Van Harken v. City of Chicago
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549, 906 F. Supp. 1182, 1995 WL 664743 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative system for adjudicating civil offenses like parking violations does not violate due process, provided it offers adequate notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an impartial adjudicator, and is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Facts:
- Prior to 1990, the City of Chicago adjudicated parking violations in its Municipal Court.
- In 1990, the City of Chicago enacted an ordinance creating an administrative system to handle parking violations, moving the process into its Department of Revenue.
- Under the ordinance, a person receiving a parking ticket can pay the fine, contest the violation by mail, or request an in-person administrative hearing.
- The hearings are conducted by hearing officers who are appointed by the city parking administrator.
- The ordinance establishes that the parking ticket itself serves as prima facie evidence of the facts specified within it, and the city's burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
- The ordinance specifies five exclusive grounds upon which a ticket recipient may challenge the violation.
- Sanctions for violations include fines ranging from $10 to $100 (not to exceed $200), with potential vehicle immobilization for five unpaid tickets and driver's license suspension for ten unpaid tickets.
- Ada Van Harken, Alex French, and Michael Bennett each received parking tickets and were subject to this administrative adjudication process.
Procedural Posture:
- Ada Van Harken, Alex French, and Michael Bennett filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Chicago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The complaint alleged that the City's ordinance for adjudicating parking violations violated the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions.
- The City of Chicago filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court first considered the plaintiffs' motion for class certification before ruling on the City's motion to dismiss.
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 the City of Chicago's administrative ordinance for adjudicating parking violations, which treats violations as civil offenses, uses hearing officers from the Department of Revenue, and considers the ticket as prima facie evidence, violate the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Shadur, Senior District Judge
No, the City of Chicago's administrative ordinance does not violate the Due Process Clause. The court upheld the ordinance, finding that parking violations are civil, not criminal, offenses and that the procedures provided satisfy constitutional requirements for fairness and impartiality. The court reasoned that the city clearly intended to create a civil penalty, and under the Mendoza-Martinez test, the sanctions (fines and potential vehicle immobilization) are not so punitive as to be considered criminal. Furthermore, the adjudicative scheme provides for an impartial decisionmaker, as the hearing officers are independent contractors with no direct pecuniary interest in the outcomes, distinguishing this case from precedents like Ward v. Village of Monroeville. The court also found that the ordinance provides adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, as recipients are clearly informed of their right to an in-person hearing and are not unconstitutionally deprived of that right by being offered a mail-in option. Finally, the system, including the use of the ticket as prima facie evidence, is rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in the fair and efficient enforcement of parking regulations.
Analysis:
This case provides a strong judicial endorsement for the constitutionality of municipal administrative adjudication systems for minor civil infractions. It clarifies that governments can create efficient, non-judicial forums to handle high-volume violations like parking tickets without affording the full panoply of rights associated with criminal proceedings. The decision establishes that as long as the core due process requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard are met, such systems are permissible. This ruling sets a high bar for plaintiffs challenging these systems, particularly on grounds of adjudicator bias or claims that the penalties are functionally criminal.
Unlock the full brief for Van Harken v. City of Chicago