*1 tion. We have Evans case and relevant case law, examined and find do agree we defendant’s Evans should be position extended. The Evans case dealt clearly with a factual situation different from the case at bar. The supreme court was quite explicit its lan- guage actions committed under the unreasonable belief that actions do self-defense not constitute wanton It cruelty. does not necessarily killing follow that another while under a sudden and intense passion provoked by the deceased cannot accompanied brutal or heinous behavior. case, defendant, the instant acting while under sudden

and intense passion, shot another man. The defendant used a sawed-off shotgun which fired pump separate four times. Any three on him, wounds inflicted the deceased yet would have killed and defendant continued to fire. We find that this behavior was indicative of wanton An cruelty. extended term was based proper aggravating factor applied. People v. Brown

1081.

Having determined that the Evans will not be extended to situation, this it is not to consider the other issues raised necessary Therefore, appeal. judgment circuit court of Will is af- firmed.

Affirmed. HEIPLE, JJ.,

ALLOY and concur. v. PEORIA MANIAS, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, EMANUEL COMMISSION, COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT MERIT Defendant- Appellant Cross-Appellee. 81—632, — 6 47

Third District Nos. cons. 81 12, 1982. Opinion filed October concurring part. BARRY, J., part dissenting P. *2 Peoria, Fredericksen, appellant. for L. both A. Barra and

John Chris Grove, McGuire, Long appellee. for Thomas F. the HEIPLE court:

JUSTICE delivered Merit County Peoria Sheriff’s Following hearing before the of violat- Commission, guilty Emanuel Manias was found Lieutenant As the ing the Office Manual. Duty punishment, rules of Sheriff’s to deputy ordered him reduced in rank lieutenant commission in two counts. complaint against sheriff. The Manias was that unbecom- charge alleged engaged The first Manias conduct to ing bring officer which tend discredit to the sheriff’s de- would that Manias in acts partment engaged and on December County underlying which resulted the of Peoria property. abuse drove a car after charge factual basis that was that Manias the that had a fan car being whereupon warned the car broken belt was caught destroyed. fire and report pertain- that Manias filed false charge alleged

The second he denied in that he lied when ing Specifically, to the above incident. his that the alternator on the car’s dashboard was red when drove it. flashing Court, finding to the Peoria Circuit

On was affirmed, charge on the second re- first was for reconsid- versed, to the commission and cause was remanded filed. penalty. Cross-appeals eration of caught car the first there is but that the charge, question As to no evidence, however, fire There is that Manias after Manias drove it. no reasonably expected car to it or that he could have damage drove the Moreover, damage that such occur. there no evidence would To that fire record to indicate caused the fire. conclude what indulge conjec- fan is to in sheer started because the broken belt that it must charged, proven ture. For Manias to be be that or to the car. To intentionally recklessly damage prove caused belt; car of the broken prove had a broken fan to that knew belt; fan prove Manias drove the car with this knowledge; prove fire, the car thereupon caught all taken do together, not prove Manias violated rule Sheriffs Office Duty Man- that, indeed, ual or did anything What wrong. would have to is that the fan shown broken belt caused the fire and that Manias should knew or have known that a fire be caused if he drove a car with a fan proof broken belt. Such lacking. was

The record discloses that before Manias came into possession of car, car subject the possession Sergeant Bland who drove the car shift, his shift. Toward end of his Bland no- ticed the red alternator on the light appear dashboard. The com- when, fact, menced to handle as if it had manual it steering equipped steering. drove to the power jail Bland back where he investigated under hood. There he broken fan belt. Bland removed the fan it placed belt on the radiator. else unusual about the car its Nothing appeared engine or Bland. reported then broken fan belt Manias. to Ma- response nias’ the car could be to the question garage replaced, driven to be Bland’s only expressed concern was whether the car would have suf- ficient warning electrical to be driven. Bland’s went no further. him light. Bland did not tell about the red alternator He did tell him that he had fan placed removed the belt on the radiator. *3 warning There no the the possibility was about of fire. While record shows that told Manias not to the car (only Bland drive because the fan belt), broken the record also that Bland told Manias he reveals if he could drive car kept alternator/battery going. in driving the car was to deliver the purpose disabled car duty

