People v. Kail
103 Ill. Dec. 662, 501 N.E.2d 979, 150 Ill. App. 3d 75 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government policy of selectively enforcing a law against a specific class of individuals violates the Equal Protection Clause when the classification is arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to the legitimate purpose of the law being enforced.
Facts:
- On October 3, 1985, the defendant was riding a bicycle on a business sidewalk in Champaign, Illinois.
- The Champaign police department had a policy to strictly enforce all laws and ordinances against individuals its officers suspected of being prostitutes.
- Officer Seeley, suspecting the defendant was a prostitute, stopped her pursuant to this departmental policy.
- Officer Seeley admitted she would not have stopped the defendant if she had not suspected her of being a prostitute.
- Upon stopping the defendant, Officer Seeley observed that the defendant's bicycle lacked a bell, a violation of a city ordinance.
- Because the defendant did not have adequate identification or $50 to post as bond for the ordinance violation, Officer Seeley placed her under full custodial arrest.
- At the police station, officers conducted an inventory search of the defendant prior to jailing her and discovered a substance containing cannabis.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged the defendant by information in the circuit court of Champaign County with unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver.
- An indictment was later substituted for the information.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cannabis evidence, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated evidence from the suppression hearing.
- The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced her to a term of 12 months.
- The defendant appealed her conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police department policy of enforcing a minor traffic ordinance, requiring bells on bicycles, exclusively against individuals suspected of being prostitutes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Webber
Yes, this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. A State's discretion to enforce its laws may not be exercised on the basis of an arbitrary classification. Under the rational basis test, the classification used for selective enforcement must be rationally related to the purpose of the law being enforced. Here, the purpose of the ordinance requiring a bell on a bicycle is public safety, which has no rational relationship to the classification of suspected prostitutes. To suggest that enforcing the bicycle bell requirement only against this group helps combat prostitution is so attenuated as to render the classification arbitrary and irrational.
Dissenting - Justice Green
No, this policy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The proper test should only require a rational basis between the selective enforcement policy and any legitimate governmental purpose, not necessarily the purpose of the specific law being enforced. The legitimate governmental interest in deterring prostitution provides a sufficient rational basis for the policy of selective enforcement. The majority's holding creates a precedent that will improperly prohibit law enforcement from using minor, unrelated offenses to investigate individuals suspected of more serious crimes, such as organized crime.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant limitation on police discretion under the Equal Protection Clause regarding selective enforcement. It mandates that for a selective enforcement policy to be constitutional under the rational basis test, the targeted classification must be rationally related to the purpose of the specific law being enforced, not merely a general law enforcement objective. The ruling narrows the use of pretextual stops based on minor infractions, requiring a direct nexus between the targeted group and the ordinance itself. The dissent highlights the opposing view that police should have broader authority to use such tactics to pursue legitimate governmental interests like combating serious crime.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Kail