Caliendo v. Martin
| Citation | 190 Ill.Dec. 57,620 N.E.2d 1318,250 Ill.App.3d 409 |
| Decision Date | 30 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-91-2741,1-91-2741 |
| Parties | , 190 Ill.Dec. 57 Anthony CALIENDO and Arthur Secor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Leroy MARTIN, Superintendent of Police, Chicago Police Department, City of Chicago and Police Board of the City of Chicago, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This appeal involves the review of an administrative determination made by the Police Board of the City of Chicago (the Board). On September 10, 1990, the Board determined that the plaintiffs, Anthony Caliendo (Caliendo) and Arthur Secor (Secor), were guilty of violating Chicago police department rules and ordered that Caliendo and Secor be discharged from their positions as police officers with the Chicago police department. The plaintiffs petitioned for administrative review in the circuit court on October 12, 1990. A hearing was held and on July 25, 1991, the circuit court affirmed the findings and decision of the Board.
Plaintiffs raise the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the Board's determination that plaintiffs violated police department rules by accepting bribes is against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) whether the Board's decision to impose the sanction of discharge was unreasonable and arbitrary, or unrelated to the requirements of service; and (3) whether plaintiffs were deprived of any of their due process rights so as to render the decision of the Board fundamentally unfair.
We affirm.
On August 16, 1984, the superintendent of police filed charges against Caliendo and Secor for violating the following Chicago police department rules:
Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.
Rule 3: Any conduct or action taken to use the official position for personal gain or influence.
Rule 21: Failure to report promptly to the Department any information concerning any crime or other unlawful action.
Rule 48: Soliciting or accepting any gratuity, or soliciting or accepting a gift, present, reward or any other thing of value for any service rendered as a Department member, or as a condition for the rendering of such service, or as a condition for not performing sworn duties.
The complaint indicated that Caliendo and Secor were accused of accepting bribes instead of issuing traffic citations on two separate occasions during May of 1984. Commencing March 23, 1990, five days of hearings were held before a hearing officer on the charges against Caliendo and Secor.
Officer Brian Smith (Smith) of the Internal Affairs Division of the Chicago police department testified that on May 7, 1984, he was assigned to conduct an undercover investigation of Caliendo and Secor to determine whether they would accept or solicit a bribe in exchange for failing to issue a traffic citation. Smith testified that on May 7, he was driving an unmarked station wagon near the intersection of Clark and Fullerton when he spotted the plaintiffs in a marked patrol car. He deliberately made an illegal U-turn in front of Caliendo and Secor, and they signalled him to stop his car.
Smith got out of his car, and Secor stepped out of the patrol car. Secor told Smith that he had committed two traffic violations: making an illegal U-turn and failing to have a Chicago sticker on his car. Secor took Smith's driver's license and got back into the squad car.
Smith testified that he walked over to the squad car, leaned into the window, and had the following conversation with Secor:
Smith testified that he then squatted down near the driver's door, inserted his arm through the window of the police car and dropped $20 into Secor's lap. The money was in plain view and neither Secor nor Caliendo rejected it. Instead, Secor returned Smith's license to him without issuing any traffic citations.
In his defense, Secor testified that he generally did not issue a traffic citation to every motorist he stopped for a traffic violation. He stated that out of approximately 150 motorists he stopped per month, he gave a pass to about 110 motorists. He also testified that he considered a U-turn to be a minor violation.
Secor testified that on May 7, he and Caliendo stopped Smith for making a U-turn. Caliendo did not get out of the squad car on this occasion or talk with Smith. Secor exited the squad car and engaged in After Secor checked Smith's driver's license and found that everything appeared to be in order, he gave Smith directions and returned to his squad car. At that point Smith walked back to the squad car, stood next to it and said Secor responded by saying, "Well just be on your way and just be careful, you know watch your driving." At this point, Smith returned to his vehicle and drove away.
[190 Ill.Dec. 61] a conversation witH smith who explained that he was lost and asked for directions to the outer drive.
Secor testified that Smith did not kneel next to the squad car and did not reach his hand inside the car. Secor testified that Smith did not drop money into the car. Secor denied ever asking Smith for money and stated that he never found any money on the floor, seat, or anywhere in the car.
Caliendo testified that on May 7, 1984, he never talked with Smith and did not get out of the squad car. He testified that he never saw any money dropped into the car.
