People ex rel. Waller v. Seeburg Slot Machines

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. $5,970 United States Currency

    279 Ill. App. 3d 583 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that "the trial court specifically found that claimant's innocent explanation for possessing the currency was not credible"

    Contraband per se consists of property that is inherently illegal to possess. People ex rel. Waller v. Seeburg Slot Machines, 267 Ill. App.3d 119, 129 (1994). The State need not return contraband per se to the owner even if the items were seized improperly.

  2. State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines

    338 S.C. 176 (S.C. 2000)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that possession of slot machines violated § 2710

    Other states have found gambling machines to be contraband per se under their statutes and have allowed their forfeiture regardless of their use or operability. See, e.g.,People v. Seeburg Slot Machines, 641 N.E.2d 997 (Ill.App. 1994) (contraband per se), State v. One Hundred Fifty-EightGamingDevices, 499 A.2d 940 (Md.Ct.App. 1985) (contraband per se); see also State v. Madere, 352 So.2d 666 (La. 1977) (contraband, same result), Bellv. State, 205 S.W.2d 714 (Ark. 1947) (contraband, same result), State v. FourBell Fruit Gum Slot Machines, 162 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1945) (contraband, same result). These illegal gambling machines cannot be considered derivative contraband because they are themselves the subject of the statute's prohibition.

  3. 1995 Chevrolet v. Baltimore

    353 Md. 114 (Md. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Rejecting the lower court's conclusion that Plymouth Sedan is no longer good law and applying the exclusionary rule to a civil in rem forfeiture action

    1987); In re One 1987 Toyota, 621 A.2d 796, 799 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992); District of Columbia v. Ray, 305 A.2d 531, 533 (D.C. 1973); State Dept. of Highway Safety Motor Vehicles v. Killen, 667 So.2d 433, 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Pitts v. State, 207 Ga. App. 606, 607, 428 S.E.2d 650, 651 (1993); Idaho Dept. of Law Enforcement v. $34,000 U.S. Currency, 121 Idaho 211, 214, 824 P.2d 142, 145 (Idaho App. 1991); People v. Seeburg Slot Machines, 267 Ill. App.3d 119, 128, 641 N.E.2d 997, 1003 (1994); Caudill v. State, 613 N.E.2d 433, 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993); In re Flowers, 474 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 1991); State v. Davis, 375 So.2d 69, 73(La. 1979); Powell v. Secretary of State, 614 A.2d 1303, 1306 (Me. 1992); Boston Housing Auth. v. Guirola, 410 Mass. 820, 825, 575 N.E.2d 1100, 1104 (1991); In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich. 261, 265, 505 N.W.2d 201, 203 (1993); State v. Carrier, 765 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989); State v.

  4. People v. Patterson

    721 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 8 times

    In order to reach the manifest weight of the evidence standard, the opposite conclusion must be clearly evident. People ex rel. Waller v. Seeburg Slot Machines, 267 Ill. App.3d 119, 125 (1994). We believe that this standard of review should apply to cases under the Act because the trial court assessed the believability of the evidence, and a reviewing court should give deference to the trial court's observations.

  5. District Attorney v. Iadarola

    164 Misc. 2d 204 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    After Halper/Austin (supra), a majority of courts have held that separate forfeiture proceedings of contraband per se, the res of a crime, or the proceeds of a crime are constitutional under the Eighth Amendment and the Double Jeopardy Clause (United States v Alexander, 32 F.3d 1231, 1236, after remand from Sup Ct, supra; Securities Exch. Commn. v Bilzerain, 29 F.3d 689, 696; United States v United States Currency in Amount of One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand, One Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars, 18 F.3d 73, 76; UnitedStates v Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300, cert denied ___ US ___, 115 S Ct 573; United States v Borromeo, 1 F.3d 219, 221; United States v Haywood, 864 F. Supp. 502; United States v $50,000 In United States Currency, 1994 WL 75145; United States v All Assets Equip. of W. Side Bldg. Corp., 843 F. Supp. 377, 383-384; United States v $45,140, 839 F. Supp. 556; United States v $288,930 in United States Currency, 838 F. Supp. 367; State v Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 875 P.2d 613, 616-618; People ex rel. Waller v Seeburg Slot Machs., 267 Ill. App.3d 119, 641 N.E.2d 997; Johnson v Multiple Miscellaneous Items Numbered 1-424, 523 N.W.2d 238; State v Meister, 866 S.W.2d 485, 491; Idaho Dept. Of Law Enforcement v Real Prop. Located in Minidoka County, Idaho, 126 Idaho 422, 885 P.2d 381, n 5).