whether she had consented to the use of the motorcycle and 2) whether the forfeiture violated the excessive fines clause. If an individual can demonstrate that a vehicle was used without the knowledge and consent of the owner, then it may not be subject to forfeiture.

In this case, the fifth district found that the weight of the evidence demonstrated that Petra had consented to Mark driving the vehicle. Most observers, however, find the Eight Amendment analysis to be the most compelling aspect of the opinion.

DuPage County attorney Donald J. Ramsell says that the fifth district's ruling is a "breakthrough case" and, to his knowledge, the first in Illinois to find a forfeiture excessive under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fine clause. Ramsell says that there is no "innocent owner defense" to a forfeiture action - even the owner of a stolen car may risk forfeiture if that car is used to commit a crime.

"This case spells out that even if the state proves up its statutory right to forfeiture, it can be overridden by the fact that the fine itself is excessive," Ramsell says. Find out more in the November Illinois Bar Journal.