People v. 2016 Chrysler 200 Black VIN1C3CCAB9GN110925

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2023 IL App (3d) 210583-UOrder filed September 7, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
) Will County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 3-21-0583
2016 CHRYSLER 200 BLACK, ) Circuit No. 21-MR-2081
VIN #1C3CCCAB9GN110925, )
)
Defendant )
)
(TOMMY LOCKETT, ) Honorable
) Kenneth L. Zelazo,
Claimant-Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HETTEL1 delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Holdridge and McDade concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the State’s petition for
preliminary determination of forfeiture, we vacate the circuit court’s order finding
no probable cause and dismiss the petition.
1
This case was administratively reassigned to Justice Hettel for authorship on December 19,
2022.
¶2 After seizing a 2016 Chrysler 200 Black, VIN #1C3CCAB9GN110925 (2016 Chrysler
200), the State commenced a civil forfeiture action against the vehicle and named the owner,
Tommy Lockett. Following a preliminary hearing, the circuit court found the State failed to
establish probable cause existed for forfeiture of the vehicle. The State appeals, maintaining the
court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we
conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the State’s petition for preliminary
determination. We therefore vacate the circuit court’s order and dismiss the State’s petition.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On July 12, 2021, an officer with the Crete Police Department attempted to conduct a
traffic stop on a 2016 Chrysler 200. When the officer activated his siren, the vehicle fled on
Route 394 at a high rate of speed, reaching 100 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-hour speed zone.
The officer terminated the chase without stopping the vehicle. He was unable to identify the
driver. Using the license plate number and registration information, the officer determined that
“Tommy Lockett” owned the vehicle.
¶5 On July 20, 2021, Crete police officers noticed the same Chrysler and activated their
lights and sirens. The vehicle took off and reached speeds of 80 miles per hour and 100 miles per
hour in speed zones marked as 55 miles-per-hour. Officers eventually lost sight of the vehicle
and ended the pursuit. A few weeks later, officers seized the vehicle at 660 Tanglewood Court in
Hammond, Indiana, where it was discovered parked and unoccupied. The vehicle had Indiana
plates and was traced to Lockett.
¶6 On August 17, 2021, the State commenced a forfeiture action against the 2016 Chrysler
200 by filing a petition for preliminary determination pursuant to section 36-1.5 of the Criminal
Code of 2012 (Criminal Code) (720 ILCS 5/36-1.5 (West 2020)) and providing notice to
2
Lockett. The petition indicated that the property had been seized on August 7, 2021, by the Crete
Police Department pursuant to article 36 of the Criminal Code and requested a hearing to
determine whether there was probable cause that the vehicle may be subject to forfeiture.
¶7 At the preliminary review hearing, the State informed the court that officers identified
Lockett as the registered owner using the license plate number of the vehicle but made no
identification as to the driver. The circuit court found no probable cause for forfeiture. On
reconsideration, the court explained that absent identification of the offender, there was
insufficient evidence to support a probable cause finding. The court denied the motion to
reconsider, and the State appeals.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 The State argues that the circuit court erred in finding no probable cause at the
preliminary determination hearing. Because we conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the petition for a preliminary determination, we cannot consider the merits of the
State’s appeal.
¶ 10 Illinois appellate courts have an independent obligation to consider matters relating to the
jurisdiction of the circuit court. Bradley v. City of Marion, 2015 IL App (5th) 140267, ¶ 13.
Jurisdiction, in general, involves two components: subject-matter jurisdiction and personal
jurisdiction. See People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, ¶ 12. Subject matter jurisdiction
concerns the authority of the court “ ‘to hear and determine cases of the general class to which
the proceeding in question belongs.’ ” In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 415 (2009) (quoting Belleville
Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 334 (2002)). “Personal
jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to bring a person into its adjudicative process.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59,914 United States Currency, 2022 IL
3
126927, ¶ 19. It involves the court’s authority “to litigate in reference to a particular defendant
and to determine the rights and duties of that defendant.” In re Commissioner of Banks & Real
Estate, 327 Ill. App. 3d 441, 463 (2001). An action taken by a court without personal and subject
matter jurisdiction is void. In re Marriage of Krilich, 2023 IL App (1st) 221198, ¶ 13.
¶ 11 As it relates to property, a court has in rem jurisdiction rather than personal jurisdiction.
$59,914 United States Currency, 2022 IL 126927, ¶ 19. “In rem jurisdiction refers to a court’s
power to adjudicate the rights to that property, including the power to seize and hold the
property.” Id. Because an in rem proceeding is an action taken directly against the property, in
rem jurisdiction rests exclusively on the situs of the res. See Smith v. Hammel, 2014 IL App (5th)
130227, ¶ 26 (citing McCallum v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 379 Ill. 60, 69 (1942)); see also
Krilich, 2023 IL App (1st) 221198, ¶ 20 (emphasizing that basis of in rem jurisdiction is “the
presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.)).
¶ 12 In forfeiture proceedings, the circuit court exercises in rem jurisdiction with respect to the
specific property. $59,914 United States Currency, 2022 IL 126927, ¶ 19. A forfeiture action
under article 36 is a civil in rem action brought against property that was used in the commission
of a crime. 720 ILCS 5/36-1.1 (West 2020); People v. One 2014 GMC Sierra, 2018 IL App (3d)
170029, ¶ 28. The State brings the action against the seized item “pursuant to the legal fiction
that the property itself is guilty of facilitating a crime.” People v. Parcel of Property Commonly
Known as 1945 North 31st Street, Decatur, Macon County, Illinois, 217 Ill. 2d 481, 497 (2005).
¶ 13 In this case, the right to proceed against the 2016 Chrysler 200 under article 36 of the
Criminal Code stems from the circuit court’s jurisdiction over the property itself, which provides
the court with in rem jurisdiction. See 720 ILCS 5/36-1.5(a) (West 2020) (“Within 14 days of the
4
seizure, the State’s Attorney of the county in which the seizure occurred shall seek a preliminary
determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may
be subject to forfeiture.”). In other words, it is the location of the property within the territorial
jurisdiction of this state that confers jurisdiction on the circuit court. It is undisputed that the
vehicle was located in Hammond, Indiana, not Will County, when it was seized by law
enforcement. Consequently, the circuit court lacked in rem jurisdiction over the property and was
therefore unable to consider the State’s petition under article 36 of the Criminal Code. See
People v. One 1985 Chevrolet Camaro, 149 Ill. App. 3d 609, 612 (1986) (Will County circuit
court did not have jurisdiction to consider complaint for forfeiture of vehicle alleged to have
been used to deliver drugs where the vehicle was seized in Du Page County).
¶ 14 The circuit court found no probable cause and entered an order returning the property to
Lockett. Our decision reaches the same result. However, because the court lacked jurisdiction to
consider the State’s petition for preliminary determination, its ruling on the petition was void.
We therefore vacate the circuit court’s order and dismiss the petition. See People v. Bailey, 2014
IL 115459, ¶ 29 (where the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, the appellate court “did not need to
dismiss the appeal” but should have vacated the court’s judgment and ordered that the underlying
pleadings be dismissed).
¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 16 For the forgoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court of Will County and
dismiss the State’s petition for preliminary determination of probable cause.
¶ 17 Order vacated; petition dismissed.
5