Bell v. City of Chicago

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant’s implementation of car impoundment-related ordinances following arrest of one plaintiff on charge of possession of controlled substance violated plaintiffs’ 4^th Amendment rights. Record showed that: (1) plaintiff-owner of car challenged instant impoundment two days after arrest of other plaintiff; (2) ALJ determined that probable cause existed to impound vehicle because it contained unlawful drugs; and (3) owner was required to pay $2,000 penalty plus $180 in storage and towing fees due to her violation of city ordinance (section 7-24-225). Ct. rejected that plaintiffs’ contention that said ordinances were invalid in all circumstances under 4^th Amendment even though said ordinances allowed warrantless seizures of vehicles and allowed non-judicial officer to determine existence of probable cause. Ct. further noted that: (1) there was no difference in instant warrantless seizures allowed under section 7-24-225 and those authorized under White, 525 US 559, since warrantless seizure is not unreasonable, where officer has probable cause to believe that vehicle was used in some sort of violation of law; and (2) plaintiff’s complaint regarding use of non-judicial officer for probable cause determination concerns post-seizure procedures that do not implicate 4^th Amendment.