City of Chicago v. Driscoll

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2007 » City of Chicago v. Driscoll

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-06-2198 Rel

Case Date: 05/30/2007

Preview:THIRD DIVISION May 30, 2007

No. 1-06-2198

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIN C. DRISCOLL, Defendant- Appellee

(The City Of Chicago Department Of Administrative Hearings, Defendant).

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County

No. 05 M1 651407

Honorable Edna Turkington, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff City of Chicago (City) appeals from an order of the circuit court on administrative review upholding the determination of the City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings that defendant Erin C. Driscoll did not violate the Chicago Municipal Code (Code) by failing to display a City of Chicago vehicle sticker (city

1-06-2198 sticker) on her vehicle. On appeal, the City contends that Driscoll was required to display a city sticker on her vehicle because she resided in Chicago and was the registered owner of the vehicle. For the following reasons, we reverse the order of the circuit court. On November 4, 2004, Driscoll's car was parked at 1701 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago and was ticketed for failing to display a city sticker. The ticket indicated that the car was registered to Driscoll, who resided at 211 East Ohio Street in Chicago. Driscoll contested the ticket by mail and contended in an attached letter that the vehicle was "registered" to the City of Highland Park and displayed a Highland Park city sticker. The return address on Driscoll's letter was a post office box in Highland Park. Driscoll's letter also indicated that she had been ticketed for the same violation in 2001 and the ticket had been dismissed because her vehicle displayed a Highland Park city sticker. In February 2005, an administrative law officer ruled against Driscoll, finding that because she lived in Chicago, her vehicle required a city sticker. Driscoll filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County for administrative review. The court reversed the determination of the administrative law officer and remanded the cause for a new hearing. Upon remand, a hearing was held before a different administrative law officer in December 2005. The officer found in favor of Driscoll and dismissed the ticket. The City filed a complaint for judicial review, and the circuit court affirmed the dismissal of the ticket. The City now appeals. Initially, we note that the parties disagree as to the appropriate standard of 2

1-06-2198 review. The City contends that the interpretation of an ordinance is a question of law and should be reviewed de novo. Driscoll, who appears pro se, contends that because there are facts in dispute, we should review the administrative law officer's determination pursuant to the manifest weight of the evidence standard. Here, however, the facts are not in dispute. The only issue is the interpretation of the provisions of the Code relating to city stickers. Because an issue of statutory construction raises a question of law, our review is de novo. Lucas v. Lakin, 175 Ill. 2d 166, 171 (1997). Section 9-64-125 of the Chicago Municipal Code provides in part: "Display of license. No person shall park or stand on any portion of the public way * * * any vehicle requiring a license pursuant to Chapter 3-56 of this code, unless the license is displayed as required by Section 9-76-170 of this code." Chicago Municipal Code

Download City of Chicago v. Driscoll.pdf