[ Search ] [ PDF text ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Introduced ] | [ Amendatory Veto Motion 001 ] | [ Engrossed ] |
| [ Enrolled ] | [ Re-enrolled ] | [ Senate Amendment 001 ] |
92_HB2528gms
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, 62706
GEORGE H. RYAN
GOVERNOR
August 17, 2001
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor by
Article IV, Section 9(e) of the Illinois Constitution of
1970, and re-affirmed by the People of the State of Illinois
by popular referendum in 1974, and conforming to the standard
articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex Rel.
Klinger v. Howlett, 50 Ill. 2d 242 (1972), Continental
Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. v. Zagel, 78 Ill. 2d 387
(1979), People ex Rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, 79 Ill. 2d
356 (1980), and County of Kane v. Carlson, 116 Ill. 2d 186
(1987), that gubernatorial action be consistent with the
fundamental purposes and the intent of the bill, I hereby
return House Bill 2528 "AN ACT to amend the Fish and Aquatic
Life Code," with my specific recommendations for change.
House Bill 2528 provides for the seizure and forfeiture
of any fishing tackle, other apparatus, vehicle or watercraft
used to take or attempt to take aquatic life from an aquatic
life farm without the consent of the owner. However, the
forfeiture language contained in the bill does not set forth
the constitutionally required due process procedure, nor does
it provide for the ability of an innocent owner or lien
holder of the property to assert their interest against
forfeiture. Under current law, the Fish and Aquatic Life Code
does contain a provision for forfeiture which provides due
process protections and allows for a jury trial to contest
forfeiture. However, as written, House Bill 2528 eliminates
the ability to use the existing forfeiture provisions in the
underlying statue.
The provisions of House Bill 2528 provide additional
protection for individuals whose livelihoods are dependent on
their aquaculture business by providing adequate penalties
for persons who take or attempt to take these business
owners' assets. However, the bill's lack of due process
procedure in the forfeiture provisions must be addressed.
Therefore, I offer the following specific recommendations
for change:
on page 2, line 15, by inserting after the period the
following:
"Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
the seizure and confiscation procedures set forth in
Section 1-215 of this Code shall apply."; and
on page 3, line 6, by inserting after the period the
following:
"Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
the seizure and confiscation procedures set forth in
Section 1-215 of this Code shall apply.".
With these changes, House Bill 2528 will have my
approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
Sincerely,
s/GEORGE H. RYAN
Governor