Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; June 29, 1979; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Mr. Justice Wilson delivered the court's opinion regarding the case involving the defendant, who was found guilty of violating Village of Bridgeview ordinances related to maintaining uncovered refuse and a nuisance due to inoperable motor vehicles. The defendant was fined $500 and ordered to pay court costs for each violation. On appeal, the defendant raised three issues: the denial of a motion to suppress evidence from an alleged illegal search, whether the Village met its burden of proof, and the constitutionality of the ordinances.
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Prior to the suppression hearing, the defendant had filed a motion to declare the ordinances unconstitutional, which was denied. During the suppression hearing, Officer Anthony Siciliano testified about inspecting the defendant's property based on multiple complaints, noting that he did not possess a search warrant or arrest warrant. He observed refuse and junk vehicles, including two inoperable trucks without license plates, which had been present for years. Siciliano stated that he sought permission to photograph the premises, receiving an affirmative response from an unidentified individual. The defendant, Edward Slominski, testified that he did not give permission for the officer to enter or inspect the vehicles. His motion to suppress was ultimately denied.
During the trial for the ordinance violations, Siciliano provided testimony about his role in ordinance enforcement and his interactions with the defendant during the inspection. While serving a summons to the defendant in a tavern, the defendant rejected it, prompting Siciliano to document the property with photographs, which were later admitted into evidence.
Siciliano testified about a conversation with the defendant regarding the condition of his property, stating that the defendant had been there for 29 years and was unwilling to clean up, claiming the Village of Bridgeview had taken him in without his knowledge. Siciliano attempted to serve the defendant with a summons related to refuse and inoperable vehicles on the property, having possessed the summons before taking photographs of the premises. Despite initially stating the photos were taken after the summons, he later admitted they were captured a few days earlier. Siciliano described observing inoperable vehicles on the property but did not attempt to interact with them. The defendant, who claimed to have known Siciliano prior to this incident, recounted multiple visits Siciliano made to the premises and stated that Siciliano had requested a warrant to search the property, leading to his arrest when Siciliano involved the police. The defendant denied being a licensee of the property and asserted that only one inoperable vehicle was present, which had been brought by children from a nearby trailer park. He claimed that the other vehicles were operational when placed there. The trial concluded without cross-examination of the defendant, who was subsequently found guilty of the charges and fined. He filed a motion to vacate the judgment based on an alleged illegal search, arguing that Siciliano's entry and photography constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution. However, the plaintiff contended that there was no illegal search, as the evidence was obtained under the open view doctrine. The court held that a search implies an invasion into a concealed area, and the defendant bore the burden of proving the search was illegal.
Observing items in open view does not constitute a search, as established in City of Decatur. Siciliano testified that he saw refuse, junk vehicles, and garbage on the property before entering, and these items were visible from public areas. Since the house and tavern faced Harlem Avenue, it was likely that the conditions could be seen from the street. The village official's actions of viewing and photographing the premises, based on observations made from public places, did not violate search regulations. The ambiguity regarding the timing of the photographs relative to the serving of the summons does not impact the legal determination.
The court found no error in denying the motion to suppress evidence, as there was no illegal seizure. Regarding the village's burden of proof, the defendant argued that it needed to establish that he owned or controlled the property and that the vehicles were inoperable and had been present for at least six months. The court agreed, reiterating that in quasi-criminal proceedings, the village must prove guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.
Defendant was charged with violating village ordinances concerning refuse and nuisance related to inoperable vehicles. However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove the defendant's ownership or control of the property. Siciliano’s observations were inadequate to establish control, and the village did not cross-examine the defendant or contest his denial of being the tavern's licensee. Additionally, there was no evidence showing that the vehicles were indeed inoperable for the required duration, as defined by the Village Code, which outlines specific criteria for what constitutes an inoperable vehicle.
Siciliano characterized the vehicles on the property as 'junk vehicles,' specifying they were 20-year-old trucks without license plates and filled with items typically sold at flea markets. He did not attempt to start or jump the vehicles. During the trial, the defendant claimed that only one inoperable vehicle was on the premises on June 17, which had been brought and stripped by children from a nearby trailer park, and that it had been present for a few weeks or months. The defendant asserted that the other vehicles were functional. Although the photographed vehicles appeared dilapidated, lacking parts and filled with various materials, this did not definitively prove they were inoperable under the relevant ordinance. The village failed to present evidence that the vehicles could not be driven or had been on the property for at least six months, both necessary elements to establish a violation. Consequently, the court reversed the defendant’s convictions and determined that he was entitled to recover the fines paid since they were based on a now-invalid claim. The court referenced the doctrine of voluntary payment, noting exceptions for payments made under duress and supporting this position with relevant case law. The ruling affirmed certain aspects while reversing others, with directions for recovery of the fines.
