Perez v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board
63 N.E.3d 1046
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Perez applied in Jan 2014 for an Illinois concealed-carry license; Chicago PD and the Cook County Sheriff submitted objections.
- Chicago PD’s objection relied on a 2007 domestic battery police report alleging multiple strikes and visible bruising; that investigation was suspended.
- Cook County Sheriff’s objection rested on an August 2011 aggravated-assault-on-an-officer charge; Perez was later found not guilty at bench trial.
- Perez’s record also listed vehicle-related charges from 2003 (stricken from docket) and a 2001 juvenile arrest.
- After remand under new administrative rules, Perez submitted a response and a certified disposition showing acquittal on the 2011 charge; the Board denied the application by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board; Perez appealed to the Appellate Court (First District), which affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s denial was against manifest weight of evidence | Perez: record (acquittal and lack of charges) insufficient to show he is a danger | Board: statute permits consideration of full criminal history and objections based on reasonable suspicion | Held: Affirmed — Board reasonably relied on arrests, reports, and history under preponderance standard |
| Admissibility of hearsay evidence | Perez: relied on police reports/criminal-history hearsay that are inadmissible/unreliable | Board: hearsay not objected to below and statute/APA permit consideration of such records | Held: Forfeited by Perez; statutory scheme and APA allow reliance on such materials |
| Proper standard of proof | Perez: because allegations mirror criminal conduct, a higher (clear-and-convincing) standard should apply | Board: Act prescribes preponderance of the evidence; administrative standard controls | Held: Preponderance is the correct standard under the Act; acquittal does not equate to innocence |
| Due process / right to evidentiary hearing | Perez: denial without an evidentiary hearing deprived him of due process | Board: rules allow written submissions and limit hearings to matters unresolved by written communications; Perez did not request a hearing | Held: No due process violation; Perez had notice and opportunity to respond and forfeited challenge by not requesting hearing below |
Key Cases Cited
- Siwek v. Retirement Bd. of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 324 Ill. App. 3d 820 (discussing scope of appellate review in administrative matters)
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford Sch. Dist. No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 198 Ill. 2d 380 (definition of mixed questions and standard articulation)
- People v. Jackson, 149 Ill. 2d 540 (acquittal does not establish innocence)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Mun. Officers Electoral Bd., 228 Ill. 2d 200 (forfeiture of issues not raised administratively)
- McMath v. Katholi, 191 Ill. 2d 251 (consent to administrative procedure waives objection)