Find Legal Information

No. 1-97-0612

PRESIDING JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of thecourt:

Plaintiff Edward Freed appeals an order of the circuit court ofCook County denying his petition for administrative review of anorder by defendant Illinois Secretary of State George H. Ryan. The administrative order denied plaintiff's petition to rescindthe suspension of plaintiff's driving privileges.

The record on appeal indicates the following facts. Freed was astudent at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. OnMay 14, 1995, plaintiff, along with friends, attempted to enterthe American Exchange Tavern in DeKalb. Plaintiff, who was 19years old, presented the bouncer an Illinois state identificationcard for Joseph Zito, who the record shows was over 24 years oldat the time.

The bouncer denied plaintiff entry to the tavern. As plaintiffand his friends spoke with the bouncer, a DeKalb police officerdrove by the tavern. The bouncer flagged down the police officer, who asked plaintiff for theidentification card. The policeofficer issued a citation to plaintiff based on a DeKalb ordinance, stating that the officer hadreason to believe that Freed,as "a person under 21 yrs. of age, did represent that s/he is ofage for the purpose of purchasing accepting/receiving alcoholicliquor ***."

The officer also confiscated the state identification card. According to the police report, plaintiff told the officer thatZito had given him the identification card, but later told thepolice that he did not know Zito. Plaintiff later testified thathe did not know Zito, but had purchased the card from a friend ata party.

On July 10, 1995, plaintiff pleaded guilty to violating theordinance, was fined $150, and placed under supervision for oneyear. On August 27, 1995, the DeKalb Police Department notifiedthe Illinois Secretary of State (Secretary) that plaintiff hadmisused Zito's identification card. The Secretary notifiedplaintiff by a letter dated September 5, 1995, that his driver'slicense and privileges would be suspended for one year, pursuantto section 6-206(a)(10) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS5/6-206 (West 1994)) (Code), which authorizes the suspension ofdriving privileges where a person "[h]as possessed, displayed, orattempted to fraudulently use any license, identification card,or permit not issued to the person." The Secretary also sentplaintiff an order of suspension for one year, effective October 30, 1995.

On November 1, 1995, the Secretary received plaintiff's requestfor a formal hearing to contest the suspension. On January 8,1996, a formal hearing on the matter was held before a hearingofficer for the Secretary. Plaintiff argued that section 6-206(a)(10) of the Code wasunconstitutional because it lacked arational basis and also that the suspension of driving privilegesviolated his right not to be subjected to double jeopardy. Thehearing officer rejected plaintiff's arguments and recommendeddenying his petition to rescind the suspension. On March 26,1996, the Secretary adopted the hearing officer's recommendation.

On April 30, 1996, plaintiff filed a complaint for administrativereview in the circuit court of Cook County. On January 8, 1997,following the submission of the record, briefing and argument ofthe issues, the trial court affirmed the decision of the Secretary. Plaintiff filed a timely notice ofappeal to this court.

I

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the suspension of his drivingprivileges was unconstitutional. All statutes are presumed to beconstitutional. Brown's Furniture, Inc. v. Wagner, 171 Ill. 2d410, 419, 665 N.E.2d 795, 801 (1996). The party challenging thevalidity of a statute bears the burden of clearly establishingany constitutional invalidity. Brown's Furniture, Inc., 171 Ill.2d at 419-20, 665 N.E.2d at 801. This court must construelegislative enactments so as to affirm their constitutionalvalidity if it is reasonably possible to do so. Brown's Furniture, Inc., 171 Ill. 2d at420, 665 N.E.2d at 801. We review denovo the circuit court's decision with respect to the constitutionality of the Act. Brown's Furniture, Inc., 171 Ill. 2d at420, 665 N.E.2d at 801.

II

Plaintiff argues that section 6-206(a)(10) of the Code violateshis right to due process. The constitutional provisions implicated are the due process clauses ofthe Federal and StateConstitutions. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,