to a different He knew that no mechanic was on at the post. time he car for his use (1 a.m.) pick and wanted another up three-hour balance of his shift. during approximately trip, To minimize the drain the six-mile Ma- amperage during Al- lights, headlamps, nias used his rather than needed. parking he that he though power steering operating, noticed was stated that the car was not more steer than a manual any difficult to steering. vehicle without He stated he did also that not observe on light the red alternator flash at time drive. any destination, at pro- his the car and Upon arriving parked box, building. placed keys ceeded into the in a available, a to one of those cars picked up key three other cars were minutes, and sat down to with the officers Within a few duty. chat noise went to the door to another officer said he heard popping that the was on fire. The vehicle was check it out. He back car yelled $7,142 at a beyond burned cost of and could be used thereafter repair for its only parts.

That a fire after the car is But undisputed. occurred Manias drove is the Post hoe nowhere record cause fire established. this, this,” “after is ergo propter hoe or hence because of one of it logical say, classic fallicies. That is to is not sufficient to conclude prior that a event caused the event event two merely second because can sequence. myriad followed event one in A of causes result in a truth, catching fire. In no the car one knows what caused to catch fire it night Perhaps Lieutenant Manias drove it. was the bro- Moreover, ken fan it something belt. else. nowhere Perhaps the record is is a consequence there evidence that fire foreseeable driving Thus, a car six with a fan it is miles broken belt. unreasonable to find Manias misconduct abuse of property presented. evidence the car have fire might caught Presumably, In case, even Lieutenant Manias had not it at all. such Ser- driven geant Bland have been person the last to drive the car. There rule no that holds a person merely accountable because catches fire after it. he uses charged second count that Manias lied about fire. Specifi- count II

cally, alleged Manias filed false about the fire that he seeing denied red alternator he when drove the vehi- cle immediately preceding fire. fire,

Several days after Chief Gail took a Deputy Owens state- ment about the This incident Manias. statement was transcribed Therein, into a written document and as- signed by Manias. serted he did not see he warning lights appear red when fact, the car. he experienced drove no trouble the car when it, except steering certainly drove which was a little stiff but car, maneuverable. He claimed was no different from his own which has manual A steering. later, month and one-half the sheriff ordered Manias to submit to a examination about the fire.

Pursuant to the two against count several days hearings were held before the Peoria Sheriff’s Department Merit Commission. Manias told the commission the same story: no warning saw and had reason to the car lights no believe immediate fire danger of or destruction. The any type destruction *4 examiner testified polygraph that Manias lied when said that did see not the red alternator light. law,

As matter in- results are not reliable and are polygraph admissible in administrative hearings. People 225, 1070, v. Baynes (1981), 244, 88 Ill. 2d 430 N.E.2d of poly determined that admission

1079, the Illinois Court Supreme such evidence trial is error because plain in a criminal graph evidence determining purpose admitted for enough is not reliable be v. Goetze Sommer guilt Similarly, or innocence. person’s 901, 904, finding 117, 121, 429 N.E.2d App. Ill. 3d Commission, Merit the Tazewell Sheriff’s entered court, we stated: affirmed in the trial which was casual in an adminis are more “Although the rules evidence Evan City v. University (Northwestern trative adjudication 1073, ston Ill. (1977), 55 3d 370 N.E.2d rev’d App. other grounds (1978), 964), 74 Ill. 2d such casu alness cannot to a fair abrogate right just, impartial hearing. reliability With the examination so polygraph attacks, to so many varying justice, vulnerable we believe fair impartiality abrogated ness and are when the results of such examinations are considered as substantive evidence.” (See City Bloomington (1981), also McGowan v. 986.) we affirm the trial of error in the Accordingly, court’s admission of test results at before the hearing commission. excised, is devoid of

Once evidence is record evidence that Manias lied. All that was on this proved point that the red alternator flashed to Manias’ light prior dashboard of the vehicle. A for the auto com- possession representative service testified that the pany warning light appear “periodically” if it light up acknowledged dash could operating. malfunction. He testified that the would come on if specifically out, not if the bulb was burned had a battery car had no electrical A mechanic testified that a defect problems. the electrical could cause an alternator not to activate. system prove This as it is not Manias’ burden to testimony notwithstanding, lie, he did the credible evidence the record demonstrates knowingly report the sheriff did not that Manias filed a false prove the fire. about there no evidence to either of

Accordingly, being support credible charges the two Lieutenant the trial court should against affirmed in its dismissal of the as to false and reversed charges as to its affirmance of the as to Neither charges damaging property. evidence, there is no occasion to re- charge being supportable by mand this either to the trial court or the commission. proceeding rank lieutenant Emanuel Manias is entitled to reinstatement to his without further proceedings.

