Robinson v. Hanrahan

Background

A man arrested on an armed robbery charge had his car seized under Illinois’ vehicle forfeiture law while he was held in the county jail. The State sent the required notice to the address listed with the Secretary of State rather than to the jail. The man did not receive the notice until he was released. After an ex parte hearing, the trial court ordered the car forfeited and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld that forfeiture.

Reasoning

The central question was whether mailing notice to the owner’s registered home address satisfied the Constitution’s requirement that people get fair notice before their property is taken. The Court applied the long-standing rule that notice must be “reasonably calculated” to inform interested people. Because the State knew the owner was in jail and could not get mail at his home, mailing to that address was not reasonably likely to inform him. The Court concluded the notice method failed and reversed the Illinois decision, sending the case back for further proceedings consistent with this view.

Real world impact

The ruling means that governments cannot rely on mailing to a recorded home address when they know the owner cannot receive that mail, such as when the owner is detained. Officials handling forfeitures and other property actions will need to take steps that actually reach known owners before completing a forfeiture. The Court decided the case only on the notice issue and did not address other legal questions raised by the owner.

Dissents or concurrances

The Illinois Supreme Court had a divided decision with three justices dissenting; the state court majority treated the action as against the property and accepted substituted service, a view the U.S. Court rejected.