Waukegan Talk

I came across this. I can understand a local activist reporting such a case result, being glad that it may not affect the people who are here illegally without driving documentation or those who just don't have documentation. BUT what I am shocked by is her last statement implying that Waukegan is the pot at the end of the rainbow. As that all we've ever been to her side? This matter could have been settled with the two parties sitting at a table.


City of WAUKEGAN $500 SEIZURE ORDINANCE **FEDERAL JUDGE LEFKOW decision TODAY-8/25 directed to settle!!!!!

<!-- e --><a href="mailto:carrasc...@aol.com">carrasc...@aol.com</a><!-- e -->
View profile
More options Aug 7, 6:18 pm
From: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:carrasc...@aol.com">carrasc...@aol.com</a><!-- e -->
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:18:56 -0400
Local: Fri, Aug 7 2009 6:18 pm
Subject: City of WAUKEGAN $500 SEIZURE ORDINANCE **FEDERAL JUDGE LEFKOW decision TODAY-8/25 directed to settle!!!!!


???????????????????????????? ?? TODAY !!!
?U.S.DISTRICT COURT FEDERAL JUDGE LEFKOW?
???????????????? CASE No.04 C 5991 (attached "11" pages )???????????
LARISSA HARRINGTON?vs.CITY OF WAUKEGAN & OF HEAVEY
RE:?WAUKEGAN's $500 SEIZURE ORDINANCE
In 2004 5?different Federal lawsuits were filed?against the?
City of Waukegan for various civil rights "violations" against?
community members?and the actual $500?SEIZURE CAR
?ORDINANCE itself.Each of the cases have successfully progressed
and are at?different stages, the other 4?are represented by MALDEF
(Mexican-American Legal Defense).
This particular case was litigated by?Earline Navy, an African-American female
attorney?who represented Larissa Harrington and her son Jeffrey whose vehicle was seized
even though?Ms.Harrington arrived on the scene and established that the?
vehicle had valid plates and insurance,?claiming that Waukegan's ordinance was?:
?? *unconstitutional,
?? *resulted in?"UNREASONABLE SEIZURES"
?? *violated?the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?
????? basic CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1967
?? * targeted the poor
?? * City of Waukegan collected millions$$ under the ordinance
Today, Judge Lefkow issued :
???????????????? ?"ORDER"
... Defendant's(City of Waukegan &Officer Heavey's?motion for summary?
judgement will be denied.
????????????? "CONCLUSION"
For the reasons set out above, defendants(City of WKGN) motion for summary
judgement(#139)us DENIED.
A status hearing is set for August 25, 2009 at 10am.
The parties are directed to confer with each other in the interim
and to report at the upcoming status hearing, about the possibility
of SETTLEMENT.?
???????????????????? ** NOTE:
Still pending is the issue of "CLASS CERTIFICATION" a requirement
for a case to be deemed "class action".
If not?familiar with Federal?cases involving the?basic
??????????? CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1969
please review Section 1983 and of special reading enjoyment?
Section 1985 - "attorney fees" and the term load "MULTIPLIER"
(Ex: if?Attorney orginally?requested $100,000 for attorney fees
?from the Defendant for litigating this Civil Rights case?and?Defendant
failed to settle by designated date,?the Federal Judge may apply a
multiplier,?ex: "5"-$500,000 would be the new amount?
Defendant would now have to pay.
?Who says there isn't a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!!???????????????????????????????????????
????????????? MARGARET CARRASCO????
?

????

?

WAUKEGAN $500 SEIZURE ORDINANCE.Federal Case#04C5991.LARISSA HARRINGTON v.CITYofWAUKEGAN.Of Heavy.SKMBT_42009080715210[1].pdf
431K Download

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.google.com/group/10demarzo/browse_thread/thread/9ab096b4b2690a7f">http://groups.google.com/group/10demarz ... b4b2690a7f</a><!-- m -->


If you go to the link you can look at the eleven page pdf of the case

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cimechicago/message/9273">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cimechicago/message/9273</a><!-- m -->

It's here too, a bit more color added to this one.

Our city is going through hard times. The tone of these posts is not good...

I had heard the council say they were looking to tweak this ordinance, perhaps lower the fine. But it still troubles me that our local activist seems to see this as 'a pot at the end of the rainbow.' Hurting the city in this way, hurts us. Was it the new mayor that said that more of these cases could be solved sitting at a table talking or the previous mayor? 8-)


Judge denies motion to dismiss Waukegan towing ordinance
Comments

August 8, 2009
NEWS-SUN STAFF REPORT

CHICAGO -- A federal judge Friday denied Waukegan's motion to dismiss a five-year-old lawsuit against the city's towing ordinance.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow's denial of the motion will allow a lawsuit, which was brought by local resident Larissa Harrington, to move forward later this month.

