Prado v. Ill. State Police Merit Bd.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-15-2780,1-15-2780 |
| Citation | 2016 IL App (1st) 152780 -U |
| Parties | MARCO PRADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE MERIT BOARD, ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, and HIRAM GRAU, Director of the Illinois State Police, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2016 IL App (1st) 152780-U
MARCO PRADO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE MERIT BOARD,
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, and HIRAM GRAU,
Director of the Illinois State Police, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 1-15-2780
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THIRD DIVISION
December 14, 2016
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
No. 14 CH 18767
The Honorable Peter Flynn, Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Lavin and Cobbs concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
HELD: Police Merit Board's administrative decision finding plaintiff guilty of the charges against him was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and its administrative decision finding cause to discharge him from his employment was not arbitrary, unreasonable or unrelated to the requirements of service.
¶ 1 Following an administrative hearing, plaintiff-appellant Marco Prado (plaintiff) was terminated from his employment as an Illinois state trooper, a decision which was affirmed by
Page 2
the trial court. Plaintiff brings this appeal against defendants-appellees the Illinois State Police Merit Board (Board), the Illinois State Police (ISP), and Hiram Grau, the Director of the Illinois State Police (defendants, or as named), contending there was no cause for his discharge and the Board's decision to terminate him was arbitrary and unrelated to his requirements for service. He asks that we reverse the Board's decision and remand to impose discipline short of discharge and other appropriate relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 The incident that resulted in the termination of plaintiff's employment as a state trooper was captured on both video and audiotape and presented during his administrative hearing. Accordingly, the underlying facts are mainly undisputed.
¶ 4 On September 8, 2012, plaintiff, who was off-duty, and his girlfriend, Maribel Solis, traveled to a casino in Hammond, Indiana for a concert. During his time there, plaintiff consumed three beers. Following the concert's conclusion, and in the early morning hours of the next day, September 9, 2012, plaintiff began to drive himself and Solis back to Chicago. At 3:19 a.m., he was pulled over near a closed toll booth by Chicago police officer Richard Austin.1
¶ 5 Officer Austin approached plaintiff's car and asked if he knew how fast he was driving. Prado believed he was driving about 70 miles per hour; officer Austin corrected him by informing him he was traveling 76 miles per hour in a 45 mile-per-hour zone. Officer Austin then asked plaintiff for his driver's license. Plaintiff, however, refused to provide his license
Page 3
and, in a manner officer Austin stated was "very cocky" and "full of himself," plaintiff instead produced his work identification card and badge, identifying himself as a state trooper. This exchange continued, with officer Austin telling plaintiff that the stop was being recorded and that he did not intend to give him a ticket but simply needed his information to fill out a "blue card" (a statistical report), and with plaintiff consistently refusing to provide his license and repeatedly informing officer Austin he was a state trooper and there was no need for a prolonged traffic stop. Eventually, officer Austin told plaintiff he was going back to his squad car and, when he was ready, plaintiff could come over and give him his driver's license so he could fill out the blue card, as he does with every stop. Plaintiff became increasingly upset with officer Austin.
¶ 6 After several moments, plaintiff walked over to officer Austin's squad car and officer Austin asked him if he had his driver's license. At this point, plaintiff saw a piece of paper in the squad car with his name written at the top and, believing officer Austin was writing him a ticket even though officer Austin had already explained he was not, plaintiff became irate. In response to officer Austin's question about whether he was ready to produce his license, plaintiff shouted, "if you f**king, you come get from me. You come get it from me. You come get it." He repeated that he was a state trooper and that he could not believe officer Austin was writing him a ticket since he always only gave Chicago police officers he pulled over a verbal warning for traffic violations. Plaintiff's rant continued with several additional comments and exclamations, including:
-"You better not give me a ticket. I'm telling you. *** You're disrespecting me.
