People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59,914 U.S. Currency

2022 IL 126927

201 N.E.3d 1100

460 Ill.Dec. 627

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois EX REL. Anita ALVAREZ, Appellee,

v.$59,914 UNITED STATES CURRENCY et al. (Ameen Salaam, Appellant).

Docket No. 126927

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed April 21, 2022

Rehearing Denied September 26, 2022

Steven A. Greenberg and Curtis Lovelace, of Greenberg Trial Lawyers, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick, Erin M. O'Connell, and Garson S. Fischer, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE MICHAEL J. BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Pursuant to the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (Forfeiture Act) ( 725 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West 2014)), the State initiated forfeiture proceedings against United States currency totaling $223,743. The currency was seized from a van driven by Allen Tyler, but owned by appellant Ameen Salaam, following a traffic stop. The forfeiture complaint alleged that there was probable cause to believe that the currency was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. The State unsuccessfully attempted to serve Tyler with notice of the forfeiture proceedings by mail, before serving notice by publication (id. § 4). No one filed a claim to the currency, so the circuit court of Cook County entered a default judgment of forfeiture.

¶ 2 More than two years after the judgment of forfeiture was entered, Salaam filed a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that the judgment was void because he was not served with notice of the forfeiture proceedings. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that it had in rem jurisdiction over the currency; that notice was properly given to the driver of the van, who was the "owner or interest holder" of the currency; and that Salaam was not entitled to notice because he was not an "owner or interest holder" of the currency under the Forfeiture Act.

¶ 3 Salaam appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, finding, inter alia , that the State complied with the notice requirements by serving notice on the driver of the van as " ‘owner or interest holder’ " of the money. 2020 IL App (1st) 190922U, ¶ 18, 2020 WL 6877696. This court allowed Salaam's subsequent petition for leave to appeal to this court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On September 15, 2015, Chicago police officers initiated a traffic stop of a white utility van that did not have a rear vehicle registration light. Tyler, the driver of the van, failed to provide a valid driver's license or proof of insurance. Tyler received a citation for "rear plate not being visible." During the traffic stop, the officers smelled a strong odor of cannabis emanating from a large, soft-sided bag on the passenger seat of the van. The bag was pulled closed but was unzipped. Upon searching the bag, the officers discovered a plastic bag containing suspect cannabis and two clear knotted bags containing suspect cocaine, along with five bundles of United States currency in ziplocked and plastic bags.

¶ 6 The officers arrested Tyler and seized the van, along with the bag, the drugs, and the currency. In all, the police seized 120 grams of cannabis, 84 grams of cocaine, and five bags containing currency in the following amounts: (1) $59,914; (2) $53,140; (3) $67,109; (4) $7000; and (5) $36,580, for a total of $223,743. At the time of his arrest, Tyler provided the following home address: 9135 South Blackstone Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60619. According to records of the Secretary of State, the van was a work van registered to Ameen Salaam "dba Infinite Heating, Cooling [and Refrigeration]" at 1920 North Springfield Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60647.¹

¶ 7 On November 12, 2015, the State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint against the $223,743 pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act ( 720 ILCS 550/12 (West 2014) ) and section 7(1) of the Forfeiture Act ( 725 ILCS 150/7(1) (West 2014)), which presumes money found in "close proximity to forfeitable substances" is also forfeitable as money intended for the purchase of controlled substances or as proceeds of the sale of controlled substances. On the same day, the State served statutory notice of the forfeiture proceedings to Tyler by certified mail, return receipt requested, and regular mail, at 9135 South Blackstone Avenue, the address Tyler provided at the time of his arrest. Both the certified mail and the regular mail were returned as undeliverable. Consequently, on November 18, November 25, and December 2, 2015, the State published notice of the impending forfeiture proceedings in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin directed to "Allen Tyler and any other unknown owner." No one asserting an interest in the currency subject to forfeiture filed an appearance or an answer in the forfeiture proceedings. See id. § 9(E). On January 20, 2016, the circuit court entered an ex parte judgment of forfeiture.

