{ "id": 3437196, "name": "KARL SICINSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILL COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MERIT COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Sicinski v. Will County Police Department Merit Commission", "decision_date": "1985-04-02", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201484\u20140442", "first_page": "966", "last_page": "968", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 966" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "456 N.E.2d 998", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. App. 3d 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3628275 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/119/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 N.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5358977 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 N.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469434 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0547-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 356, "char_count": 5212, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1541737205690725e-07, "percentile": 0.5820746692181668 }, "sha256": "2fe2cc4a359ca91e0a9b0f4f3a0ebc43fcd4e14281ca66485ca50ce0394e697e", "simhash": "1:b6c0e7bca267a668", "word_count": 842 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:35.805575+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "KARL SICINSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILL COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MERIT COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOMBACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis case comes on appeal from the circuit court of Will County, from an order affirming the actions of the defendant Will County Police Department Merit Commission (hereinafter commission). We reverse.\nPlaintiffs Sicinski and Rathbun were deputies of the Will County police department. Sicinski held the rank of lieutenant, and Rathbun held the rank of sergeant. Both men were supporters of Ikey Liker, candidate for sheriff of Will County in the 1982 election.\nIn August 1982, Sicinski received a memo from another deputy, Pat Barry. This memo was approximately seven pages long and contained some allegations against the sheriff. Sicinski gave the memo to Rathbun, who was Liker\u2019s campaign chairman. The memo was photocopied on the department\u2019s photocopying machine. There is some evidence that Rathbun gave the memo to Liker. There is no evidence that the memo was given to anyone else.\nDeputy Barry had received about six copies of the memo from different sources. He had discussed the contents of the memo with six or seven other people, some of whom were deputies. The information in this memo was known by the three network television stations in Chicago. WLS had a copy in its news file. WMAQ had used the memo in a November 1981 newscast; WBBM used it in February 1982.\nDefendant Sheriff Shelley was re-elected in November 1982. In December 1982, proceedings were instituted against Rathbun and Sicinski. They were charged with violating three departmental rules and regulations: No. 10. Conduct unbecoming an officer of the department; No. 37. Violations of departmental rules and regulations; and No. 40. Any act that brings or tends to bring the individual or department into disrepute.\nThe deputies were found to have violated rules Nos. 10 and 40. Lieutenant Sicinski was demoted to sergeant. Sergeant Rathbun was suspended for 90 days without pay. Sicinski and Rathbun sought judicial review of the commission\u2019s decision. The lower court affirmed the commission. Sicinski and Rathbun then brought this appeal.\nThe issue we consider on this appeal is whether the decision of the commission is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The Administrative Review Law provides that agency decisions of fact are prima facie true and correct (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 3 \u2014 110). The function of the reviewing court is to ascertain if the findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Civil Service Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 547, 426 N.E.2d 885.) The judiciary is to decide if the final decision of the agency is just and reasonable in light of the evidence presented. Fantozzi v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 357,184 N.E.2d 275.\nWith this as our guide, we must reverse. The essential facts are undisputed. Boiled down to its simplest, Sicinski got a memo, gave it to Rathbun, it was photocopied on a departmental machine, it may have gotten to Liker, and some of this was done while the deputies were on duty. We find no possible way to connect these facts with any violations of the department\u2019s rules. We cannot equate the facts with any conduct that could be considered unbecoming to an officer. We also cannot see any actions that would have brought the department into disrepute. The information contained in the memo was known by several law enforcement agencies and was broadcast on two Chicago television stations. Aside from Liker, Sicinski and Rathbun did not disseminate the information elsewhere. As we interpret \u201cbrings the department into disrepute,\u201d it means in the public eye. The actions of these deputies did not diminish the stature of the Will County police force in the public eye. We find that all reasonable and unbiased persons would agree that the decision of the commission is erroneous and that the opposite conclusion is evident. O\u2019Boyle v. Personnel Board (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 648, 456 N.E.2d 998.\nBecause of our decision, we decline to examine appellant\u2019s questions of hearsay, the constitutionality of the rules and regulations and the severity of the punishment.\nTherefore, the decision of the circuit court of Will County is hereby reversed. We remand the case to that court with instructions to reverse the Will County Police Department Merit Commission and to order the reinstatement of the deputies to the positions they held prior to the decision of the commission. The court is also to order any other relief that it may deem necessary.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSTOUDER and SCOTT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOMBACHER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Patrick J. McNamara, of Schenk, Duffy, Quinn, McNamara, Phelan, Carey & Ford, of Joliet, for appellants.", "Edward F. Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Steven J. Prodehl, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee Will County Police Department Merit Commission.", "John H. Kelly, of Thomas F. McGuire & Associates, Ltd., of Long Grove, for appellee John Shelley." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KARL SICINSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILL COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MERIT COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201484\u20140442\nOpinion filed April 2, 1985.\nRehearing denied May 1, 1985.\nPatrick J. McNamara, of Schenk, Duffy, Quinn, McNamara, Phelan, Carey & Ford, of Joliet, for appellants.\nEdward F. Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (Steven J. Prodehl, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee Will County Police Department Merit Commission.\nJohn H. Kelly, of Thomas F. McGuire & Associates, Ltd., of Long Grove, for appellee John Shelley." }, "file_name": "0966-01", "first_page_order": 988, "last_page_order": 990 }