2011 IL App (1st) 101156
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Taylor was a Chicago police officer from 1973 until discharge in 2008, with a history of commendations and several disciplinary actions.
- Taylor was previously charged with bigamy (Taylor I) in 2005, which the Board found not guilty on the merits.
- Taylor later faced a second disciplinary action (Taylor II) in 2007 alleging Rule 1 (violation of law) and Rule 2 (conduct harming the department’s interests).
- Taylor had married Bridgette in 2002 while still being married to Tamela, who later lived in Sikeston, Missouri; divorce proceedings with Tamela were pursued in 2004.
- At Bridgette’s trial, Taylor denied testifying in the Tamela divorce prove-up, and in August 2004 he faced criminal harassment charges arising from alleged threats by Bridgette.
- The Board found Taylor violated Rule 1 by perjury and violated Rule 2 by lying about his testimony and Tamela’s whereabouts; the circuit court affirmed, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Taylor II proceedings | Taylor argues Taylor I bars Taylor II under res judicata. | Board argues Taylor II arises from different operative facts; not barred. | Res judicata did not bar Taylor II. |
| Whether Taylor committed perjury in the Bridgette criminal proceeding | Taylor contends the false statements were not material to the Bridgette case. | Board held statements were material to Bridgette case as to credibility. | Perjury not proven; materiality not established. |
| Whether Taylor violated Rule 2 by false statements regarding divorce proceedings and Tamela's address | Taylor violated Rule 2 by certifying misstatements to the court. | Board found multiple false statements showed lack of trustworthiness. | Rule 2 violations established; remanded for punishment reconsideration. |
| Standard of review for materiality and perjury in an administrative determination | Standard should defer to Board findings on materiality. | Materiality requires legal conclusion; deference to Board on mixed questions. | The court applied de novo review to materiality; perjury finding reversed. |
| Remedy after sustaining Rule 2 violations | Discharge was improper given only Rule 2 violations. | Discretion to determine appropriate punishment lies with the Board. | Remanded to reconsider punishment based solely on Rule 2 violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Columbo, 118 Ill. App. 3d 882 (Ill. Ct. App. 1983) (materiality and falsity in perjury review; credibility context not enough)
- Rutledge, 257 Ill. App. 3d 769 (Ill. Ct. App. 1994) (materiality in perjury review; immaterial statements cannot sustain perjury)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (Ill. 1998) (transactional test for identity of causes of action; liberal approach to identity of facts)
- Olinger v. Weis, 176 Ill. 2d 326 (Ill. 1997) (materiality and credibility considerations in perjury/false statements)
- Basketfield v. Police Board, 56 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 1974) (remand where lesser charges sustain; discretion on punishment)
- Wagner v. Kramer, 125 Ill. App. 3d 12 (Ill. App. 1984) (State bears burden to prove perjury in administrative action)