705 Ema- part. Trial affirmed and reversed in Plaintiff part court nuel Manias ordered reinstated. in part;

Affirmed reversed in part. J.,

SCOTT, concurs. BARRY, concur- part PRESIDING JUSTICE dissenting ring in part: choose, at the of some recite the facts as I repetition, risk to be,

believe the record shows them to and to separately express my views on the issues as presented parties. to us 1980, 5, Sergeant

On December Earl Bland of the sheriff’s de- partment, squad while car duty driving No.

the alternator flashing was and the dashboard vehicle be- came to He proceeded difficult steer. approximately seven blocks to hood, the jail, raised the and discovered that the main fan belt was broken. over,

Since Bland’s shift was he walked and re- jail into house ported squad relief, car disablement to his Lieutenant Ma- Manias. nias was engaged telephone conversation when Bland approached him with squad news of the car problem, testimony two officers differed somewhat as exchanged information they concerning Manias, the car. According to he was on the tel- discussing ephone the of a he whereabouts woman had who previously arrested had failed to return to the jail. person he was with said talking that if he right went a certain tavern he her away, could pick up. He said Bland came in and mentioned a with the problem power steering and said that the fan belt broken. Manias was then asked the car could be driven to the squad Post room about six miles away where the Department’s shop was located. It repair was understanding that Bland answered to the effect that the couldn’t night be driven all because would lose and the amperage battery Contrariwise, out. give Bland’s the mat- testimony concerning ter was building told leaving pick up prisoner, not to take -717. actu- No. What was squad fact, ally communicated is a question course. event,

In any Manias encountered on his Detective Dave Owens way car, out the jail arranged house and to take Owens’ an un- car, Meanwhile, marked missing squad pursue prisoner. squad car No. 717 jail. night, remained at the Around a.m. that parked after he had returned from unsuccessful search the female pris-

oner, Manias decided to deliver the 3. Ma- squad disabled car to Post nias knew at the time that no mechanic later would be on until duty morning, but he wanted to another car for his pick up use during three-hour of his shift. approximately balance (cid:127) To minimize the drain of the six-mile Ma- amperage during trip, parking lights, nias used his rather than as needed. It was headlamps, his recollection at the hearing before commission that had stopped only stop sign per once for a and had driven about five miles limit, averaging hour over the 35 and 50 miles speed per between steering hour the drive. he noticed that the Although power was not he stated that the car more difficult operating, steering. to steer than a manual vehicle without He also stated *6 that he did not observe the red alternator flash on at time any during the drive to Post 3. destination, arriving

On at his car No. 717 parked squad and into the to 717 in a proceeded building. placed keys No. box, available, observed that three cars were to one picked up key of those and sat down to chat with the officers on a few duty. Within minutes, Tomkins, in room at the Harry Officer of time, said he’d heard a noise and went to the door to check it popping vehicle, out. He No. 717 a 1980 yelled back that fire. $7,142, re- beyond Ford LTD which had cost the burned department parts. and used thereafter for its pair, only could 10, 1980, by Lieutenant Manias was interviewed On December gave the fire. Manias thereafter concerning Chief Gail Owens Deputy admitted into evidence at ultimately a written statement which was 26, 1981, hearing. On Manias was ordered January the administrative the sheriff to to a examination by polygraph concerning submit 5-6 incident. The the hear- December examiner testified at that it was his that Manias had not been when he ing truthful No. 717 problem stated he had not noticed mechanical having steering, other than the when he denied specifically to Post and when trip seen the alternator flash on to given lied in the statement intentionally he stated that he had not Chief Owens. filed a com- 16, 1981, the sheriff of Peoria February

