Marriage of Daniels, In re, 1-90-1265

Citation607 N.E.2d 1255,180 Ill.Dec. 742,240 Ill.App.3d 314
Decision Date30 October 1992
Docket NumberNo. 1-90-1265,1-90-1265
Parties, 180 Ill.Dec. 742 In re the MARRIAGE OF Mark DANIELS, Petitioner, and Ruth Daniels, n/k/a Ruth Davis, Respondent. Sergeant Don Thomas of the Illinois State Police, Contemnor-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Melvyn H. Berks, Des Plaines, for petitioner.

Justice GORDON delivered the opinion on the court:

Nearly five years ago, respondent Ruth Davis (Davis) was shot and injured by an Respondent Davis then sought to have the children returned to her, arguing that they should not be living with petitioner Daniels, who was a prime suspect in the attempted murder investigation.

[180 Ill.Dec. 744] unknown assailant whom she believed to be her ex-husband, petitioner Mark Daniels (Daniels). The circuit court ordered that the two minor children (then 5 and 8 years old) be moved immediately from Davis' home to Daniels' home, on the basis that the children might inadvertently be caught in the "line of fire" if the unknown assailant again attempted to shoot Davis.

Petitioner took the discovery deposition of contemnor Don Thomas, an Illinois State police officer and a non-party to this dissolution of marriage case, and Thomas refused to disclose certain requested information about the criminal investigation other than the fact that petitioner and his brother were suspects.

The trial court, recognizing a limited law enforcement investigatory privilege, ordered contemnor Thomas to disclose some of the information requested by petitioner. Thomas refused, claiming all of the information was privileged. The parties, contemnor and the trial court agreed that to facilitate appeal Thomas would be held in civil contempt and fined $1,000 for each day he refused to comply with the discovery order.

Thomas appeals from the contempt order and the fine. This court stayed the judgment pending appeal. A brief has also been filed on behalf of the two minor children, Jennifer and David Daniels. Respondent Davis has not appeared in this court.

We find no abuse of discretion in entering its finding of contempt but because the issues here were largely matters of first impression raised by the contemnor in good faith we vacate that finding and the fines imposed thereunder.

FACTS

In September 1987, the marriage of Daniels and Davis was dissolved and Davis was given custody of the two minor children.

On October 25, 1988, Daniels filed an emergency petition for temporary and permanent custody of the two children, then 5-year-old Jennifer and 8-year-old David. Daniels alleged that on September 21, 1988, at 2 a.m., Davis returned home from her job as a bartender. A person lying in wait outside her home shot five bullets at her, two of which struck her. Following the shooting, a man telephoned Davis' home and told her father that "we'll get her next time." Daniels believed that the shooting was connected with Davis' daily use of illegal drugs.

Daniels also alleged in his petition that the State police had provided Davis with protection; that the State police had moved Davis and the minor children to an unknown location because she was "in physical danger of further attack." Daniels asked for temporary and permanent custody and that the children be allowed to "commence a normal existence free from the danger of an assassin's bullet."

On November 1, 1988, Davis filed a response to the emergency petition, alleging that it was her belief that "the assassination attempt was perpetrated by" Daniels. Davis denied using drugs.

On November 3, 1988, Sergeant Thomas briefly testified in court regarding the investigation of the attempted murder of Davis. Although there is no transcript in the appellate record, Thomas apparently testified in open court that there were four suspects, including Daniels and Daniels' brother. Thomas also testified in camera. (While the transcript of that testimony has since been made available to the parties, it also is not contained in the appellate record.) On that day, the court granted Daniels' petition for temporary custody. Davis would be permitted to visit with the children "frequently with appropriate police protection." The court further ordered that the transcript of the in camera testimony of Thomas be impounded.

On December 8, 1988, the court entered an order enjoining Davis from trying to see the children without "proper police protection." No visitation was to occur at Davis' home. On December 15, 1988, the court entered an order providing for protected visitation, i.e., the children could visit Davis On January 31, 1989, at a status hearing, the court ordered Daniels to "subpoena the Island Lake Police Dept. for the next status date," and pay for any related costs. On February 22, 1989, the court entered an order making it the obligation of Davis' attorney to subpoena the Chief of the Island Lake police department "for testimony * * * relative to security for visitation."

                [180 Ill.Dec. 745] at her home only if an Island Lake police officer first "completely check[ed] out the facility.  Said officer shall remain on the premises for the entire period of visitation * * *.  In addition, he shall park a marked police vehicle in front of said residence."   Davis' father was to be deputized by the Island Lake police and was to remain on the premises during visitation "for additional protection."
                

On March 21, 1989, Davis notified the court that the Island Lake police department would no longer act as a supervisor for visitation. The court then began permitting unsecured visits, and those visits have apparently continued to the present time.

On June 8, 1989, Daniels filed a petition referring to the November 3, 1988, "gag" order regarding Thomas' in camera testimony. Daniels asked for leave to depose Thomas and question him "concerning his in camera testimony taken on November 3, 1988, as well as with regard to any matters Sgt. Thomas has learned through his investigation concerning the shooting incident" of Davis.

