ACTION REQUESTED:
Title
Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel with a Request to ADOPT an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 20 of the CODE of the City of Peoria to Add Sec. 20-112 Regarding the POSSESSION OF CANNABIS UNDER 10 GRAMS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA and Amending CHAPTER 32 of the CODE of the City of Peoria Amending Sec. 32-3 to ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION OF ALL THE VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CODE.
Body
BACKGROUND: On July 29, 2016, Public Act 99-0697 that amended the Cannabis Control Act, 720 ILCS 550/1 et seq., and the Drug Paraphernalia Control Act, 720 ILCS 600/1 et seq. came into effect. PA 99-0697 effectively made the possession of cannabis less than 10 grams and the possession of drug paraphernalia seized relating to an offense of possession of cannabis less than 10 grams, a civil law violation with a fine only penalty.
PA 99-0697 also contained a provision that allowed the local municipality or unit of local government which imposes a fine upon cannabis to continue its own regulations. Thus, the City as a home-rule unit can pass an ordinance regulating as civil offenses, the possession of cannabis under 10 grams and the possession of drug paraphernal; determine the amount of the fine; and set forth the manner and process of enforcement.
The Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/1-2.1-1, et seq., authorizes a home rule municipality to provide by ordinance, a system of administrative adjudication for prosecution of certain ordinance violations permitted by the Illinois Constitution. Chapter 32 of the City Code already provides for the process and procedure for the system of administrative adjudication for prosecution of certain violations of the Code of the City of Peoria. The proposed Ordinance would open the administrative adjudication prosecution process for all violations of the City Code that carries a fine only penalty. The possession of cannabis or drug paraphernalia that is deemed to be a civil law violation should be prosecuted through the administrative adjudication process because if such a violation was prosecuted and processed through the circuit court system, the City would have to set up a burdensome automatic biennial expungement system and any fine that is actually paid would have to be shared with a number of county and state agencies that are unrelated and remote from the local enforcement of ordinance violations. In addition, any civil offense of the possession of cannabis or drug paraphernalia that is prosecuted through the circuit court system would have to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rules 585 through 590 which would require the use of an uniform ticket that has to be approved by the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges and filed with the Illinois Supreme Court, stringent court scheduling requirements, and a quick turnaround of 48 hours, which does not exclude the weekend, for the officers to file the tickets to the circuit court.
The purpose of opening up the administrative adjudication to all ordinance offenses is two-fold: 1) efficiency and 2) local control. Currently, the City already prosecutes violation of the provisions of Chapter 13 (tall grass/weed, garbage, litter, and etc.); Zoning Code; Chapter 5 (building code violations); and Chapter 28 (parking tickets) through the administrative adjudication process. The hearings are generally held in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday and Friday mornings. According to police records, there has been a significant decrease in the number of municipal ordinance violation notice (“MOVN”) tickets issued. In 2016, there were 727 MOVN tickets issued compared to 1,686 MOVN tickets issued in 2015. Since the most efficient and less cumbersome method to prosecute possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia violations is through the administrative adjudication process, it only makes sense to move all ordinance violations prosecuted by the City to the administrative adjudication process. In addition, the amount of court cost has steadily increased over the years and currently, the court cost for a $50 fine is $205. Administrative adjudication of all ordinance violations will result in local control to ensure that the paid fines go directly to the City. The City will still maintain the option to enforce any the provisions of the City Code through the circuit court. See 32-2 which states that “[t]his administrative adjudication system shall not preclude the city from using other methods to enforce its ordinances including the filing with the circuit court any citation charging a person with a violation of the Code.”
If the City Council adopts the proposed Ordinance after this first reading and based on the 2016 data related to police incidents on possession of cannabis under 10 grams and the MOVN tickets issued, approximately 941 ordinance violations will be processed through the administrative adjudication process at City Hall annually.
The following is in response to the questions posed during the first reading discussion of this Ordinance, specifically the impact of the amendment to Section 32-3 of the City Code in opening all ordinance violations to administrative adjudication. As indicated above, the reasons to move the remaining ordinance violation prosecution cases from the Circuit Court to City Hall are for efficiency and local control. If the small number of ordinance violations, currently tickets issued by Peoria Police Officers for under-age drinking, loud noise from a party, loud music from a vehicle, open alcohol, and other violations, remained in Circuit Court while the cannabis and drug paraphernalia civil violations are adjudicated through the administrative system, there would be confusion and inefficiencies in officers carrying two separate ticket books because the information needed for a ticket that is processed through the Circuit Court system is vastly different and distinct from the information needed for a ticket that is processed through the administrative adjudication. Staff has thoroughly reviewed whether adding a sticker or having a 2-book ticket system would work and it was determined that the potential human error and additional confusion negated any benefit.
This does not mean that the City loses all its ability to prosecute its ordinances in Circuit Court. Section 32-2 of the City Code still remains and it states that “[t]his administrative adjudication system shall not preclude the city from using other methods to enforce its ordinances including the filing with the circuit court any citation charging a person with a violation of the Code.” Thus, if the need arises because ticketing a repeat offender or a recalcitrant offender through the administrative adjudication does not work, the City still has the option to bring charges in Circuit Court and upon conviction, seek remedies beyond the scope of an adjudication hearing officer.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that there will be an increase in costs related to the fees to the hearing officers assigned to the administrative adjudication prosecution process, but this may be offset by the increase amount of paid fines that would go directly to the City.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS: Not applicable.
IMPACT IF APPROVED: This will allow the City’s Police Officers to enforce the offenses of possession of cannabis under 10 grams and any related possession of drug paraphernalia.
IMPACT IF DENIED: Since the effective date of PA 99-0697, City’s Police Officers has not been able to enforce the offense of possession of cannabis under 10 grams and any related possession of drug paraphernalia and would have to continue to report such incident as a non-criminal offense.
ALTERNATIVES: As deemed appropriate by the City Council.
EEO CERTIFICATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
WHICH OF THE GOALS IDENTIFIED IN THE COUNCIL’S 2014 - 2029 STRATEGIC PLAN DOES THIS RECOMMENDATION ADVANCE?
1. Attractive Neighborhoods with Character: Safe and Livable
WHICH CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR(S) FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES THIS RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENT?
1. Reduce crime.
2. Have an efficient government.
DEPARTMENT: Legal