Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Illinois State Police donating expired protective equipment to Ukraine
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The city for years relied on its interpretation of a state legislative “drafting error” to impose hundreds of millions in fines? Brilliant. What could possibly go wrong?…
An Illinois appellate court ruled Friday that the city of Chicago unlawfully overcharged some residents who were ticketed for failing to have a vehicle sticker, which one car owner said led him to declare bankruptcy after he racked up thousands of dollars in fines.
Attorney Jacie Zolna, who represents three residents in a lawsuit that led to the ruling, said the decision sets the stage for a possible class-action lawsuit that could see hundreds of millions of dollars in ticket debt come under scrutiny. […]
Vehicle stickers are at the heart of the case. The city charges $95 annually for a passenger car sticker, with the money going toward road maintenance. Failing to display a sticker can mean a ticket.
State law sets the maximum penalty for such an offense at $250, but city attorneys argued that was “a drafting error” in the vehicle code, according to the appellate court ruling. They said the legislature intended the true ceiling to be $500 and the city charged accordingly, with a $200 ticket bringing an additional $200 fine if not paid within 25 days.
* From the opinion…
Although we rest our interpretation of this statute on its plain language and our resistance to any assumption that there has been a legislative error, we note that the history of the $500 cap in section 11-208.3(a) also supports this understanding. For most of section 11-208.3’s history, the caps in subsections (a) and (b)(10) were both set at $250. Then, in 2010, the statute was amended to allow for the administrative adjudication of violations of section 11-1201.1 of the Vehicle Code, a provision that deals with automated railroad crossing enforcement systems. See Pub. Act 96- 478, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010) (amending 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3(a)). As part of this same amendment, in addition to new language on section 11-1201.1, the cap in section 11-208.3(a) was raised to $500 for the first time, presumably to accommodate the higher fines now permitted by the new railroad crossing statute. See id. Meanwhile, in that same 2010 amendment, the $250 cap in section 11-208.3(b)(10) was left unchanged. See id. Plaintiffs argue convincingly that the decision not to raise the $250 figure in section 11-208.3(b)(10), either in 2010 or in any subsequent amendments, reflects a legislative intent “to leave in place the $250 limitation for the ordinance violations that were already in existence prior to the passage of the railroad safety law.”
Seems reasonable.
Also, if the city truly believed this was an error, the brain trust shoulda passed a trailer bill to clean it up.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:10 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Illinois State Police donating expired protective equipment to Ukraine
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Speculation, did the City only read the bill synopsis and not bill? This will be interesting to watch play out.
SB 148 (2009), p. 11 line 20 of the enrolled changes $250 to $500, but p. 20 line 5 does not make the second change.
https://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0148&GAID=10&GA=96&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=40585&SessionID=76&SpecSess=
Comment by Ozzy Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:26 pm
And give up a revenue stream? As if.
Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:29 pm
The legislature “intended” to charge more. So we did. /S
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:33 pm
So none of the state legislatures residing in Chicago never noticed this going on? The average person has been charged these fees and at least knows people who have. This is what being out of touch looks like.
Comment by Real Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:34 pm
The real comedy in this is that the wheel tax - which is what the city sticker is - is supposed to fund city road maintenance (all those potholes make one wonder). As Dirty Red already noted, if the city is making money on it, you’re going to have to pry it out of their hands to take it away.
Comment by Just a guy Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:53 pm
It’s the City! “Don’t print what he said, print what he meant!”
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:57 pm
“Hundreds of millions”??
Really? The issue is $150 per late payment penalty (the amount over the cap).
Have there really been over 50,000 city sticker tickets issued per year AND paid late?
Comment by Chris Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 3:58 pm
This case doesn’t make sense to me. The sticker requirement is a revenue matter, not a parking or moving violation that would be subject to section 11-208.3 of the Vehicle Code. The city has authority both under its home-rule powers and under division 2.1 of the Illinois Municipal Code to hold adjudications for nontraffic offenses, where the fines are, indeed, $500. Everyone in this case seems to assume that the Vehicle-Code procedures apply here.
The court’s reasoning is somewhat circular here. The statute references the fine amount twice. The city’s argument is that the legislature made a change in one subsection of the statute but forgot to make the corresponding change in the other. The court said that the evidence against against a mistake is that the legislature didn’t make the change. That’s not exactly airtight logic. The fact that a typo exists is not evidence that the typo was intended.
That said, it takes some moxie to claim a statutory typo to charge higher fees.
Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 4:00 pm
I always thought that legislative intent referred to things that weren’t specifically spelled out in the legislation, but were intended by the legislation. But there is nothing more spelled out than an actual number.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 4:09 pm
Well, see, sometimes in Illinois, as we’ve seen in the past two years, you can convince judges that what the law says isn’t actually what it means.
So, it’s always worth a try.
Settlement forthcoming soon.
Comment by JB13 Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 4:09 pm
Really? The issue is $150 per late payment penalty (the amount over the cap).
Have there really been over 50,000 city sticker tickets issued per year AND paid late?
Yeah there have because they can issue a new $200 ticket every day until you get a sticker. So if a person can’t afford the $95 sticker fee right away what makes the law makers think they then can afford a $200 fee not including the new sticker. Then having said ticket fee double in 25 days.
Comment by Real Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 4:10 pm
Ask for a Formal Attorney General’s Opinion?
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 4:29 pm
@duck duck goose -
Your argument is that Senate President Don Harmon did not know what was in his own bill, or that there was a typo that the City and its 25 lobbyists including Bill Luking didn’t catch. Not just once, but three times.
You are the one not making sense.
The likelier explanation is that the city came up with this drafting error explanation after the fact.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, May 10, 22 @ 5:11 pm
Typical of how Chicago “works”…
Comment by Elliott Ness Wednesday, May 11, 22 @ 7:59 am
Juvenal–
None of those things were my argument. Try reading slower and maybe sounding out the words.
Comment by duck duck goose Wednesday, May 11, 22 @ 8:40 am
I see this as a double whammy for City of Chicago general operating budget. Another recent court ruling told them vehicle fees have to be used exclusive for transportation related work, not general budget (per “lock box” amendment). With this ruling they will likely have to pay back a large amount in over charged late fees (likely with interest).
Comment by From DaZoo Wednesday, May 11, 22 @ 9:02 am
===Another recent court ruling told them ===
That was Cook, not Chicago.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 11, 22 @ 9:04 am
=== That was Cook, not Chicago. ===
Ugh. Apologies for the mix-up.
Maybe Cook will help Chicago fund the reimbursements since it’s transportation funding related? /s
Comment by From DaZoo Wednesday, May 11, 22 @ 1:28 pm