Court Upholds Impoundment Ordinance But Raises Concerns for Municipalities
In
McGrath v. City of Kankakee, 2016 ILApp (3d) 140523, the court upheld a city ordinance that authorized the
impoundment of vehicles operated by persons under the influence of alcohol or
drugs; whose driver’s license is suspended or revoked; or against whom a
warrant has been issued for failing to appear in court to answer charges of
operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs or for operating a
motor vehicle while that person’s license was suspended or revoked.
When Plaintiff’s vehicle was impounded, she sued claiming the city did not post traffic regulatory signs as required by
section 11-207 of the Motor Vehicle Code warning motorists of the possibility
of municipal impoundment. This section
provides that municipal ordinances that impose traffic regulations not
contained in the Motor Vehicle Code “shall not be effective until signs giving
reasonable notice thereof are posted.”
The city had posted signs, albeit, 5 years after the ordinance was
enacted. The court failed to address the
sign issue due to the fact that the Plaintiff failed to plead when her car was
impounded. In concurrence, Justice
McDade said the case left an important question unanswered: How many individuals were subject to
impoundment when the ordinance was invalid due to the lack of properly posted
signs?
The
court next addressed the Plaintiff’s argument that the ordinance was an
unconstitutional attempt by the city to raise revenue through its police
powers. The court, relying on various
cases involving the City of Chicago, found that the $500 fine was
constitutional. The fine served the legitimate
purpose of deterring criminal activity.
The court stated that a fee must be reasonably related to cost of
providing services, but a fine is intended to be punitive.
Many
municipalities have enacted vehicle impoundment ordinances. The McGrath
case raises but does not answer an important question: Must signs be posted in the municipality
pursuant to section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Code in order to enforce the
impoundment ordinance? Additionally the case provides an apparent safe harbor
for reasonable fines as opposed to administrative fees which must be justified
based on the cost of impoundment.
Municipalities should consult with their municipal attorneys for
guidance on these two important matters following the McGrath case.
Post Authored by Steve Mahrt, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment