New Lenox woman questions Will County forfeiture practices in fight to win back vehicle

A New Lenox woman was never charged with any crime when her 2012 vehicle valued at $5,285 was seized by police, but she spent almost two months fighting with prosecutors to get it back with no driving restrictions.

Besides having to pay for a lawyer, Danielle Duhoski said that when a judge allowed her to have the vehicle back on a restricted basis, she had to pay a $500 administrative fee to the village of a New Lenox and $995 in cash to a tow yard.

Duhoski is a joint tenant of the vehicle along with her ex-boyfriend, James Scanlan, who was charged Nov. 15, 2024, with domestic battery of Duhoski. Scanlan has pleaded not guilty to the charge in the case, which still is pending.

About four months later, officers seized the Ford Expedition from Scanlan after an investigation of an Oct. 7, 2024, hit-and-run crash that allegedly involved Scanlan.

Prosecutors then filed a complaint seeking forfeiture of the vehicle because Scanlan allegedly used the vehicle in connection with the offense of driving on a revoked license.

Duhoski’s attorney, Frank Andreano, said she is afraid of Scanlan and could not force him to return the vehicle or report it stolen.

On June 11, the forfeiture case was dismissed after Andreano argued that prosecutors missed their 56-day deadline to file the complaint, court records show.

“I can’t even believe that it’s legal for this to happen,” Duhoski said of the forfeiture case.

She said she planned to fight the case on her own, but she knew she wouldn’t succeed without paying for an attorney. The Ford Expedition had an average wholesale value of $5,285, according to a judge’s court order.

“I’m not sure why our tax dollars are going to fight me from getting the vehicle back. It doesn’t make any sense to me,” Duhoski said.

Andreano has cited Duhoski’s case in court filings as one of at least five cases where Will County prosecutors have aggressively pursued forfeiture of property belonging to people who’ve not been charged with any crime.

In another forfeiture case last year, Andreano filed a constitutional challenge to Illinois forfeiture law. The challenge was filed in a 2024 case where New Lenox police had seized a 2014 vehicle from an 84-year-old woman.

The woman had allowed her daughter to drive the vehicle, and she was not aware her driving privileges had been revoked, Andreano said.

“The whole system is built upon taking advantage of the poor, the working poor and innocent people. Innocent people should not have to fight the system this hard. And nobody cares,” Andreano said.

He claimed that even when prosecutors are presented with evidence of an innocent owner, they do not care.

“There’s nobody there who cares. It’s all about making money,” Andreano said.

“I might end up spending more than what the car is even worth just trying to get this car back. But at this point, it’s a little bit on principle. I just don’t think it’s right they’re doing this to people. I think the laws need to be reexamined.”

—  Danielle Duhoski, of New Lenox

In a statement, a representative of Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s office said they do not review forfeiture cases “based upon the value of the property.”

“The law allows the state to seize and forfeit property that is used in, or the result of, criminal activity. It has and will continue to adhere to its statutory obligations,” Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Laura Byrne said.

Glasgow’s office reviews each forfeiture case to determine whether there is evidence to suggest there is an innocent owner of the property who should receive it back, Byrne said.

Law enforcement may obtain additional information regarding “potential innocent owner status” during several stages of a forfeiture case, Byrne said.

“Often during the forfeiture case, law enforcement will uncover evidence suggesting that the claimant who files as an innocent owner is not the true owner or had knowledge that the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture was likely to occur,” Byrne said.

A New Lenox police officer had met with Duhoski during the investigation of the hit-and-run that allegedly involved Scanlan, according to the forfeiture complaint.

When the officer asked Duhoski if she knew Scanlan was not supposed to drive the vehicle because his license was revoked, the officer claimed that she said, “Yeah, I don’t know what’s going on with it. He’s a [expletive].”

“She doesn’t know what [Scanlan] was doing or not doing,” Andreano said.

Andreano said he pointed out in court that Scanlan is a “big guy and an abusive guy.” He cited two petitions for protective orders that Duhoski filed against Scanlan and questioned how she could have prevented her alleged abuser from driving the vehicle.

In Duhoski’s forfeiture case, she filed an affidavit saying that she needed the Ford Expedition for her job, her two children, grocery shopping and doctor appointments.

Her other vehicle, a Honda Odyssey, was broken down, and she was paying $200 a week to rent another car, according to the affidavit.

“I live in the suburbs. It’s not like I live in the city. You can’t survive in the suburbs with two kids without a vehicle,” Duhoski said.

Nevertheless, prosecutors objected to Andreano’s petition for hardship release of the Ford Expedition. But Duhoski was able to get her vehicle back when a judge granted the petition for hardship release May 28.

However, the judge restricted Duhoski’s use of the vehicle for essential travel, such as to her job or the grocery store, until the conclusion of the forfeiture case.

After the judge’s decision, Duhoski had to pay a $500 administrative fee to New Lenox and $995 in cash to Superior Towing in New Lenox, according to receipts provided by Andreano.

Duhoski said she had to borrow cash from a friend to pay the tow yard.

New Lenox village ordinance sets the $500 fee when vehicles are towed for certain offenses such as driving with a revoked license, New Lenox Deputy Chief Tim Perry said.

Duhoski eventually was able to keep the vehicle with no restrictions when the case was dismissed June 11.

Andreano questioned why an alleged victim of domestic violence had to fight prosecutors to get her vehicle back.

“I think it’s outrageous that somebody wouldn’t have mature judgment and compassion,” Andreano said.

Duhoski said it’s her understanding that civil forfeiture was created to combat drug money and money laundering, not take people’s vehicles in traffic-related cases.

She contends that Will County prosecutors are “pricing average people out of being able to fight for their stuff.”

“I might end up spending more than what the car is even worth just trying to get this car back,” Duhoski said. “But at this point, it’s a little bit on principle. I just don’t think it’s right they’re doing this to people. I think the laws need to be reexamined.”