City’s Impoundment Ordinances Constitutionally Upheld
In Bell
v. City of Chicago, a recent case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals,
the court upheld Chicago's impoundment-related ordinances, despite plaintiffs’
allegations that the ordinances were facially invalid under the Fourth Amendment.
The case arose when Bell was
arrested by Chicago Police Officers for possession of a controlled
substance. At the time of his arrest,
Bell was driving Sprink’s vehicle. Sprink’s vehicle was impounded pursuant to the City’s municipal
code under § 7‐24‐225, which allows officers to impound a vehicle if
they have probable cause to believe the vehicle either contained a controlled
substance of was used in an illegal drug transaction. Two days after Bell’s arrest, Sprink
challenged the impoundment before an administrative law judge, who found that
there was probable cause at the time of the impoundment since the vehicle
contained illegal drugs. The
administrative law judge subsequently found that Sprink violated § 7‐24‐225, assessing a
$2,000 penalty and $180 in storage and towing fees.
Bell and Sprink
filed suit against the City and a district court dismissed the case. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the impoundment
ordinances were unconstitutional because the ordinances permit warrantless
seizures of vehicles in all instances and allow a City administrative law
judge, a non-judicial officer, to determine whether there is probable cause to
keep a vehicle impounded.
The 7th Circuit first noted that, when
making a facial challenge to an ordinance under the Fourth Amendment, plaintiffs have the
burden of “establishing that a law is unconstitutional in all of its
applications.” In analyzing the challenge to the impoundment ordinance, the court balanced the government interest against the private interest. Here, the court found that
the warrantless seizures authorized under the City’s ordinances were no
different than those authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Warrantless seizures are not unreasonable
under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has probable cause to believe that
the vehicle was used to violate the law.
The 7th Circuit also found that the City's use of administrative law judges was a
post-seizure procedure that did not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
This case not only reminds us of the
importance of a well-plead complaint, but as an example of the heavy burden that plaintiffs face when making a facial
challenge under the Fourth Amendment.
Post Authored by Katie O'Grady, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment