Jankovich v. Illinois State Police
2017 IL App (1st) 160706
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael Jankovich applied for an Illinois concealed-carry license; Chicago Police and Cook County Sheriff objected, citing police reports and an ISP LEADS rap sheet documenting threats, an assault with brass knuckles, and multiple arrests.
- ISP conducted a mandatory background check (including LEADS); objections and supporting reports were transmitted to the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board (CCLRB).
- The Board, after giving Jankovich 15 days to submit evidence under new ISP rules, affirmed the objections and denied the license under the Act’s standard that an applicant be denied if the Board finds by a preponderance that the applicant “poses a danger…or is a threat to public safety.”
- Jankovich filed administrative review in Cook County circuit court; the court denied relief, reasoning the Second Amendment did not guarantee concealed-carry and that, even if it did, the Act would survive intermediate scrutiny.
- On appeal the Appellate Court reviewed the Board’s decision (de novo on questions of law; manifest weight/clear-error on fact or mixed questions) and affirmed, addressing hearsay, Second Amendment, and vagueness claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board could rely on ISP LEADS rap sheet | Jankovich: Board rules/procedures prohibit LEADS use and therefore LEADS-based evidence shouldn’t be considered | Defendants: ISP must run background checks using all available state criminal-history sources (including LEADS); Act contemplates ISP/Board consideration of that information | Board may consider LEADS; ISP was required to check LEADS and the Act permits the Board to consider ISP-provided criminal-history information |
| Whether police reports/rap sheets are inadmissible hearsay in Board proceedings | Jankovich: Police/arrest reports are hearsay and inadmissible in administrative proceedings | Defendants: The Act contemplates and allows consideration of law-enforcement submissions (including arrest records); legislature may permit hearsay in agency proceedings | Board properly considered police reports and criminal-history records; Perez precedent supports that Act permits hearsay submissions |
| Whether the Act’s dangerousness standard violates the Second Amendment | Jankovich: Standard is vague/overbroad and gives unfettered discretion to deny a constitutional right | Defendants: Licensing requirement and denying firearms to those who pose danger is consistent with Heller and Illinois precedent; State interest in public safety justifies the standard | As-applied: standard constitutionally applied here. Jankovich failed to rebut allegations and thus denial did not violate Second Amendment; facial challenge fails because at least this application is constitutional |
| Whether the dangerousness standard is unconstitutionally vague (due process) | Jankovich: Terms like “danger” and “threat to public safety” lack sufficient precision and notice | Defendants: Statute, notice requirements and opportunity to respond provide adequate notice; allegations fit common-sense meaning of those terms | As-applied vagueness challenge fails: statute gave adequate notice and plainly covered the alleged conduct; facial challenge fails as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Exelon Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 234 Ill. 2d 266 (Illinois 2009) (administrative-review standards; review of agency decision)
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford Sch. Dist. No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (Illinois 2005) (standards for reviewing agency findings of fact, law, and mixed questions)
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76 (Illinois 1992) (administrative proceedings and evidentiary rules)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment is not absolute; longstanding prohibitions permissible)
- Berron v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, 825 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding concealed-carry licensing requirement under Illinois Act)