Hayenga v. City of Rockford

Illinois Official Reports
Appellate Court
Hayenga v. City of Rockford, 2014 IL App (2d) 131261
Appellate Court THERESA HAYENGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE CITY OF
Caption ROCKFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No. Second District
Docket No. 2-13-1261
Filed October 30, 2014
Held A decision by an administrative hearing officer for defendant city, a
(Note: This syllabus non-home-rule unit of government, upholding the impoundment of
constitutes no part of the plaintiff’s automobile after drug paraphernalia was discovered
opinion of the court but following a stop for a minor traffic violation was properly reversed by
has been prepared by the the trial court on administrative review, notwithstanding the city’s
Reporter of Decisions contentions that the impoundment was authorized under a municipal
for the convenience of ordinance and state law and that the trial court erred in denying the
the reader.) city’s motion to reconsider, since section 17-41(a)(12) of the city’s
ordinances did not expressly authorize the city to impound a vehicle, it
merely provided for the imposition of fees and costs related to an
impounded vehicle, the city forfeited its argument that it had authority
to impound the vehicle under section 11-208.7 of the Vehicle Code by
failing to raise that argument in the administrative proceedings, and
the city also forfeited its arguments against the denial of its motion to
reconsider by failing to raise those arguments during the
administrative hearing.
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, No.
Review 13-MR-397; the Hon. Eugene G. Doherty, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Kerry F. Partridge and Ifeanyi C. Mogbana, both of City of Rockford
Appeal Department of Law, of Rockford, for appellant.
Charles J. Prorok, of Prorok Law Office, P.C., of Rockford, for
appellee.
Brian D. Day and Roger Huebner, both of Illinois Municipal League,
of Springfield, amicus curiae.
Panel JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Justices Jorgensen and Spence concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 After defendant, the City of Rockford (City), a non-home-rule unit of government,
impounded a vehicle owned by plaintiff, Theresa Hayenga, she brought an administrative
action. The administrative hearing officer ruled in favor of the City. On administrative
review, the trial court reversed the administrative hearing officer’s decision and ruled that the
City did not have the authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle. The City appeals the trial
court’s decision, arguing that: (1) the City was authorized to impound Hayenga’s vehicle
under a municipal ordinance; (2) the City had authority under state law to impound
Hayenga’s vehicle; and (3) the trial court erred by denying the City’s motion to reconsider.
We affirm the trial court’s decision.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 On January 2, 2013, at approximately 11 p.m., Matthew Wiseman, Hayenga’s boyfriend,
was driving Hayenga’s vehicle, alone, when he was pulled over by the Rockford police for a
burned-out rear license-plate light. Rockford police officer Christopher Jones observed
multiple firearms, in plain view, on the backseat of the car. Upon Jones’s request, Wiseman
stepped out of the car. During a search of Wiseman, Jones found in Wiseman’s pocket a glass
bowl or pipe with what appeared to be cannabis residue. Jones arrested Wiseman for
unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See 720 ILCS 600/3.5
(West 2012). Jones also issued Wiseman a citation for the traffic violation and impounded
Hayenga’s vehicle. Hayenga sought an administrative hearing, challenging the City’s
authority to impound her vehicle.
¶4 During the administrative hearing on March 8, 2013, the City argued that it had authority
to impound Hayenga’s vehicle pursuant to section 17-41(a)(12) of the Rockford Code of
Ordinances (Rockford Code of Ordinances § 17-41(a)(12) (adopted Dec. 19, 2011)).
Hayenga argued that section 17-41(a)(12) did not grant authority to impound vehicles,
because it addressed only fees and procedures regarding impounded vehicles. Hayenga also
-2-
argued that the impoundment was improper because Wiseman was arrested for a
misdemeanor, such that “he did not have to be brought before a magistrate” without
unnecessary delay, and the City “had absolutely no authority to impound the vehicle” under
state law. Further, the City had no statutory authority for its interpretation of its ordinance.
¶5 During the administrative hearing on April 12, the City argued that it relied on section
11-208.7(b)(12) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-208.7(b)(12) (West 2012)) in
enacting section 17-41(a)(12). The administrative hearing officer stated that there were no
questions of fact and that section 17-41(a)(12)’s validity was a question of law. The hearing
officer stated, “I do find this City’s ordinance allows and is proper in accordance with State
law and with [the Rockford police department’s probable-cause statement] and I will uphold
the impounding of the vehicle.”
