# People v. $1,124,905 U.S. Currency

> Illinois Supreme Court · September 18, 1997 · 177 Ill. 2d 314

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744469

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. $1,124,905 U.S. CURRENCY AND ONE 1988 CHEVROLET ASTRO VAN (Jesus Mena, Appellant)
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 18, 1997
- **Citations:** 177 Ill. 2d 314; 226 Ill. Dec. 627; 685 N.E.2d 1370; 1997 Ill. LEXIS 424
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bilandic
- **Judges:** Nickels, Bilandic, Heiple, Freeman, Miller
- **Cited by:** 93 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744469

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the State’s argument that the claimant’s answer in a judicial in rem forfeiture proceeding failed to identify defenses relied upon
- noting that common law standing is an “affirmative defense” which “must be pleaded or else it is waived”
- rejecting a requirement that a “substantial connection” exist

## Opinion text

JUSTICE BILANDIC, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority that the circuit court erred in striking Mena’s answer and that the entry of a default judgment of forfeiture must therefore be reversed. However, I do not agree with the majority’s reasoning in reaching that conclusion. Specifically, I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the claimant in a forfeiture action has no obligation to plead his or her standing to contest the forfeiture. I believe that the approach to the standing issue espoused in Chief Justice Freeman’s dissent is correct. I also disagree with the reasoning employed by the majority in resolving the fifth amendment issue, and I would adhere to the analysis on this issue provided by Chief Justice Freeman’s dissent.
With regard to the sufficiency of the State’s complaint, I agree with the majority that the State’s complaint fails to state a claim for forfeiture. I also agree with the majority that the State should be given the opportunity on remand to amend its complaint.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744469. Public record. Not legal advice.