The Illinois Attorney General’s Office deemed a Joliet attorney’s constitutional challenge to forfeiture law a non-issue after prosecutors dropped the case that prompted the challenge.

In a May 26 court filing, Assistant Attorney General Eric Levin did not render any findings on the substance of attorney Frank Andreano’s arguments regarding the constitutionality of forfeiture law.

But Levin did find Andreano’s arguments were moot after prosecutors with Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow decided about three weeks ago to drop a 2024 case seeking forfeiture of an elderly woman’s 2014 vehicle, court records show.

The case is still moving forward with a June 17 court hearing.

Andreano has argued the practice of forfeiture law violates people’s due process rights because the funds from those cases go directly to police and prosecutors, which has “improperly influenced” their pursuit of those cases.

Andreano claimed the case involving the 2014 vehicle is an example of “prosecuting for profit” in Will County.

In 2024, Andreano represented Almeda Cain, 86, of Richton Park, in her legal fight for the return of her Mazda CX-5 vehicle.

Cain’s 58-year-old daughter was driving the vehicle and officers seized the vehicle during a traffic stop because she was driving on a revoked license, according to Andreano.

The vehicle was returned to Cain after she filed a petition indicating she had no other means of traveling to the pharmacy, the grocery store, church or other locations, court records show.

But several days later, prosecutors filed a forfeiture complaint for the vehicle by arguing it was used with “knowledge and/or the consent” of Cain in connection with driving on a revoked license.

Andreano contends Cain did not know her daughter’s driving privileges had been revoked and Cain was not interviewed by police about the incident.

Because Andreano was raising a claim of unconstitutionality, Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s Office was notified on March 16 to review his claim.

Then on May 13, prosecutors had decided to drop the forfeiture case.

“The state voluntarily moves to dismiss the underlying forfeiture action, which motion is allowed, with each party to bear their own fees and costs,” according to a court order.

Because that occurred, Levin said the judge should dismiss Andreano’s claim as “moot and due to lack of standing.”

Levin said Cain “already received the concrete relief she seeks” with the return of her vehicle and the “dismissal of the underlying forfeiture proceeding.”

Levin said Cain is not in “immediate danger” of suffering “direct injury” as a result of the enforcement of forfeiture law.

Glasgow’s office has defended their forfeiture practices by saying prosecutors’ salaries are fixed and there is no personal incentive to prosecute in forfeiture cases.

Assistant State’s Attorney Dant Foulk has opposed a petition from Andreano in a separate case calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Glasgow’s forfeiture unit and federal agents involved in another forfeiture case.

In a separate case, Foulk said in in a court filing that Glasgow’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,” Foulk said.

Danielle Duhoski, of New Lenox, had questioned the practices of Glasgow’s office after her legal fight to get back her 2012 vehicle even though she was never charged with any crime.

Duhoski was a joint tenant of the vehicle that was seized by police after her ex-boyfriend was accused of driving the vehicle on a revoked license.

In 2025, Duhoski told Shaw Local it was her understanding that civil forfeiture was created to combat drug money and money laundering, not take people’s vehicles in traffic-related cases.