2016 IL App (1st) 151979
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- McDermott, a former CPD officer, was charged with violating Rules 2, 6, 8, and 38 after he appeared in a photograph (taken between 1999–2003) kneeling with a long gun, his hand on an unidentified African‑American man’s throat while another officer held deer antlers to the man’s head. The photo had no police purpose.
- The Superintendent sought McDermott’s discharge; a Board hearing was held where McDermott admitted appearing in the photo but had only vague recollection of the event. Sergeant Barz identified McDermott in the photo.
- McDermott moved to have the Police Board take administrative notice of two unrelated CPD complaint register (CR) files (photograph-related incidents where discipline was lesser) to show selective enforcement; the hearing officer denied the motion.
- The Board found McDermott violated Rules 2 (impeding department goals/bringing discredit), 8 (disrespect/maltreatment), and 38 (unlawful/unnecessary display/use of a weapon), but not Rule 6, and ordered discharge.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision; McDermott appealed, arguing (1) the denial of administrative notice of the CR files was erroneous and (2) the discharge was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsupported by the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hearing officer abused discretion by denying administrative notice of two CR files | The CR files show selective enforcement and are relevant for proportionality; Board should compare discipline across cases | Launius limits cross‑case comparison to "completely related" or identical circumstances; the CR files involve different incidents and no Board hearings | Denial was within discretion: CR files were from unrelated incidents and not sufficiently "completely related" to warrant administrative notice |
| Whether the Board’s factual findings (Rules 2, 8, 38) are against the manifest weight of the evidence | Superintendent failed to prove McDermott’s conduct discredited the Department; Board relied on its subjective view of the photo | Photo plus McDermott’s admission he participated and held a long gun support the findings; Board entitled to view evidence as it did | Findings not against manifest weight: photo and testimony supported violations of Rules 2, 8, and 38 |
| Whether timing/lack of contemporaneous impact defeats Rule 2 finding | Photo was old and not shown to have caused harm over the intervening years, so cannot show impediment to department goals | Timing is irrelevant where photo inherently discredits and breeds public contempt; protection of public respect is a valid basis for discipline | Timing irrelevant; Board reasonably concluded the image itself discredited the Department |
| Whether discharge was arbitrary or unrelated to service needs given mitigating evidence | McDermott presented substantial mitigation (commendations, character witnesses) so discharge was excessive | Board may give mitigating evidence limited weight; violation(s) of department rules (even single rule) can justify termination to protect discipline/efficiency | Discharge not arbitrary or unreasonable: Board reasonably exercised discretion given nature of misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Launius v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 151 Ill. 2d 419 (Illinois Supreme Court) (comparisons of discipline across cases are only probative when incidents are "completely related")
- Walsh v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 96 Ill. 2d 101 (Illinois Supreme Court) (two‑step review: factual findings and whether facts support cause for discharge)
- Krocka v. Police Board, 327 Ill. App. 3d 36 (Appellate Court) (appellate review applies deference to Board; two‑step analysis reaffirmed)
- Siwek v. Police Board, 374 Ill. App. 3d 735 (Appellate Court) (an officer’s violation of a single rule can be sufficient basis for termination)