In addition, on June 8, 1989, the court entered an order that the court reporter for the November 3, 1988, hearing shall "transcribe the testimony in camera of Sgt. Thomas and make same available to [Davis'] attorney, [Daniels'] attorney and the children's attorney only." Furthermore, all parties were allowed to depose Thomas. "The parties shall be able to question Sgt. Thomas on matters covered by his in camera testimony of 11/3/88. [Any] matter obtained at that deposition by any attorney shall not be published to others."

On July 17, 1989, the court entered an order stating: "The gag order previously entered concerning Detective Thomas' in camera testimony is lifted to the extent that a transcript of his testimony shall be available to all counsel and he may be deposed concerning said testimony."

Thomas then filed an emergency motion to quash the subpoena. An August 10, 1989, affidavit of Thomas states that the investigation "is presently ongoing." In addition, Thomas states that he believes "that criminal charges will be filed in this matter," and that disclosure of his testimony or the investigatory file would "seriously interfere with my investigation."

On September 6, 1989, a hearing was held. The court explained that the reason she changed custody was "because I thought Mrs. Davis' life [was] still in jeopardy." The court stated further:

"So, what this court is concerned about--Forget Mark Daniels. What this court is concerned about is being informed as to those facts, the continuance of those dangers, or the possibility that the danger has subsided, the possibility that prosecution of the perpetrator is near, the possibility that the prosecution of a perpetrator is impossible because there is no current information. The court is seriously concerned about the possibility that one of the litigants, one of the parents is the perpetrator, and we need more information for the full hearing on permanent custody of these children in order to make an informed decision. That is the court's interest."

The court also stated: "Attorney for Mrs. Davis has told this court in one of his well-known, volatile pitches that this court has stuck the children with the primary suspect in this case. If Detective Thomas knows that and has said that to someone else, he is obligated to speak further on the subject." The court continued:

"And if Detective Thomas knows more about this case than I do, by God, he is obligated to share important information with the court. * * * I am saying that if this individual possesses information that is critical, to wit, that this court has made a placement with the only person Detective Thomas feels will ever be indicted The court instructed that Thomas be made available for:

[180 Ill.Dec. 746] with the attempted murder of Ruth Davis, then it is essential to the safety of the children that this court have that information."

"deposition because he owes some good explanations to all of us. And I think he can talk about whether or not this investigation is vital as well as ongoing. And I think he can talk about whether or not there is an arrest or an indictment near. I think he can certainly talk about whether or not there is any more to say about the likelihood that Mark Daniels is the only viable suspect.

Mark Daniels was mentioned by Detective Thomas in almost a diminishing context, heretofore. It was referred to in the arguments today and also at the trial. Sure, all ex-husbands are suspects. And if there is more to the theory of investigating Mark Daniels than that, then I think it ought to be made known.

I think that it is incredibly important that witnesses, informants, and the names of other suspects be at least for the time protected, and I don't think that it is necessary to knowing, as between Mrs....

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Marriage of Bonneau, In re
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 9, 1998
    ... ... Warren, 173 Ill.2d 348, 368, 219 Ill.Dec. 533, 671 N.E.2d 700 (1996)), and a trial court may use contempt proceedings to compel a party to obey a discovery order (166 Ill.2d R. 219(c); In re Marriage of Daniels, 240 Ill.App.3d 314, 323, 180 Ill.Dec. 742, 607 N.E.2d 1255 (1992)). A contempt proceeding is also an appropriate method for testing the correctness of a discovery order. Flannery v. Lin, 176 Ill.App.3d 652, 655, 126 Ill.Dec. 108, 531 N.E.2d 403 (1988) ...         Where an individual ... ...
  • In re Marriage of Nettleton and Terrell
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 4, 2004
    ... ...         Furthermore, it is appropriate to vacate a contempt citation on appeal where a party's refusal to comply with a trial court's order constitutes a good-faith effort to secure an interpretation of an issue without direct precedent. In re Marriage of Daniels, 240 Ill.App.3d 314, 338-39, 180 Ill.Dec. 742, 607 N.E.2d 1255 (1992). In this case, the record indicates that petitioner asked to be held in contempt because he thought that it was the only other method to obtain review of his issues following the trial court's refusal to include language ... ...
  • Adler v. Greenfield
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 24, 2013
  • People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1998
    ... ... Homer, 132 Ill.2d at 37, 138 Ill.Dec. 213, 547 N.E.2d 182; In re Marriage of Daniels, 240 Ill.App.3d 314, 326-37, 180 Ill.Dec. 742, 607 N.E.2d 1255 (1992). The FOIA was intended to further the citizens' general desire or ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • SECRECY CREEP.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 6, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...id. at 1506 ("Florida law, for example, contains 1,000 exemptions to public disclosure."). (106) See, e.g., In re Marriage of Daniels, 607 N.E.2d 1255, 1266 (111. 1992) (recognizing law enforcement investigatory privilege); Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Bos., 391 N.E.2d 881, 886 (Mass. 1979......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT