People v. Fernow
| Decision Date | 20 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 12253.,12253. |
| Citation | 122 N.E. 155,286 Ill. 627 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FERNOW. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; John Richardson, Judge.
John Fernow was convicted of violating the Motor Vehicle Act, and brings error. Affirmed.Vincent D. Wyman and Harry C. Kinne, both of Chicago, and Charles E. Carpenter, of Urbana, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., and Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., and Edward C. Fitch, both of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
In February, 1918, John Fernow, Jr., a corporation, had two barns in the rear of 2906 and 2908 Michigan avenue, Chicago, rented from month to month under a verbal lease, for the storage of automobiles, and had in its possession in the barns ten Ford automobiles. The plaintiff in error, vice president and general manager of the corporation, took the motors, upon which there were serial numbers of the manufacturer, together with dies for changing the numbers, to an automobile repair shop, and hired and paid a repairman to file off the original numbers and put on new ones. The steel filings were still on the motors when they were found in the barn. An information was filed in the municipal court, which, as afterward amended, charged that the plaintiff in error, on February 28, 1918, unlawfully and knowingly had in his possession the ten Ford automobiles, from which the manufacturer's serial numbers had been removed for the purpose of concealing or destroying the identity of the motor vehicles. The plaintiff in error pleaded not guilty, and moved to quash the information on the ground that section 15b of the Motor Vehicle law is unconstitutional and void. The motion was overruled, and upon a trial plaintiff in error was found guilty and he was fined $100 and costs. A writ of error was sued out of this court, and the errors assigned question the constitutionality of the law under which the plaintiff in error was convicted.
Section 15b of the Motor Vehicle act, added by amendment in 1917 and in force January 1, 1918 (Laws of 1917, p. 685) provides as follows:
‘Any person having in his or her possession any motor bicycle or motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial number, or any other manufacturers' trade or distinguishing number or identification mark, has been removed, defaced, covered or destroyed for the purpose of concealing or destroying the identity of such motor bicycle or motor vehicle shall be liable to a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00) or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or both.’
The grounds upon which the validity of the section is challenged are that it is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power; that it violates section 2 of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; that it has more than one object, and the object is not clearly indicated in the title of the act, and that it is unconstitutional and void as class legislation.
It is agreed that the section was enacted in the exercise of the police power, which may be exercised in the passage of laws for the protection of the public and the general welfare. The purpose of the act is to prevent the defacing, covering, or destruction of the manufacturer's serial number or distinguishing mark, so as to preserve the identity of motor vehicles and thereby protect the public against violations of law. The motor vehicle has become the most common and efficient agency for the commission of crime and the chief instrumentality employed by criminals to avoid detection and escape punishment, and one of the methods employed is to destroy the evidence of identity. Motor vehicles have also become very frequent subjects of larceny, and the removal or change of the serial number is a convenient method for preventing identification and recovery. One committing a crime, even the most serious, and escaping in an automobile, would be more difficult of apprehension if the serial number or identification mark should be removed. The section is a legitimate and proper exercise of the police power.
The argument that the section conflicts with the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk
...with the motor numbers defaced are a legitimate exercise of the police power, and do not violate the constitutional guaranties. People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627; People v. Johnson, 288 Ill. 442; People v. Billardello, 319 Ill. 124; State v. Randolph, 192 Iowa, 36; Osborne v. State, 168 Ark. 3......
-
Star Square Auto Supply Co. v. Gerk
...with the motor numbers defaced are a legitimate exercise of the police power, and do not violate the constitutional guaranties. People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627; People Johnson, 288 Ill. 442; People v. Billardello, 319 Ill. 124; State v. Randolph, 192 Iowa 36; Osborne v. State, 168 Ark. 396. ......
-
Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., Inc. v. George W. Thomas, Inc.
...v. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57, 30 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed. 930; Borderland Construction Co. v. State, 49 Ariz. 523, 68 P.2d 207; People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627, 122 N.E. 155; People v. Snowburger, 113 Mich. 86, 71 N.W. 497; State v. Manos, 179 S.C. 45, 183 S.E. 582. Cases applying this rule to viola......
-
People v. Hassil
...Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 992, 1257,32 L. Ed. 253;Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S. Ct. 584, 71 L. Ed. 1000;People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627, 122 N. E. 155;City of Chicago v. Shaynin, 258 Ill. 69, 101 N. E. 224,45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 23. [5] Plaintiff in error next contends that the ......