LEEHY v. CITY OF CARBONDALE (2023) NO. 5-22-0542
Jun 20, 2023OUTCOME: Affirmed: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the constitutionality of the ordinance and the fees it imposed.
Parties Plaintiff-Appellant: Kody G. Leehy, representing himself and a proposed class of similarly situated persons who have paid administrative fees under the contested ordinance. Defendan ... t-Appellee: The City of Carbondale, an Illinois Municipal Corporation. Legal Representation For the Plaintiff-Appellant: G. Patrick Murphy, of Murphy & Murphy LLC, Marion; Brandon C. Mayberry, of Law Offices of Brandon C. Mayberry, Marion. For the Defendant-Appellee: Steven C. Giacoletto, of Giacoletto Law Firm, Collinsville; Leonard J. Snyder, of City of Carbondale, Carbondale. Facts The plaintiff, Kody G. Leehy, was charged a $400 administrative fee under Carbondale Ordinance No. 2012-32 (later codified as section 18-12-15 of the City Code) following his arrest for DUI and the impounding of his vehicle. The ordinance imposes two levels of administrative fees ($400 for Level 1 and $200 for Level 2) related to the towing and impounding of vehicles involved in crimes or certain infractions. Leehy challenged the ordinance as being facially unconstitutional on the grounds that the fees exceeded the city’s actual administrative and processing costs, thus violating substantive due process rights. Procedural History Filed Complaint: August 6, 2018, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional. Class Certification Granted: March 31, 2021, for all persons who paid an administrative fee under the ordinance since September 13, 2013. Trial Court Ruling: Affirmed the constitutionality of the ordinance, finding the fees reasonably related to the administrative costs incurred by the city. Issues on Appeal Constitutionality of the Fees: Whether the ordinance’s administrative fees were constitutional under a rational basis test, specifically if they were reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the city. Duplication of Costs: Whether the city improperly charged fees that duplicated other statutory remittances, thereby rendering the fees unreasonable or unconstitutional. Appellate Court’s Analysis Cost Calculations: The appellate court reviewed the city's detailed breakdown of costs associated with towing and impounding, including police officer hours, administrative hearing costs, and other related expenses. The court found these costs justified the fees. Rational Basis Test: The court applied this test and concluded that the ordinance fees had a rational relation to the legitimate governmental purpose of recouping costs associated with law enforcement activities tied to vehicle-related offenses. Duplication of Funds: The court found no evidence of duplication in the use of funds from the fees and statutory remittances. Each source of funding was used for its specific intended purpose without overlap.
