Suit demands refunds for drivers' cell phone tickets

December 19, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

In July 2005, Chicago became the nation’s largest city to prohibit motorists from using cell phones without a hands-free device that allows the driver to keep both hands on the wheel.

Then-downtown Ald. Burton F. Natarus (42nd) used a parliamentary maneuver to sneak the ordinance he championed through the City Council without debate.

» Click to enlarge image

A lawsuit is demanding that more than 25,000 motorists ticketed since the cell phone ban took effect get refunds of their $50 to $200 fines.
(STNG file)
Today, a class-action lawsuit claimed the city is sneaky in its enforcement of the cell phone ban.

Attorney Blake Horwitz demanded that more than 25,000 Chicago motorists ticketed since the ban took effect get refunds of their $50 to $200 fines — plus unspecified damages — because of the city’s failure to post signs alerting motorists to the ban.

If a federal judge agrees, the refund would be in the $2 million to $3 million range, he said, and the city would be prohibited from enforcement until signs are posted.

Whenever state and local traffic laws differ, Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicle Code states, “Such regulation shall not be effective until signs giving reasonable notice thereof are posted.”

“If people drive into Chicago from out of town or out of state, they don’t know there’s a prohibition against using their cell phone while driving. A police officer pulls them over for violating a rule they know nothing about,” Horwitz said.

“The city has illegally obtained millions of dollars from motorists. It’s easier to get money from people when you don’t notify them. But the law is very clear. The city has to put up signs — enough to advise motorists that there is such a rule. Right now, there are none.”

Law Department spokesperson Jennifer Hoyle said the sign requirement applies only to local laws “in conflict” with Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicle Code.

“Our cell phone ordinance is not in conflict. It’s not addressed by it at all,” Hoyle said. “We have no reason to give people refunds if the ordinance is legal.”

Ald. Bernard Stone (50th), the City Council’s 80-year-old elder statesman, scoffed at the sign demand.

“It’s absolutely preposterous. Do we post a sign for every law we pass? You couldn’t see anything [if we did]. Certainly, there was enough publicity on it,” the alderman said.

Stone said his only complaint about the 2 1/2-year-old cell phone ban is that there hasn’t been enough enforcement. He still sees too many multi-tasking motorists yakking away — without consequence.

“Any time I see a vehicle traveling erratically or traveling too slow, invariably it’s someone who’s talking on a cell phone. Their mind is not on driving. It’s on the conversation,” Stone said.

The class-action lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court names only one plaintiff: Chris Yarusso. He was ticketed in March “exclusively” for talking on his cell phone, Horwitz said.The ticket was subsequently dismissed after a court challenge.