Officer Marion Williams (Williams) testified that on May 18, 1984, the Chicago police department assigned him to the undercover investigation of Secor and Caliendo. Williams testified that on the evening of May 18, he was driving an unmarked car and wearing a concealed tape recorder. He located the plaintiff's patrol car near the intersection of Clark and Fullerton and made an illegal U-turn in front of Secor and Caliendo's squad car. Secor and Caliendo signalled for Williams to stop. As Williams got out of his car, Caliendo and Secor both emerged from the squad car. Secor briefly scanned Officer William's vehicle for danger and then returned to the squad car. After Caliendo informed Williams that he had made an improper U-turn the following conversation with ensued:
Williams got back in his car and Caliendo returned to the squad car. After a few minutes, Caliendo approached Williams, handed him a piece of paper and told him to pretend to write on it.
Williams told Caliendo that he had a ten dollar bill and a twenty dollar bill and asked, "What do you want?" Williams had his wallet in his hand. Caliendo reached into the wallet and took the twenty dollar bill. Williams testified that he had the following conversation with Caliendo:
Caliendo reached into the wallet, took the ten dollar bill, and returned to his squad car. Williams drove away.
Immediately after leaving Caliendo and Secor, Williams met with Evidence Technician Frank Kenny. Officer Kenny removed the hidden tape recorder and took possession of the recording of the conversation between Williams and Caliendo.
Secor testified that on May 18, he and Caliendo stopped Williams after he made a U-turn. Caliendo got out to speak with Williams. Secor exited the police vehicle to check Williams' vehicle and then returned to the squad car. Secor never had a conversation with Williams and did not exit the squad car again. Secor testified that he recognized Caliendo's voice on the tape recording.
Caliendo gave the following account of events. After stopping Williams for making Caliendo engaged in a conversation with Williams and Williams told him that he was unfamiliar with the area and was simply trying to get back to his home on the south side. Caliendo took Williams driver's license, and told him to have a seat in his car. Caliendo then returned to his squad car with the license. Caliendo testified that he tried to run Williams' license on the computer, but was unsuccessful because the computers were down.
[190 Ill.Dec. 62] a U-turn, both Caliendo and Secor exited the police vehicle. Secor checked Williams' car and then returned to the police vehicle. Caliendo testified that the area of the alleged incident had heavy foot traffic and there was an outdoor cafe approximately six to eight feet from the curb.
Caliendo then went back to Williams' car and returned his license. Caliendo testified that he did not issue Williams a ticket, but did ask him to sign a miscellaneous paper so that it looked like Williams had received a ticket. Caliendo testified that he did this because many people were watching the incident and he did not want them to think that he let everyone go.
Caliendo testified that he had his radio on while he was talking to Williams and the radio was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harken v. City of Chicago
...offends due process. See Zollar, 265 Ill.App.3d at 1032, 202 Ill.Dec. 868, 638 N.E.2d at 743; Caliendo v. Martin, 250 Ill.App.3d 409, 421-422, 190 Ill.Dec. 57, 620 N.E.2d 1318, 1328 (1993); Lopez v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm'n, 120 Ill.App.3d 756, 762, 76 Ill.Dec. 199, 458 N.E.2d 599, 60......
-
Girot v. Keith
...the record that the administrative proceedings were either tainted by dishonesty or contained an unacceptable risk of bias. Caliendo v. Martin, 250 Ill.App.3d 409 , 620 N.E.2d 1318 (1993)." (Emphasis added.) Huff, 294 Ill.App.3d at 481, 228 Ill.Dec. 738, 689 N.E.2d In this case, Girot has s......
-
BOARD OF EDUC. OF RICH TP. v. Brown
...determination of the facts but instead to determine whether the findings are supported by some evidence. Caliendo v. Martin, 250 Ill.App.3d 409, 190 Ill.Dec. 57, 620 N.E.2d 1318 (1993). The first issue to be determined is whether the petitions were invalid because certain signers failed to ......
-
Colquitt v. Rich Tp. High School Dist. No. 227
...of Commerce and Community Affairs, 84 Ill.2d 42, 55, 48 Ill.Dec. 560, 416 N.E.2d 1082 (1981); Caliendo v. Martin, 250 Ill.App.3d 409, 421-22, 190 Ill.Dec. 57, 620 N.E.2d 1318 (1993). "State administrators 'are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a......