Chisem v. McCarthy
24 N.E.3d 877
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jamie Chisem, a CPD officer, was involved in a Walgreens encounter on Feb 25, 2009 leading to a formal complaint for unprofessional conduct.
- IPRA investigated; Superintendent filed charges on Dec 2, 2011 alleging five CPD rule violations.
- Board conducted a three-day hearing in March 2012; Ashley and Tiffany Magby testified about alleged improper conduct.
- Board found that Chisem violated five rules and discharged him; prehearing motion to dismiss for timeliness was denied.
- Circuit court later reversed the discharge and remanded for an alternative sanction; Board imposed a five-year suspension.
- Plaintiff challenged the suspension on due process, timeliness, and manifest weight grounds; the trial court affirmed the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charges were untimely and violated due process | Chisem argues IPRA and Superintendent filed charges untimely | Board/City contend no due process violation; substantial compliance | No due process violation; timely charging found not violative of due process. |
| Whether laches barred the disciplinary charges | Chisem asserts delay prejudiced him | Board found no extraordinary delay causing prejudice | Laches not applicable; no prejudice; Board’s discretion was not abused. |
| Whether the five-year suspension is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Chisem contends inconsistent testimony and his reputation negate suspension | Board credibility determinations supported by record | Five-year suspension supported; not arbitrary or unreasonable given conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyon v. Department of Children & Family Services, 209 Ill. 2d 264 (2004) (due process requires fundamental fairness; timing not violated here)
- Morgan v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, 374 Ill. App. 3d 275 (2007) (substantial property interest in employment; due process evaluated by notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Callahan v. Sledge, 2012 IL App (4th) 110819 (2012) (due process analysis; procedural protections required by context)
- Krocka v. Police Board, 327 Ill. App. 3d 36 (2001) (finds sufficient cause for discharge; deference to Board's factual findings)
- Lozman v. Putnam, 379 Ill. App. 3d 807 (2008) (standard of review for Board findings; fact-finding given deference)
- Van Milligan v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 158 Ill. 2d 85 (1994) (laches analysis; discretionary determination by Board)
- Remus v. Sheahan, 387 Ill. App. 3d 899 (2009) (public trust in law enforcement; professional standards for officers)