{
  "id": 5797148,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. EDWARD A. BURMILA, JR., State's Attorney of Will County, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ONE 1988 CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE, VIN No. 1G1LD1110JY504863, et al., Respondents-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Burmila v. One 1988 Chevrolet Automobile",
  "decision_date": "1991-10-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201491\u20140190",
  "first_page": "238",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ill. App. 3d 238"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "470 N.E.2d 46",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3525513
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/128/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 N.E.2d 744",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Ill. App. 3d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3539510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/151/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "550 N.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 Ill. App. 3d 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2497039
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/193/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. 2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5564279
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "537"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/127/0374-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 5640,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5212686145022355
    },
    "sha256": "9ad96ab9a09bd7ae220c7efbf70590ef4490154bac7e0af3e6a4088efb268307",
    "simhash": "1:3da6a05e6a213ff1",
    "word_count": 938
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:34.404944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE ex rel. EDWARD A. BURMILA, JR., State\u2019s Attorney of Will County, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ONE 1988 CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE, VIN No. 1G1LD1110JY504863, et al., Respondents-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GORMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State filed a petition seeking the forfeiture of respondent Ann Sceniak\u2019s 1988 Chevrolet automobile. The trial court denied the petition. The State appeals.\nAt the hearing on the State\u2019s petition, Will County sheriff\u2019s deputy Terry Paggi testified that the respondent was the target of a drug investigation Paggi was working on. According to Paggi, the respondent initially contacted him via Paggi\u2019s pager. Paggi asked the respondent about purchasing LSD, but the respondent was unable to provide any. The respondent then inquired whether Paggi could sell cannabis to her. The respondent agreed to purchase a pound of cannabis for $1,500.\nAfter the terms of the agreement were set, the respondent paged Paggi on September 20, 1990. She told him she had found someone named Doug to \u201cfront\u201d the money for her to purchase the cannabis and she would page Paggi the next day. The next day, the respondent again paged Paggi and asked if she could take delivery of the cannabis. Paggi said he could provide the cannabis, but would need a few hours. Paggi later received another page from the respondent. This time she told Paggi that she was at home and that Doug was at the respondent\u2019s work place. She told Paggi that she would go back to work to give Paggi\u2019s pager number to Doug so they could arrange the details of the cannabis delivery.\nSubsequently, Doug paged Paggi and they arranged the details of the delivery. When the meeting eventually took place, Doug produced the agreed-upon $1,500 and was arrested.\nDoug did not use the respondent\u2019s car for the transaction. Further, the respondent was not present. However, following her arrest, the respondent gave a statement to Paggi indicating she had used her automobile (a 1988 Chevrolet Beretta) to drive to her work place to give Paggi\u2019s pager number to Doug.\nFollowing this testimony, the trial judge took judicial notice that, in her companion criminal case, the respondent was found not guilty of attempted possession of cannabis with the intent to deliver. Subsequently, the trial judge dismissed the forfeiture petition, finding among other things that the respondent\u2019s vehicle was not used to facilitate any violation of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 561/2, par. 701 et seq.). The State appeals this basis for the judge\u2019s ruling, as well as others given by him. Our determination of this issue makes it unnecessary to address the State\u2019s other arguments.\nSection 12(a)(3) of the Cannabis Control Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 561/2, par. 712(a)(3)) provides that a vehicle is subject to forfeiture if it is used to transport or to facilitate in any other manner a violation of the Act. The term \u201cfacilitate\u201d means to make easier or less difficult. (People v. 1946 Buick, VIN 34423520 (1989), 127 Ill. 2d 374, 537, N.E.2d 748.) The burden is on the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence its right to forfeiture. (People ex rel. Vandersnick v. One 1987 Dodge Charger Automobile Vehicle Identification Number 1B3BZ44C5HD525894 (1990), 193 Ill. App. 3d 547, 550 N.E.2d 271.) On review, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court\u2019s order regarding forfeiture unless the ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Strong (1986), 151 Ill. App. 3d 28, 502 N.E.2d 744.\nIn the instant case, we cannot say the trial judge\u2019s order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The only evidence the State presented regarding the respondent\u2019s car showed that she drove it to her work place to give Doug a pager number. In our view, the use of the respondent\u2019s car in this manner did not facilitate the commission of the offense as contemplated by the statute. The respondent could have telephoned Doug with the information. Thus, the use of her car did not make commission of the offense easier. (We are aware that Paggi testified that the respondent told him she had to drive because she had just started working there and did not know the telephone number. However, we assume the respondent\u2019s work place did not have an unlisted number and she could have called information for it.)\nAdditionally, for purposes of comparison, we note our decision in People ex rel. Barra v. Lee (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 128, 470 N.E.2d 46, where drugs were actually found hidden inside the vehicle driver\u2019s purse. We nonetheless reversed the forfeiture order, reasoning that the vehicle did not afford an additional dimension of privacy and therefore did not facilitate the possession. If there was not enough evidence in Barra to justify a forfeiture order, there certainly is not here. Facilitate does not mean that any time a person drives a vehicle in connection with the commission of an offense, no matter how remote that connection, the vehicle is subject to forfeiture. The respondent\u2019s car was not used in any way that made the commission of the crime in question easier or less difficult. The respondent\u2019s car was not subject to forfeiture.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTOUDER, P.J., and SLATER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GORMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward Burmila, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Ira B. Goldstein, of Ira B. Goldstein, Ltd., and Paul R. Bjekich, both of Joliet, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. EDWARD A. BURMILA, JR., State\u2019s Attorney of Will County, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ONE 1988 CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE, VIN No. 1G1LD1110JY504863, et al., Respondents-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 91\u20140190\nOpinion filed October 24, 1991.\nEdward Burmila, Jr., State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for appellant.\nIra B. Goldstein, of Ira B. Goldstein, Ltd., and Paul R. Bjekich, both of Joliet, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0238-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 262
}