¶6 The probable-cause statement indicated the following. Jones stopped Wiseman “for no
rear registration light in the 1100 block of N. Church St.” Because Jones observed multiple
firearms on the backseat (the guns were later determined to be “BB/CO2 guns”), Jones had
Wiseman step out of the vehicle and patted him down. Jones removed from Wiseman’s
pocket a glass bowl or pipe used to ingest cannabis and took him “into custody at 1100 N.
Church St. without incident.”
¶7 On April 23, 2013, Hayenga timely filed a complaint for administrative review in the trial
court, alleging that “[t]he decision of the Hearing Officer was contrary to the law, against the
manifest weight of the evidence and clearly erroneous”; section 17-41(a)(12) did not
authorize the impoundment of her vehicle; and the City did not otherwise have authority to
impound her vehicle, because Wiseman “could have legally parked the vehicle where it was
stopped.” Hayenga asked the trial court to reverse the decision of the administrative hearing
officer and order her vehicle returned to her without the payment of fees or costs.
¶8 The City responded, arguing that it had authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle pursuant
to section 17-41(a)(12), which mirrored section 11-208.7(b)(12) of the Vehicle Code.
¶9 On September 6, the trial court ruled that the City did not have authority to impound
Hayenga’s vehicle. The trial court’s order states, “Section 17-41 of [the Code of Ordinances]
does not enable [the City] to impound the Plaintiff’s vehicle.”
¶ 10 On October 1, the City filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that it had authority to
impound Hayenga’s vehicle because Wiseman was arrested for a Class A misdemeanor (720
ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2012)); the vehicle was on a “highway” within the meaning of section
11-1302(c)(3) of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-1302(c)(3) (West 2012)) (authorizing
towing a vehicle after an arrest); and section 109-1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
1963 (725 ILCS 5/109-1(a) (West 2012)) mandated the police to arrest Wiseman and
transport him to the Winnebago County jail “without unnecessary delay.”
¶ 11 The trial court denied the City’s motion on October 31, reasoning that “citation of
existing authority to support a new theory of the City’s position is not a proper basis for
reconsideration.” On November 20, the City filed a notice of appeal.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 The City urges this court to reverse the trial court’s decision that it had no authority to
impound Hayenga’s vehicle. The City argues that it had authority under section 17-41(a)(12)
of its Code of Ordinances.
-3-
¶ 14 On appeal, this court reviews the determination of the agency and not that of the trial
court. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497, 531 (2006). The
factual findings of the agency are deemed prima facie true and correct. Livingston v.
Department of Employment Security, 375 Ill. App. 3d 710, 714 (2007). This court will not
overturn such findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lyon v.
Department of Children & Family Services, 209 Ill. 2d 264, 271 (2004). “An administrative
agency decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion
is clearly evident.” Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d
76, 88 (1992). However, we review de novo questions of law. See Lyon, 209 Ill. 2d at 271.
¶ 15 We first note that the parties agree that the City is a non-home-rule unit. As a
non-home-rule unit, the City is governed by “Dillon’s Rule.” See Janis v. Graham, 408 Ill.
App. 3d 898, 902 (2011). Under “Dillon’s Rule,” a non-home-rule unit possesses only those
powers specifically granted by the Illinois Constitution or by statute. Id. However, when
exercising authority to regulate in a particular field, a non-home-rule unit may not adopt an
ordinance that infringes upon the spirit of the state law or is repugnant to the general policy
of this state. Id.
¶ 16 The City argues that “the Administrative Hearing Officer properly construed section
17-41(a)(12) as authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle.” Hayenga argues that section
17-41(a)(12) merely authorized the City to impose administrative fees and did not authorize
the City to impound Hayenga’s vehicle.
¶ 17 The rules of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of municipal ordinances.
Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2013 IL 110505, ¶ 48. The primary
objective of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the
legislature. Id. The best indication of the legislative intent is the statutory language, given its
plain and ordinary meaning. Id. We review de novo a question of statutory construction. Id.
¶ 18 Section 17-41(a)(12) provides:
“Sec. 17-41.-Administrative fees and procedures for impounding vehicles for
specified violations.