The decision comes more than two years after the court ruled the ordinance -- which results in a $500 fine and vehicle seizure for people ticketed for various offenses, including DUI, driving without a license or driving without insurance -- violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, in part, because it does not give police officers discretion in individual cases.

In November 2006, Lefkow initially ruled the ordinance must cease, but in January 2007 she reversed the decision, and allowed Waukegan to continue the seizures pending an appeal. City officials have argued that the ordinance keeps Waukegan's streets safer.

Friday's ruling gives hope the ordinance will permanently be stopped, said Harrington's attorney, Earline Navy. The case continues Aug. 25 with a status hearing.

"I thank God for working through me to fight to correct this unlawful towing ordinance," Navy said. "(Protection) against unreasonable search and seizure is one of our most important rights in this country."

Harrington brought suit against the city in 2004, a year after her car was towed while being driven by her son, who was driving with an expired license. In the suit, Harrington claims she came to the scene of the traffic stop with a license and insurance but was not allowed to drive her car home.

Attempts to reach Waukegan's legal counsel for comment were unsuccessful Friday.

Carrasco is a pimple on the ass of illegal immigration!

The blame for Waukegan hemorrhaging money isn't activism, its poorly written laws and even poorer judgment of some officers. This case isn't about profiling, the fine, car safety or illegal immigration. Its that no option to avoid seizure of property exists, violating the 4th amendment. Heavey had a chance to give them a break and use discretion, but instead he followed the letter of the law and exposed that it has no 4th amendment right exclusion, unlike the IL. vehicle code. So most likely the tax payers get another bill for Waukegan's myopic municipal code. :x

gmg77 Wrote:The blame for Waukegan hemorrhaging money isn't activism, its poorly written laws and even poorer judgment of some officers. This case isn't about profiling, the fine, car safety or illegal immigration. Its that no option to avoid seizure of property exists, violating the 4th amendment. Heavey had a chance to give them a break and use discretion, but instead he followed the letter of the law and exposed that it has no 4th amendment right exclusion, unlike the IL. vehicle code. So most likely the tax payers get another bill for Waukegan's myopic municipal code. :x

Very well put.

I'm sorry I may be in the minority, but I think this ordinance needs to stay. Waukegan is not the only town with it, and I'm thankful for that. Over a month ago I was in Mundelein stopped at a stop sign, when the Ford pick up behind me decided to hit me. Supposedly this guy was changing gears and hit me!! Ummm stepping on the brake doesn't need changing of the gears especially since he was stopped to begin with, and stepped on the GAS!!! Anyhow...he tried to talk me out of calling the police, which I knew better...long story short over $1,000.00 damage to my car, of course he had no insurance, no license and proceeded to call 'friends' to get the truck out of there before cops arrived!! Thank God the police got there before his friends as the truck was towed and he was taken away in cuffs. Now fast forward to last week when I had to go to court..yup you guessed it...he didn't show..and after being there for 2 hours I was told there would be a warrant for his arrest and "eventually" they would get him, but if I would like my car fixed, I'd have to hire a lawyer and sue him in civil court, probably not getting anything as he had no insurance. Soooo if it cost him $500.00 for his truck to be towed, I'm glad, as it's going to cost me much more to get my car fixed!!!! :evil: :evil:

Was it an illegal?

Standard Wrote:Was it an illegal?

I have no way of knowing....

gmg77 Wrote:The blame for Waukegan hemorrhaging money isn't activism, its poorly written laws and even poorer judgment of some officers. This case isn't about profiling, the fine, car safety or illegal immigration. Its that no option to avoid seizure of property exists, violating the 4th amendment. Heavey had a chance to give them a break and use discretion, but instead he followed the letter of the law and exposed that it has no 4th amendment right exclusion, unlike the IL. vehicle code. So most likely the tax payers get another bill for Waukegan's myopic municipal code. :x

This is a very well put statement, the only issue that I contend with is this: the lawsuit and statement both find that the ability to use discretion by the officer has been taken away by the municipal ordinance that is in place. You even say that the officer followed the letter of the law, which is what we as citizens expect them (police officers) to do. I believe that this lawsuit is less about the action or in-action of police officers but rather the city using an ordinance as a means of revenue generation, which burdens a citizens 4th amendment. This will be very interesting to follow as it will affect case law around the country. I feel that Waukegan does a fine job and that people who are driving while DUI, or without a license or insurance should lose their vehicle until they can show that they have obtained a license and insurance, something that all drivers in this state must do. In terms of the lawsuit, one could argue that, the plaintiff should not have been able to receive her vehicle at the traffic stop, as she was not the one in control of the car at the time.