On 3.5(7), 3.5(4), of Rules charging with the commission violations plaint Regula- of Rules and of Sheriff’s Office Manual 3.5(6) Duty and disciplinary of permit imposition tions. these rules Specifically, all accurately pertain- facts report honestly action for: failure to and to the department; or other matter of concern ing investigation to an to officer, bring tend to discredit which would unbecoming conduct respectively. of county property, and abuse the department; evidence, dem- including and other receiving testimony After fact-finder, entered its commission, exhibits, as onstrations and the rules violating of that Lieutenant Manias finding order in rank a reduction therefor as charged imposing punishment as and to sheriff. deputy from lieutenant re- for administrative filed a 6, 1981, complaint

On May imposed the punishment and findings guilt contesting view both argu- considering and the record reviewing After the commission. the com- order, reversing its counsel, the trial court entered ments of and honestly II (failure count guilt finding mission’s (official I as to count guilt affirming finding and accurately) the cause and remanded property), of county misconduct and abuse imposed. to be the punishment for reconsideration the commission ensued. cross-appeal This (1) appeal: issues on three primary raises

The commission raise issues or Manias to erred by permitting the trial court Whether agency; (2) poly- whether to the administrative defenses not presented proceedings; in administrative are admissible examinations graph results, if er- examination introduction of (3) whether the case. under the circumstances ror, harmless was nevertheless commis- (1) issues: Whether raises additional Manias’ cross-appeal weight the manifest contrary on count was sion’s admitted commission.improperly evidence; (2) whether Deputy to Chief statements Manias’ oral and written as evidence Owens. the fact that at argument its initial grounds

The commission *7 con testimony objected counsel hearing administrative on the specifically examination polygraph the results of cerning the examination and that given warnings basis that no written Chicago City v. to Palcek pursuant transcribed had been of how 1218. On review 3d 393 N.E.2d (1979), App. Heights I, on count of court, reversing ever the trial that polygraph of law and found as a matter agreed with Bloomington v. City results are not reliable. McGowen of 328. Ill. reli- of issue sufficiently preserved counsel

I find that Manias’ hearing the administrative results at of examination ability polygraph were properly of such evidence admissibility on arguments so that his Curtis, physi- of professor Brian on review. Dr. before the trial court Peoria, Medicine, ap- Illinois School of at the of ology University on behalf testify first witness to as the before the commission peared of Manias. His testimony solely related to the of the reliability poly- a graph scientific tool for determining truth or falsity subject’s answers to questions. It was his that opinion is not reli- polygraph determining lied, able for that subject is although relatively accu- rate determining that subject told the truth. rebuttal, III,

In counsel for the produced Joseph sheriff P. Buckley director John Reid & Chicago, Associates of who testified in favor of the reliability polygraph arguments examination results. final commission, before the counsel for both parties argued the vigorously Serritella, issue of the polygraph’s Mr. reliability. counsel for specifically argued to the that commission results are polygraph inad- missible both civil and criminal proceedings court because of their unreliability.

I believe that the record before the circuit court on review ade- raised the issue of the quately polygraph results inadmissibility based on unreliability though even counsel’s to the specific objection evidence of the during presentation sheriff’s case in chief was based The on Palcek case. commission cannot claim surprise or that it was deprived opportunity to contest the issue poly- graph at the It reliability administrative hearing. my of fundamental principles fairness should so as to apply permit present polygraph issue to the trial court on reliability review. See 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law secs. 724-726(1962).

The argument polygraph commission’s second is that examination results are of an purposes admissible for administrative such this hearing agree majority opin- as was had in case. with the ion polygraph in that examination results are inadmissible.

The commission’s argument final is that even if Manias suffi- ciently preserved reliability issue and the trial court was correct in finding that admission error, of the test results was such admission was, nonetheless, this case I concur the ma- Again, harmless. jority’s implicit holding that admission of results is not harmless. relies from Officer primarily upon testimony commission

Bland in evidence asserting ample independent testimony established that Manias lied when he stated he had not seen the red come 3. light alternator his to Post How- trip ever, the broken evidence established as a fan consequence belt, charge. might would lose its battery Whether this have dim, caused the alternator or whether electrical mal- another might function have caused not to come on were possibilities presented to the explain discrepancy commission between what Officer at dropped jail Bland had observed when he No. 717 off

709 later when three hours some purportedly and what Manias evidence, therefore that I say Post 3. cannot the car to drove overwhelmingly testimony, the of consideration without lied. I would that Officer conclusion the commission’s supports the poly- affirm the admission of determination the trial court’s error. test is reversible graph the commission case to the instant

