{
  "id": 3525513,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. JOHN A. BARRA, State's Attorney of Peoria County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA LEE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Barra v. Lee",
  "decision_date": "1984-10-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201484\u20140033",
  "first_page": "128",
  "last_page": "130",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 128"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "411 N.E.2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 U.S. 38",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170862
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/409/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.E.2d 646",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5393812
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "44"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/52/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "411 N.E.2d 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. App. 3d 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5541533
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "149-50"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/89/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 3922,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.363015367552826e-07,
      "percentile": 0.87539621035821
    },
    "sha256": "8fb7c44a1a90a46289ace58f809851cbe196abdd9b611e3ed9232a97cc350184",
    "simhash": "1:348ab93c2ae25c90",
    "word_count": 643
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:57.846352+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE ex rel. JOHN A. BARRA, State\u2019s Attorney of Peoria County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA LEE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn September 1, 1983, defendant Donna Lee was driving a 1968 Chevrolet van in the village of Bartonville. Three friends accompanied her. A Bartonville police officer spotted the flashing yellow light of what he believed to be a street barricade in the rear of the van.\nUpon stopping the van, the officer found open beer, as well as the barricade. Lee was then placed under arrest. A search of her purse incident to the arrest uncovered a small plastic bag containing several pills. These pills were later determined to contain a controlled substance.\nDefendant ultimately pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance. She was sentenced to two years\u2019 probation and ordered to pay costs. The People then petitioned the court to forfeit the van pursuant to article 36 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 36 \u2014 1 et seq.). The court ordered the vehicle forfeited.\nThe forfeiture statute states, in pertinent part:\n\u201cSec. 36 \u2014 2. Action for forfeiture, (a) *** If the State\u2019s Attorney does not cause the forfeiture to be remitted he shall forthwith bring an action for forfeiture in the Circuit Court ***. *** The State shall show at such hearing by a preponderance of the evidence, that such *** vehicle was used in the commission of an offense described in section 36 \u2014 1.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 36 \u2014 2.\nThe People cite People ex rel. Mihm v. Miller (1980), 89 Ill. App. 3d 148, 411 N.E.2d 592, as the leading case supporting forfeiture for this kind of offense. There, the evidence showed that the controlled substance was found on defendant\u2019s person after stepping out of the vehicle upon request. The Miller court relied principally upon People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 37, 284 N.E.2d 646, rev\u2019d on other grounds, Robinson v. Hanrahan (1972), 409 U.S. 38, 34 L. Ed. 2d 47, 93 S. Ct. 30. The critical holding in Hanrahan was that no distinction should exist for vehicles used in smuggling and vehicles used to \u201cfacilitate commission of an alleged felony\u201d (52 Ill. 2d 37, 44, 284 N.E.2d 646). The Miller court applied this reasoning as follows:\n\u201cWhile there may be some question as to whether an automobile facilitates the actual possession of a very small amount of a controlled substance which is carried on the person of the driver, to the extent the automobile adds a dimension of privacy, however, it does facilitate the possession.\u201d 89 Ill. App. 3d 148, 149-50, 411 N.E.2d 593.\nThe doubt expressed in Miller finds full fruition here. In Miller the contraband was located in the defendant\u2019s pocket. The contraband fell from the defendant\u2019s pocket, thus demonstrating that the defendant\u2019s pocket was neither a secure nor a secret place. The vehicle in Miller thus afforded the defendant the exclusive means of privacy. In the instant case, on the other hand, the contraband was completely concealed within a closed purse. Thus, the vehicle furnished no additional dimension of privacy. Accordingly, it strains the imagination to characterize the vehicle in question as facilitating the commission of this offense.\nFor these and the foregoing reasons, the decision of the circuit court is reversed. The vehicle in question shall be remitted forthwith to the defendant.\nReversed.\nSTOUDER, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      },
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BARRY,\nspecially concurring.\nContra to Miller, here the vehicle did not facilitate the possession of the substance, and I concur.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "JUSTICE BARRY,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kevin W. Lyons, Ltd., of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "John A. Barra, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and John M. Wood, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. JOHN A. BARRA, State\u2019s Attorney of Peoria County, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA LEE, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201484\u20140033\nOpinion filed October 10, 1984.\nBARRY, J., specially concurring.\nKevin W. Lyons, Ltd., of Peoria, for appellant.\nJohn A. Barra, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and John M. Wood, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0128-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 152
}