¶ 8 On November 2, 2018, more than two years after the circuit court entered the judgment of forfeiture, Salaam filed a motion to vacate the default judgment of forfeiture and to dismiss the forfeiture complaint. Salaam argued that the court's forfeiture order was issued without jurisdiction because the State failed to serve him with notice of the forfeiture proceedings. Salaam maintained that, as the owner of the vehicle from which the currency was seized, he was an "interest holder" of the currency and, thus, was entitled to notice of the forfeiture proceedings. Salaam argued that the forfeiture judgment was void because he did not receive statutory notice.

¶ 9 In response, the State moved to strike Salaam's motion, arguing that it was untimely filed pursuant to section 2-1401(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(c) (West 2016)) because it was filed more than two years after the forfeiture order was entered. The State also argued that the motion could not be litigated because the forfeited currency had already been disbursed, so that the res no longer existed. In addition, the State asserted that it had complied with all notice requirements under the Forfeiture Act.

¶ 10 On April 3, 2019, the circuit court entered an order denying Salaam's motion to vacate, finding it had in rem jurisdiction over the seized currency. The circuit court also found that Salaam was not entitled to notice under the Forfeiture Act because he was not the "owner or interest holder" of the money. Instead, the circuit court found that Tyler was the "owner or interest holder" of the money, as the drugs and money were found in close proximity to Tyler, and the State had properly served Tyler with notice of the forfeiture proceedings. The circuit court did not address the timeliness of Salaam's motion.

¶ 11 Salaam appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate. Salaam contended that the failure to serve statutory notice of the judicial forfeiture proceedings upon him, as an "interest holder" of the money, violated his due process rights and rendered the forfeiture order void. The Appellate Court, First District, with one justice dissenting, affirmed the circuit court's order denying Salaam's motion to vacate the default forfeiture judgment and to dismiss the forfeiture complaint. 2020 IL App (1st) 190922U, ¶ 25. Specifically, the appellate court found that Salaam was not entitled to notice and that the State complied with the Forfeiture Act when it served notice on Tyler because Tyler was the "owner or interest holder" of the money. Id. ¶ 18. In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court highlighted the following facts: (1) the drugs and money were seized from a bag that was " ‘pulled closed’ " on the passenger seat of the van in close proximity to Tyler, who exercised "exclusive dominion and control over the bag"; (2) Salaam was not inside the van at the time of Tyler's arrest and did not "exercise immediate dominion or control over the bag"; and (3) there was no evidence in the record to establish that Salaam's name or his company's name was on the bag, which was not concealed or locked inside a compartment of the van. Id. ¶ 17.

¶ 12 The appellate court also found that, even if Salaam were entitled to notice, he had "actual notice of the forfeiture proceedings." Id. ¶ 19. The appellate court noted Salaam's ongoing relationship with Tyler and reasoned that Tyler would have notified Salaam that $223,743 had been seized from his work van.² Id. ¶ 20.

¶ 13 The dissenting justice reasoned that Salaam was entitled to notice of the forfeiture proceedings because he was the owner of the van in which the money was found and, therefore, "might have a legally recognized interest" in the money. Id. ¶ 38 (Hyman, J., dissenting). He further reasoned that the State's failure to serve notice on Salaam rendered the forfeiture judgment void. Id. ¶ 46.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 In this court, Salaam again argues that the State's failure to give him notice of the forfeiture proceeding denied him due process and rendered the forfeiture judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. Initially, we note that Salaam's motion, labeled a "motion to vacate," was filed more than 30 days after the circuit court's final judgment was entered. In reviewing the content of the "motion to vacate," we find the motion was in effect a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2016) ; see In re Haley D. , 2011 IL 110886, ¶ 67, 355 Ill.Dec. 375, 959 N.E.2d 1108 (the character of the pleading should be determined from its content, not its label); see also Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education , 201 Ill. 2d 95, 102, 267 Ill.Dec. 58, 776 N.E.2d 195 (2002) (the caption of a motion is not controlling; the character of the pleading is determined from its content, not its label (citing Barnes v. Southern Ry. Co. , 116 Ill. 2d 236, 107 Ill.Dec. 581, 507 N.E.2d 494 (1987) )). We...