The Illinois Attorney General’s Office is reviewing a Joliet attorney’s claim that the state’s forfeiture law is unconstitutional and has led to abusive practices by Will County prosecutors.

On March 11, attorney Frank Andreano filed a notice to Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s Office of his claim of unconstitutionality regarding the law that allows for the seizure and forfeiture of property suspected of being involved in criminal activity.

The notice to Raoul’s office was filed in a forfeiture case involving the seizure of an elderly woman’s 2014 vehicle. The next hearing in the case is set for May 20.

The matter is under review by Raoul’s office. It remains to be seen how his office will respond but it usually defends the constitutionality of state laws.

In a March 11 court filing, Andreano argued a “healthy percentage” of all money derived from civil asset forfeiture in the state is “paid directly” to state’s attorney’s offices, resulting in “certain prosecutors becoming office rainmakers.”

“The desire to increase office revenues through civil asset forfeitures and their individual prosecutorial careers has unfortunately resulted in unconstitutional and illegal abuses of civil asset forfeiture seizures by state court prosecutors in Will County, Illinois,” Andreano said.

Andreano said due process under the U.S. Constitution requires prosecutors to act in the public interest.

Andreano said by substituting private gain for the public interest, the actual practice of Will County “runs afoul” with due process.

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s Office has defended its handling of forfeiture cases by saying prosecutors’ salaries are fixed and prosecutors do not “personally profit from vigorous enforcement of the forfeiture laws.”

“The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office always follows the law and never decides a forfeiture matter based on the value of the assets. The motivation is to combat and address criminal activity,” according to a March 27 court filing from Assistant State’s Attorney Colleen Griffin.

Andreano raised the constitutional challenge to forfeiture law on behalf of his client, Almeda Cain, 86, of Richton Park. Cain’s 2014 vehicle was seized by New Lenox police officers in 2024.

The events leading to the seizure began when Cain was not feeling well and asked her adult daughter to pick up medication at a pharmacy, according to Andreano court filing.

Cain did not know her daughter’s driving privileges were revoked because of a prior driving under the influence conviction, Andreano said.

While en route to the pharmacy, Cain’s daughter was pulled over by police because of an expired registration sticker and the vehicle was seized after officers discovered her license was revoked, Andreano said.

Cain filed a hardship petition indicating she had no other means of transportation and did not know her daughter’s driving privileges had been revoked, Andreano said.

The petition was granted and her vehicle was ordered released.

Five days later, prosecutors filed a forfeiture complaint seeking to have her vehicle either sold at a public auction, destroyed or delivered to a law enforcement agency, Andreano said.