People v. Stateline Recycling, LLC

• Decision Date: 03 December 2020
• Docket Number: Docket No. 124417
• Citation: 2020 IL 124417,181 N.E.3d 887,450 Ill.Dec. 535
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois EX REL. Lisa MADIGAN, Attorney General, Appellant, v. STATELINE RECYCLING, LLC, et al. (Elizabeth Reents, Appellee).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2020 IL 124417
181 N.E.3d 887
450 Ill.Dec. 535

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois EX REL. Lisa MADIGAN, Attorney General, Appellant,
v.
STATELINE RECYCLING, LLC, et al. (Elizabeth Reents, Appellee).

Docket No. 124417

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed December 3, 2020.

181 N.E.3d 888

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Ann C. Maskaleris, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Mark Rouleau, of Rockford, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

450 Ill.Dec. 536

¶ 1 The Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Environmental Protection

181 N.E.3d 889

450 Ill.Dec. 537

Agency (IEPA) initiated this civil enforcement action, alleging several violations of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) ( 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2016)) with regard to a parcel of property located in Rockford, Illinois. The complaint was brought against defendants Elizabeth Reents, as the owner of the subject property, and Stateline Recycling, LLC, a limited liability company that allegedly conducted an operation involving the dumping of construction and demolition debris on the property. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214(a) (eff. July 1, 2014), the Attorney General initiated pretrial discovery seeking to inspect the subject property. Reents refused to permit the inspection, and the circuit court of Winnebago County granted the Attorney General's motion to compel her to comply with the Rule 214(a) inspection request. After Reents asserted a good-faith objection and respectfully refused to comply with the discovery order, the circuit court held her in contempt so that she could file an appeal.

¶ 2 The appellate court reversed, holding that fourth amendment principles must be considered because the party requesting the inspection in this case was the government. 2018 IL App (2d) 170860, ¶¶ 39-40, 431 Ill.Dec. 682, 128 N.E.3d 352. The appellate court vacated the discovery order and remanded the case to the circuit court for application of fourth amendment principles in ruling on the Attorney General's motion to compel. Id. ¶¶ 69-70. We allowed the Attorney General's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. July 1, 2018). For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the appellate court and remand to that court for further proceedings.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The subject matter of this environmental enforcement action is a parcel of property consisting of approximately 10 acres, which is locked and gated and located at 2317 Seminary Street in Rockford, Illinois. Reents became the owner of the site when she obtained a tax deed to the property on April 8, 2015.

¶ 5 In January 2017, the Attorney General, on her own motion and at the request of the IEPA, on the behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, filed this civil enforcement action against defendants for violations of the Act ( 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2016)).¹ The complaint, as finally amended, asserted several counts against both Reents and Stateline Recycling, LLC, including allegations of open dumping of waste without a permit; disposal, storage, and abandonment of waste at an unpermitted facility; open dumping of waste resulting in litter and the deposition of construction and demolition debris; and failure to pay clean construction and demolition debris fill operation fees. Id. §§ 21(a), (e), (p), 22.51(a). The Attorney General sought injunctive relief as well as a civil penalty of $50,000 for the violation of the Act, an additional $10,000 for each day the violation continues, and costs pursuant to the Act. Id. §§ 42, 43.

¶ 6 The complaint alleged that Stateline Recycling, LLC, and/or its corporate predecessor, Busse Development & Recycling, Inc., conducted an operation for the dumping of construction and demolition debris at the site. According to the complaint, an inspection of the site by an IEPA inspector on July 29, 2015, showed mixed piles consisting of concrete, brick, painted cinder blocks, asphalt, and soil. Some of the mixed materials were placed above the ground. The inspection also revealed that

181 N.E.3d 890

450 Ill.Dec. 538

there was no indication of recycling the material, although a Stateline Recycling, LLC, representative indicated an intention to recycle it. The complaint further alleged that at a follow-up inspection on July 14, 2016, the IEPA inspector found the gate to the site unlocked and open, although no personnel were present. From his vantage point by the front gate, the inspector observed the continued presence of the same materials that were noted in the July 2015 inspection.

¶ 7 In April 2017, the Attorney General issued Reents a discovery request pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214(a) (eff. July 1, 2014), seeking access to the site to perform an inspection. In particular, the Rule 214(a) discovery notice requested that Reents permit the following:

"[a]llow representatives of the Illinois Attorney General access to the real property controlled and/or owned by Reents located at 2317 Seminary Street, Rockford, Winnebago County, Illinois, including any buildings, trailers, or fixtures thereupon. Plaintiff requests access on May 5, 2017 at 11 a.m., or at such other time as may be agreed between the parties. At this inspection, representatives of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency may also accompany Attorney General representatives and conduct an inspection pursuant to their authority under 415 ILCS 5/4 (2014)."

¶ 8 In response, Reents objected to the site inspection, claiming that it improperly sought to circumvent the constitutional requirement for a warrant and violated the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution ( U.S. Const., Amend. IV ) and Article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution ( Ill. Const. 1970, Art. I, § 6 ).

¶ 9 The Attorney General attempted to resolve the discovery dispute during the spring and summer of 2017 pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(k) (eff. July 1, 2014), but Reents refused to permit access to the site. In July 2017, the Attorney General filed a motion to compel Reents to allow her representatives access to the site. In support, the Attorney General explained that, because the site was the subject matter of the action, the nature and condition of the site were relevant to the alleged violations of the Act and the site was subject to inspection under this court's rules. The Attorney General argued that her representatives should be allowed access to the site, including any buildings, trailers, or fixtures for inspection under Rule 214(a). The Attorney General also argued that IEPA representatives should be allowed to accompany her representatives during the inspection because of its own independent statutory authority to conduct inspections of the site ( 415 ILCS 5/4(c) (West 2016)) and to monitor compliance with the Act (id. § 4(d)). The Attorney General further noted that certain industries have a history of government oversight and that no reasonable expectation of privacy could exist for an owner of property used in such industries. According to the Attorney General, landfills are a highly regulated commercial activity, and inspections by the IEPA can be expected.

¶ 10 Reents opposed the motion to compel and again contended that the inspection request constituted an attempt to use Rule 214(a) to circumvent the probable cause and warrant requirements of the fourth amendment. Reents also disputed that she was engaged in a highly regulated commercial activity because she had recently obtained title to the property through a tax purchase and there was no evidence that she had conducted or permitted the conduct of regulated activities upon her property.

¶ 11 In reply, the Attorney General reasoned that Rule 214(a)'s plain language applies to all parties in civil litigation, without

450 Ill.Dec. 539

181 N.E.3d 891

excepting a government litigant. The Attorney General maintained that the civil discovery rules, including their relevance, reasonableness, and judicial oversight requirements, satisfy constitutional concerns.

¶ 12 Following a hearing at which Reents acknowledged that the site had been a landfill in the past, the circuit court granted the Attorney General's motion to compel her compliance with the Rule 214(a) request to inspect the site. The circuit court reasoned that Rule 214 applies to all civil cases and permits any party to request access to real estate for inspection when it is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation. The circuit court determined that the subject matter of the litigation is the property currently owned by Reents and that the alleged violations of the Act pertained to the property. The court further explained that, because this was a civil case and not a criminal case, the fourth amendment posed no impediment to the Attorney General's right...