(a) The city, in addition to any fees charged for the towing and storage of an
impounded vehicle, shall impose on the registered owner of the motor vehicle or
the agents of that owner, a reasonable administrative fee related to its
administrative and processing costs associated with the investigation, arrest, and
detention of an offender, or the removal, impoundment, storage and release of a
vehicle for the following violations:
***
(12) Operation or use of a motor vehicle in the commission of, or in the
attempt to commit, any other misdemeanor or felony offense in violation of
the Criminal Code of 1961 when so provided by local ordinance.” (Emphases
added.) Rockford Code of Ordinances § 17-41(a)(12) (adopted Dec. 19,
2011).
¶ 19 In this case, the administrative hearing officer determined that the City’s ordinance
permitted the impoundment of Hayenga’s vehicle and was in accordance with section
11-208.7(b)(12) of the Vehicle Code. It is this decision that we must review. See Marconi,
225 Ill. 2d at 531.
-4-
¶ 20 The City contends that the administrative hearing officer reasonably determined that the
City was authorized to impound Hayenga’s vehicle pursuant to its ordinance and section
11-208.7(b)(12) of the Vehicle Code.
¶ 21 The City acknowledges in its brief, “Section 17-41 of the [Code of Ordinances] does not
expressly authorize the arrest of a driver or the ability to impound a vehicle.” (Emphasis
added.) After reviewing the language of the ordinance, there can be no other conclusion.
Nothing in the ordinance authorizes the City to impound a vehicle. The ordinance addresses
the imposition of fees and costs related to an impounded vehicle; it does not grant authority
to impound. Whether the ordinance is in accordance with section 11-208.7(b)(12) of the
Vehicle Code does not matter for our purposes here. The ordinance relied upon by the City
for impoundment is insufficient. Accordingly, the administrative hearing officer erred by
determining that the ordinance authorized the impoundment of Hayenga’s vehicle.
¶ 22 The City argues that as a non-home-rule unit it had explicit authority to impound
Hayenga’s vehicle pursuant to section 11-208.7 of the Vehicle Code. The City also contends
that section 11-208.7 should be construed as part of a comprehensive legislative framework
that ensures the safety of the members of the public who use the public roadways. However,
the City failed to raise these arguments during the administrative process. The record
indicates that, regarding section 11-208.7 of the Vehicle Code, the City argued only that it
relied on that section in enacting section 17-41(a)(12). Accordingly, the City’s “explicit
authority” argument is forfeited. Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182 Ill. 2d
262, 278 (1998) (“issues or defenses not placed before the administrative agency will not be
considered for the first time on administrative review”); see 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2012).
¶ 23 Even if the City had raised the argument that section 11-208.7 of the Vehicle Code
granted it explicit authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle, its argument would fail. We
agree with Hayenga’s argument that nothing in section 11-208.7 grants authority to impound
vehicles. Section 11-208.7 provides:
Ҥ 11-208.7. Administrative fees and procedures for impounding vehicles for
specified violations.
(a) Any municipality may, consistent with this Section, provide by ordinance
procedures for the release of properly impounded vehicles and for the imposition of a
reasonable administrative fee related to its administrative and processing costs
associated with the investigation, arrest, and detention of an offender, or the removal,
impoundment, storage, and release of the vehicle. The administrative fee imposed by
the municipality may be in addition to any fees charged for the towing and storage of
an impounded vehicle. The administrative fee shall be waived by the municipality
upon verifiable proof that the vehicle was stolen at the time the vehicle was
impounded.
(b) Any ordinance establishing procedures for the release of properly impounded
vehicles under this Section may impose fees for the following violations:
***
(12) operation or use of a motor vehicle in the commission of, or in the
attempt to commit, any other misdemeanor or felony offense in violation of the
Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, when so provided by local
ordinance.” (Emphases added.) 625 ILCS 5/11-208.7 (West 2012).
-5-
¶ 24 Hayenga argues that section 11-208.7 of the Vehicle Code does not grant authority to
impound vehicles. Hayenga argues that section 11-208.7 “clearly and unambiguously
provides for a procedure for non-home-rule entities to ‘provide by ordinance for procedures
for release of properly impounded vehicles and for the imposition of a reasonable
administrative fee.’ ” (Emphasis added.) See 625 ILCS 5/11-208.7(a) (West 2012).
