Lawsuit claims New Lenox police engage in ‘policing-for-profit’ on seizing vehicles

A Will County lawsuit claims that the New Lenox Police Department engaged in “policing-for-profit” when its officers wrongfully seized a 2010 Jeep Wrangler belonging to a man innocent of wrongdoing.

An attorney for Johnny Linares of Frankfort filed the lawsuit June 5, more than two months after a Will County judge allowed Linares to receive back the Jeep he bought for his son, court records show.

Linares’ vehicle was seized by New Lenox police when his ex-wife was arrested on charge of driving under the influence last year. In a phone call with a detective, Linares said the vehicle was for his son, and his ex-wife was not supposed to be driving it, prosecutors said.

During the traffic stop that led to the arrest of Linares’ ex-wife, officers allegedly found three Adderall pills in her purse without a prescription, court records show.

Based on that, prosecutors initiated a case Oct. 18 seeking forfeiture of the Jeep.

In a motion, Linares’ attorney, Frank Andreano, argued that the Illinois Supreme Court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found a vehicle owner must be engaged in an action that facilitates a drug transaction or bears some involvement in such a transaction.

Andreano argued that prosecutors did not suggest any drug transaction occurred in the forfeiture case connected to Linares’ ex-wife.

In an April 2 ruling, Judge Jennifer Lynch sided with Andreano.

Lynch found the vehicle was not used to conceal the Adderall pills because they were in the ex-wife’s purse, and the vehicle did not make it “easier or less difficult” to transport the pills.

Despite Lynch’s ruling, prosecutors have requested that she reconsider her decision. She has not yet ruled on that request.

‘Policing-for-profit’ lawsuit

Meanwhile, Linares is pursuing the June 5 lawsuit against the village of New Lenox, which seeks almost $10,000 in damages, along with the payment of legal costs.

The lawsuit filed by Andreano alleged that Linares is a “victim of policing-for-profit” because he is innocent of wrongdoing yet New Lenox police “seized and sought to forfeit” the Jeep.

“The forgoing actions were undertaken by the police because the money from civil asset forfeitures is distributed directly to police and prosecutors,” according to the lawsuit.

In response, New Lenox Police Chief Louis Alessandrini said his department does not practice “policing-for-profit.”

“We are aware of this frivolous lawsuit, and it is has been turned over to our attorney. With regard to the forfeiture in this case, and in any forfeiture case, we present the paperwork to [Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s office] for approval. The forfeiture is then handled by their office,” Alessandrini said.

The lawsuit is not the first time Andreano has raised issues with the way forfeiture cases are handled by Glasgow’s office.

Last year, Andreano accused Will County prosecutors of “prosecuting for profit” in a forfeiture case involving an 84-year-old woman’s 2014 vehicle. He also represented Danielle Duhoski of New Lenox, who had to fight with prosecutors to get back her 2012 vehicle even though she owns it and she was not charged with any crime.

2010 vehicle forfeiture case

In a Feb. 28 court filing, Assistant State’s Attorney Laurence Leszcynski pushed for forfeiture of the Jeep by arguing Linares was aware his ex-wife drives the vehicle despite his objections.

Leszcynski asserted that the vehicle is subject to forfeiture because it was used to “transport a controlled substance.”

Leszcynski also disputed whether a vehicle title can determine true ownership of the vehicle. He argued that an owner could be described as someone who has “dominion or control over a thing.”

He argued that Linares demonstrated he did not have “dominion or control” of the vehicle because his ex-wife “sometimes” drove the vehicle despite his objections.

Leszcynski challenged Lynch’s court order for return of the Jeep by arguing that she did not “cite facts” to support her conclusions.

His motion on April 28 said no evidentiary hearing was held to determine whether the Jeep was used to “travel to the source of the Adderall,” whether Linares’ ex-wife placed the pills in her purse during the traffic stop or consumed Adderall in the vehicle.

On June 4, Andreano filed a response to Leszcynski that argued he cited no evidence that “could possibly prevail in trial.”

Andreano then criticized Glasgow’s forfeiture division.

“The forfeiture division operates like an immature rookie traffic cop who cheerfully brags about writing more tickets than any other officer on the force, even after repeatedly losing in court,” according to Andreano’s response. “The case at bar is the poster child for what is wrong with the forfeiture division and is but a small portion of why so many people have lost faith in our system of justice.”

When asked about Andreano’s June 4 response, Glasgow’s office declined to comment.

‘Big fish’ strike force

In Andreano’s response to Leszcynski, he argued that Will County’s status as a “national transportation hub” should lead Glasgow’s forfeiture division to concentrate on “criminal organizations, drug dealers and trans-shipping enterprises.”

“In a short, a ‘big fish’ strike force,” Andreano said.

Andreano noted that Will County has several interstate highways (such as Interstate 55, I-80 and I-355), railways, waterways and intermodal facilities.

The intermodal yards in Joliet and Elwood comprise what has been considered the largest inland port in the nation.

But the Illinois General Assembly passed laws allowing police to seize vehicles from “habitual drunk drivers and those with certain license revocations,” Andreano said.

“The problem with this later expansion to scope was that conspiracy laws and racketeering liability didn’t fit well with most pedestrian crimes, i.e., the alcoholic husband who takes the family car to the bar instead of his scheduled [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting,” Andreano said.

Andreano said that “reasons that defy explanation,” the idea of a “big fish” prosecutorial task force “concentrating on its core mission,” did not materialize in Will County.

“Instead, the forfeiture division has become a serial filer of unwarranted and fanciful forfeiture actions – the case at bar being a perfect example,” Andreano said.