Illinois Racing Bd. v. Hammond

• Decision Date: 30 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-861,76-861
• Citation: 56 Ill.App.3d 609,371 N.E.2d 1189
• Parties: , 14 Ill.Dec. 136 ILLINOIS RACING BOARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Everett HAMMOND, Jan Boerm, Richard L. Toon, Don Kane, John Caroll and Robert P. Walsh, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1189

371 N.E.2d 1189

56 Ill.App.3d 609, 14 Ill.Dec. 136

ILLINOIS RACING BOARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Everett HAMMOND, Jan Boerm, Richard L. Toon, Don Kane, John Caroll and Robert P. Walsh, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 76-861.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Dec. 30, 1977.

[14 Ill.Dec. 137] William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, for petitioner-appellant; Paul V. Esposito, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel

Joseph A. Lamendella, Paul J. Petit, Chicago, for respondents-appellees; Schippers, Betar, Lamendella & O'Brien, Chicago, of counsel.

WILSON, Justice.

Petitioner appeals from an order of the circuit court which denied its petition to enforce six subpoenas served on respondents. Four issues are presented for our consideration: whether petitioner complied with all applicable procedural requirements with respect to the issuance of subpoenas; whether petitioner has power to issue subpoenas in the course of an inquiry into violations of the Horse Racing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 8, par. 37a et seq.) and petitioner's rules; whether respondents consented to honor petitioner's written request for the production of respondents' books, records, documents and other information; and whether respondents failed to properly present constitutional challenges to the issuance of the subpoenas. We affirm the order of the circuit court.

The petition for an order requiring respondents to obey subpoenas, filed on February 23, 1976, alleged in substance that during the last week of December 1975, the laboratory of petitioner reported finding a prohibited drug (thiosalicylic acid) in the urine specimens of four horses which raced at Cahokia Downs Race Track during the 1975 thoroughbred season. These reports were received after the close of the thoroughbred season. The state stewards were no longer in the state. On December 31, 1975, petitioner caused to be issued subpoenas subpoenas duces tecum upon respondents commanding them to produce enumerated items. Respondents are owners or trainers of the horses in which the prohibited drug was found. On January 17, 1976, petitioner held a meeting and unanimously authorized its counsel and secretary to carry out a thorough investigation of these cases and to take the oral testimony of the persons involved. On January 26, 1976, counsel for respondents appeared before petitioner and stated that respondents would not comply with the subpoenas. The petition was signed by William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois and verified by petitioner's legal counsel, Jewel N. Klein, who stated on oath that she was familiar with the facts and that the facts were true.

On March 3, 1976, respondents moved to dismiss the petition on four grounds: (1) the subpoenas violated respondents' constitutional rights of due process and equal protection; (2) the subpoenas were invalid because petitioner did not have statutory authority to depose witnesses except during a pending hearing and the subpoenas were issued pursuant to an order of petitioner authorizing the taking of depositions at a time when no hearing was pending; (3) the subpoenas were not issued and served in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 204(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, par. 204(a)); and (4) the petition for an order requiring respondents to obey a subpoena issued by petitioner was not certified as required by Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 8, par. 37c-4. On April 9, 1976, the trial court entered an order denying the petition to enforce the subpoenas.

OPINION

I

The order of the circuit court did not contain any specific findings of fact, nor did it indicate the specific grounds upon which the court based its ruling. However, on review, the order may be affirmed on any sound basis found in the record, regardless of what led the trial court to its conclusion. Morse v. Nelson (1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 895, 6 Ill.Dec. 638, 363 N.E.2d 167; Bauscher v. City of Freeport (1968), 103 Ill.App.2d 372, 243 N.E.2d 650; Mound City Warehouse Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. (1964), 51 Ill.App.2d 103, 200 N.E.2d 919.

Although petitioner presents several issues for our review we only need to consider the threshold issue of whether petitioner's alleged failure to comply with procedural prerequisites rendered the subpoenas unenforceable. The resolution of that issue is dispositive of the appeal. We believe that the order denying the petition to enforce subpoenas should be affirmed because the record in this case clearly supports the conclusion that the petition did not comply with Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 8, par. 37c-4.

The portion of the statute applicable here (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 8, par. 37c-4), provides in pertinent part:

"Every member of the said Board shall have the power to administer oaths, and affirmations, certify to all official acts, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of papers, books, accounts, and documents. Any person who shall be served with a subpoena to appear and testify, or to produce books, papers, accounts or documents issued by the Board or any member thereof, in the course of an inquiry or hearing conducted under the provisions of ...