¶ 25 We agree with Hayenga’s interpretation. Nothing in section 11-208.7 of the Vehicle Code
grants authority to impound vehicles. The plain and ordinary language of subsection (a)
grants non-home-rule units the power to enact ordinances to establish procedures for the
release of “properly impounded vehicles” and for the imposition of reasonable fees.
Subsection (b), likewise, limits a non-home-rule unit’s power to impose fees pursuant to its
procedures for the release of vehicles that were “properly impounded.” Thus, section
11-208.7 does not grant non-home-rule units the power to impound vehicles. Accordingly,
even if the City had not forfeited its argument that section 11-208.7 granted it explicit
authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle, that argument would fail.
¶ 26 The City argues that this interpretation is illogical because it grants municipalities the
authority to impose fees for impounding vehicles while denying municipalities the authority
to impound those same vehicles. We disagree with the City’s argument. The plain and
ordinary language of section 11-208.7 does not deny non-home-rule units the power to
impound vehicles; rather, it requires that those vehicles are “properly impounded.” However,
the record indicates that the City failed to argue that Hayenga’s vehicle was “properly
impounded.” Further, nothing in the record indicates that the administrative hearing officer
made any findings regarding this issue. Rather, the City relied only upon, and the
administrative hearing officer ruled only upon, whether the City had authority to impound
pursuant to its ordinance in accordance with section 11-208.7. Thus, we need not discuss
whether Hayenga’s vehicle was “properly impounded.” See Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline
Co., 182 Ill. 2d at 278; see also Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill.
2d 485, 504 (2007) (on appeal from administrative review in the trial court, it is the hearing
officer’s decision that is reviewed, and not that of the trial court).
¶ 27 The City also argues that it had authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle pursuant to
section 109-1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/109-1(a) (West
2012)) and section 11-1302(c)(3) of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-1302(c)(3) (West
2012)). Section 109-1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 provides, “A person
arrested with or without a warrant shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the
nearest and most accessible judge in that county ***.” 725 ILCS 5/109-1(a) (West 2012).
Section 11-1302(c)(3) of the Vehicle Code provides:
“(c) Any police officer is hereby authorized to remove or cause to be removed to
the nearest garage or other place of safety any vehicle found upon a highway when:
***
3. *** the person driving or in control of such vehicle is arrested for an
alleged offense for which the officer is required by law to take the person arrested
before a proper magistrate without unnecessary delay ***[.]” 625 ILCS
5/11-1302(c)(3) (West 2012).
The City argues that, pursuant to section 109-1(a), when Jones arrested Wiseman, he was
“required” for purposes of section 11-1302(c)(3) to take him before a magistrate without
unnecessary delay. Therefore, the City contends, section 11-1302(c)(3) authorized the City to
-6-
impound Hayenga’s vehicle. Hayenga argues that Jones was not “required” to arrest
Wiseman; instead, Jones could have issued Wiseman a notice to appear pursuant to section
107-12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/107-12 (West 2012)), and
there would have been no need to take him into custody.
¶ 28 It is well settled that the forfeiture principle applies to administrative review cases, and
“issues or defenses not placed before the administrative agency will not be considered for the
first time on administrative review.” Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co., 182 Ill. 2d at 278;
see 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2012). Because this case comes to us on administrative review,
it is the hearing officer’s decision that we review, not that of the trial court. See Wade, 226
Ill. 2d at 504. Consequently, the only question relevant to forfeiture is whether the City raised
these arguments during the administrative hearing. The record indicates that the City failed to
raise these arguments, and therefore these arguments are forfeited.
¶ 29 The City also argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to reconsider. In its
motion to reconsider, the City argued that it had authority to impound Hayenga’s vehicle
because: Wiseman was arrested for a Class A misdemeanor (720 ILCS 600/3.5 (West 2012));
the vehicle was on a “highway” within the meaning of section 1302(c)(3) of the Vehicle
Code (625 ILCS 5/1302(c)(3) (West 2012)) (authorizing towing a vehicle after an arrest);
and section 109-1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/109-1(a) (West
2012)) mandated the police to arrest Wiseman and transport him to the Winnebago County
jail “without unnecessary delay.” The City urges this court to consider these arguments on
appeal. However, because the City failed to raise these arguments during the administrative
hearing, these arguments are forfeited.
¶ 30 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 31 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶ 32 Affirmed.
-7-