People v. Einoder
Decision Date | 01 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 95944., No. 95942, No. 95943 |
Citation | 283 Ill.Dec. 551,808 N.E.2d 517,209 Ill.2d 443 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. John T. EINODER et al., Appellees. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield (Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Linda Woloshin, Mark L. Josephson and Russell K. Benton, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Peter B. Carey, Diana R. Lamphiere and Leland E. Shalgos, Chicago, for appellees.
Defendants, John T. Einoder, Tri-State Industries, Inc., and J.T. Einoder, Inc., were charged, in three separate indictments, for criminal disposal of waste under section 44(p)(1)(A) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/44(p)(1)(A) (West 2000)). The circuit court of Cook County granted defendants' motion to dismiss each of the indictments, finding that section 44(p)(1)(A) is unconstitutionally vague. This is a direct appeal by the State in each case pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (134 Ill.2d R. 302(a)). The cases have been consolidated on appeal. We reverse and remand.
On February 19, 2002, defendants were charged in three separate indictments for the offense of criminal disposal of waste under section 44(p)(1)(A) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/44(p)(1)(A) (West 2000)). The indictments alleged that defendants committed criminal disposal of waste by knowingly conducting a waste-disposal operation and accepting for disposal more than 250 cubic feet of concrete containing protruding rebar, construction debris, demolition debris, and general refuse, without a permit as required by section 21(d) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(d) (West 2000)).
On May 30, 2002, the State filed a motion to expand defendant John Einoder's conditions of bond to comply with the Act. In its motion to expand the conditions of bond, the State alleged that the "general construction or demolition debris" brought to the site by defendant John Einoder is not managed in accordance with section 22.38(b) of the Act, governing "facilit[ies] accepting exclusively general construction or demolition debris for transfer, storage, or treatment." 415 ILCS 5/22.38(b) (West 2000). The State therefore alleged that defendant John Einoder is subject to the requirements of section 21(d) of the Act and is required to obtain an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency permit to conduct such activity.
In its motion to expand defendant John Einoder's conditions of bond, the State further alleged that he has allowed "clean construction or demolition debris" to be deposited on the site, above grade, and otherwise not managed in accordance with the provisions of section 3.78a of the Act, without a permit.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictments arguing, inter alia, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because the term "grade" is not defined in the Act. Defendants also argued that the term "waste" fails to define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what is prohibited conduct.
The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The trial court reasoned:
Thus, the trial court determined that "[b]ecause the statute fails to provide any reference points to assist in interpreting how grade should be measured, this court interprets the term grade as an ambiguous or vague term."
The trial court further reasoned that:
The trial court concluded that:
The State appealed each case directly to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (134 Ill.2d R. 302(a)). The cases were consolidated in this appeal.
The State argues that the trial court erred in holding that section 44(p)(1)(A) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because the statute does not implicate first amendment rights and the trial court received no evidence to find vagueness as applied to defendants. We agree with the State. A defendant can challenge a statute as unconstitutionally vague in two ways: (1) on the statute's face, or (2) as the statute is applied to defendant's actions. See People v. Greco, 204 Ill.2d 400, 416, 274 Ill.Dec. 73, 790 N.E.2d 846 (2003). A defendant may not challenge the facial vagueness of a statute that does not implicate first amendment freedoms unless the statute "is incapable of any valid application." (Emphasis added.) People v. Izzo, 195 Ill.2d 109, 112, 253 Ill.Dec. 425, 745 N.E.2d 548 (2001).
The relevant statute at issue, section 44(p)(1)(A) of the Act, states:
The term "waste," as used in section 44(p)(1)(A), is defined in section 3.53 as:
"any garbage, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations, and from community activities * * *." 415 ILCS 5/3.53 (West 2000).
Section 21(d), referred to in section 44(p)(1)(A) of the Act, provides that no person shall:
The term "general construction or demolition debris" as used in section 21(d)(1)(ii) is defined in section 3.78 of the Act as:
The term "clean construction or demolition debris" is defined in section 3.78a of the Act as:
(Emphases added.) 415 ILCS 5/3.78a (West 2000).
We review de novo a decision holding a statute unconstitutional. People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill.2d 264, 290, 271 Ill.Dec. 881, 786 N.E.2d 139 (2003). "Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the validity of the statute has the burden to clearly establish the constitutional invalidity." Cryns, 203 Ill.2d at 290, 271 Ill.Dec. 881, 786 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Johnson
...affirm a statute's constitutionality if the statute is reasonably capable of such an interpretation. See People v. Einoder, 209 Ill.2d 443, 450, 283 Ill.Dec. 551, 808 N.E.2d 517 (2004). The question of whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, and our review is de novo. Pe......
-
People v. Ashley
...construction renders it sufficiently definite to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. People v. Einoder , 209 Ill. 2d 443, 450-51, 283 Ill.Dec. 551, 808 N.E.2d 517 (2004) ; People v. Taylor , 2019 IL App (1st) 160173, ¶ 32, 439 Ill.Dec. 655, 148 N.E.3d 708. ¶ 84 Also, a due proces......
-
People v. Burns
...209 (2006) ; In re Parentage of John M., 212 Ill.2d 253, 269, 288 Ill.Dec. 142, 817 N.E.2d 500 (2004) ; People v. Einoder, 209 Ill.2d 443, 448, 283 Ill.Dec. 551, 808 N.E.2d 517 (2004) ; People v. Huddleston, 212 Ill.2d 107, 145, 287 Ill.Dec. 560, 816 N.E.2d 322 (2004) ; People v. Greco, 204......
-
Maschek v. City of Chi.
...vague in two ways: (1) on the statute's face; or (2) as the statute is applied to defendant's actions. People v. Einoder, 209 Ill.2d 443, 448, 283 Ill.Dec. 551, 808 N.E.2d 517 (2004). A defendant may not challenge the facial vagueness of a statute that does not implicate first amendment fre......