Laserfiche WebLink
December 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin <br />notifying her of the alleged violation prevented her from compiling contempo- <br />raneous evidence that may have countered the violation allegation. <br />The court rejected Tucker's arguments. The court determined that accept- <br />ing Tucker's prejudice argument "would place a near instantaneous notice <br />mandate on the [C]ity." And the court noted that even if it were "helpful" if al- <br />leged violators were provided notice more quickly, whether there was a due <br />process violation was dependent on whether "the existing procedures `present <br />an unreasonable risk of an erroneous deprivation' of due process." Acknowl- <br />edging that Tucker "may have been able to mount a better defense had she <br />known immediately of the June [ ] citation," the court found that the hearing <br />she did receive six months later "did not present an unreasonable risk of an er- <br />roneous deprivation." In conclusion, finding Tucker failed to point to any <br />authority requiring immediate prosecution of a municipal ordinance violation <br />(such as a statute of limitations in the City's weed ordinance) and failed to <br />demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice caused by the delayed prosecu- <br />tion, the court determined that Tucker "failed to plausibly allege a due process <br />claim based on the six months between the inspection of her property and the <br />issuance of the citation." In sum, the court held that "[a]lthough a six[ -]month <br />delay between inspection and citation may not be a model of administrative <br />efficiency, the delay in this case did not violate the Constitution." <br />See also: Cochran v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 828 F.3d 597 <br />(7th Cir. 2016). <br />Case Note: <br />Tucker had also argued that the City "mis[-]enforced" the City's weed ordinance <br />because it only required inspectors to determine whether some weeds exceeded 10 <br />inches, while the plain text of the ordinance required an "average height" of the of- <br />fending weeds exceed 10 inches. The court refused to address that issue, noting that <br />federal due process protection "is not a guarantee that state governments will apply <br />their own laws accurately." The court suggested that if Tucker believed the administra- <br />tive law judge's interpretation of the ordinance was legally incorrect, she could have <br />appealed her fine to Illinois' state courts. • <br />6 ©2018 Thomson Reuters <br />