The trial court remanded However, the evi- because of the penalty. reconsideration solely for and accu- honestly II (failure as to count dence of record col- issue, my unlike is at credibility and witness rately) conflicting on the to determine in position that we are I do not believe leagues, results without us that the evidence record before charges. is insufficient to sustain him to given by written statements that oral and Manias.contends v. of Palcek principles under the are inadmissible Deputy

Chief Owens find in the lieutenant’s position. no merit Chicago Heights. City of warnings before that, right to written respect held Palcek pro for disciplinary as a basis a statement which could serve giving pro to the same entitled officer was ceedings, city-employed police applied The court civil servants. city-employed tection afforded other sections 10—1—18 reading pari the doctrine of in materia Rev. (Ill. 10—2.1—17 into section Municipal 10—1—18.1 of the Code 10-1-18.1, 10-1-18, 10-2.1-17). Subse 1977, 24, pars. Stat. ch. reached in Palcek the result raised doubts about decisions have quent App. 82 Ill. (1979), Fire & Police Commissioners (Lupo v. Board reasoning of the Palcek 449, 624), applicability and the 3d ordinances. statutes and under other actions advanced disciplinary 919, N.E.2d 422 Ill. 3d (1981), App. Board 96 Resman v. Personnel super which enacted an ordinance city rule (under powers, 120 home of in pari the doctrine and made conflicting State statute seded the code including city within purpose unavailable for materia accord, Man code); the State section 10—1—18 of requirement 78, 414 Ill. 3d N.E.2d App. Lombard 92 Village (1980), darino v. 508; Law Gegenwarth Department v. Enforcement law en to State applicable 568, (statute 431 N.E.2d 1383 read 1979, require does not 121) Rev. Stat. ch. (Ill. forcement officers equal protection to ensure Code ing Municipal in section 10—1—18 officers). for State-employed Resman, and Ge Mandarino hold, the courts in

I would as did inapplicable materia is pari of in genwarth, that doctrine disciplinary proceed governing the statute case because present is distinct 1981, 125, par. 164) ch. herein Rev. Stat. ing (Ill. Rev. (Ill. Act Department Police Code. Neither

Municipal 1979, Stat. 125, ch. par. 101 et seq.) nor the newly enacted Sheriff’s Merit System (Ill. Act Rev. Stat. ch. par. et re seq.) quires that Miranda-type warnings be given before an officer’s state *9 ment taken may be for use in subsequent disciplinary proceedings. I find no constitutional infirmity in the admission of Manias’ oral and written statements at the administrative action brought the sheriff by herein. Accordingly, would remand this cause to the commission for a new hearing on count II and for reassessment of the penalty.

In addition, Manias argues that the commission’s guilt as to count I (conduct unbecoming officer and abuse of property) is contrary the manifest weight of the evidence and cannot be sus tained upon review since violation of department rules was not shown to be intentional. Manias’ manifest weight argument is merit- less. And I believe the majority, adopting position, misin terprets the mental element implicit charges. sheriff’s evi dence conclusively established that Manias drove squad No. 717 knowing it to be disabled at the time. That he may not have contem plated the resulting damage thus caused to the county-owned vehicle does not make his act unintentional. Manias’ reliance on our recent decision in Hale v. Hellstrom 101 Ill. App. 3d Hale, N.E.2d is misplaced. In an officer disciplined for in tentionally allowing unauthorized personnel to enter a crime scene. We found there that the evidence failed to support finding of inten tional violation. Officer Hale acting in an situa emergency-type tion and he failed to ascertain whether uniformed dispatchers at the scene were authorized to be there. Had they authorized, been so Hale’s act would have been condoned. contrast,

By in the present case Manias admitted that he knew No. 717 was disabled. He did not use it intentionally pursue female prisoner because he knew that he might encounter problems with Nonetheless, the car. disregarding vehicle’s disable-' ment, he later intentionally drove without headlights through stop signs over 6 miles to Post 3. The resulting damage, fire even if not contemplated Manias, was the consequence of an intentional act for which he is accountable under these circumstances. Accord- ingly, us, the facts before I find no want of evidence sufficient to sustain the mental element of intent implicit sheriff’s count I of the complaint. sum, I would affirm the finding on count I and remand

this cause commission for a hearing new on count II with direc- tions to exclude results of the examination reassess the penalty.