Page 4
I'm telling you, I'm going to find out who you are *** [w]ho you work for, who your lieutenant is and everything because I'm State Police, okay?";
-"Call your supervisor. *** Call and get him over here, and he'll f**kin' tell you what you gotta do. *** he's gonna like *** cut [you] another a**hole probably";
-"Call your lieutenant here. *** Call them so they can f**kin' cut another a**hole in your a**. *** Cause you're a piece of sh*t. *** and if you were not in uniform, I'd beat the f**k out of you";
-"I'm gonna call Sergeant Ward. I know so many f**king people here. *** I'm gonna f**king if he's not in uniform, I'd beat his f**king a** right now";
-"I showed you my badge. What do you want from me? *** you're not making anything good out of this. *** my Captain will go to your f**kin Captain and f**kin put you on suspension";
-"I want to go home and you're gonna write me a f**king ticket? I gotta sit here because, because this is your job, right? Right? Just, just wait til I pull over the next f**king CPD. Because of you, they're all gonna f**kin' suffer, every f**kin CPD on [I-]290, f**kin speeds *** I'm telling your lieutenant that right now";
-"All right, well, you know I know I'm going to find out where you live and what you're doing and who you cool with and, and, and where you what district you're at, who your lieutenant is and all that stuff."; and
-"I'm not gonna even touch the politics involved with this, but this is f**ked up dude. This is gonna be like f**kin, f**kin world news, probably, close to world
Page 5
news. I cannot f**kin believe you're giving me a f**king ticket. A CPD, is giving me, giving a state trooper a ticket."
¶ 7 Within plaintiff's diatribe, he demanded that officer Austin call his lieutenant to come to the scene, which officer Austin eventually did. Sergeant Scott Kinzie then arrived. He repeatedly asked plaintiff to have a seat in his car, but plaintiff consistently refused, insisting that his own captain was on the way and that officer Austin should have let him go when he showed him his badge. Plaintiff repeatedly told Sergeant Kinzie that he always let fellow speeding officers go, that officer Austin was "a piece of sh*t," and that he should have let him go. At one point, Sergeant Kinzie walked plaintiff back to his car and again told him to have a seat, but plaintiff again refused, repeated the same arguments and began to wander around the area and into active lanes of traffic. Sergeant Kinzie spoke to officer Austin, and officer Austin wrote plaintiff a ticket for speeding and a ticket for the failure to obey police.
¶ 8 Later that day, plaintiff wrote a memorandum to his master sergeant documenting the incident and providing his version of it. He explained that he became upset because he felt he was not given proper profession respect, because he believed officer Austin was going to write him a ticket, and because officer Austin questioned whether he was drunk. He apologized for succumbing to his emotions.
¶ 9 Two days later, officer Austin filed a complaint against plaintiff with the ISP. He recounted the incident in full and described how plaintiff lectured him on how to conduct a stop of a state trooper, refused to surrender his driver's license, and insisted he should not be given a ticket-all of this after officer Austin informed plaintiff he was being recorded and that he (officer
Page 6
Austin) had no intention of writing him a ticket but merely needed to fill out a blue card. Officer Austin also detailed plaintiff's diatribe and profanity, Sergeant Kinzie's arrival, and plaintiff's dismissal of him and his wandering into active lanes of traffic.
¶ 10 Based on officer Austin's complaint, and following an internal investigation of the incident wherein plaintiff stated he simply "lost [his] cool" and never intended any real threat against officer Austin, this matter proceeded administratively with a seven-count complaint against plaintiff alleging violations of the State Police Code of Ethics and its Rules of Conduct, including (1) plaintiff's commission of felony intimidation against officer Austin; (2) his failure to truthfully answer questions during his administrative interview; (3) his commission of misdemeanor disorderly conduct; (4) his discredit of himself and the ISP because of his off-duty alcohol consumption that resulted in obnoxious and offensive behavior; (5) his attempted use of his official position, identification and star to avoid the consequences of illegal acts; (6) his failure to maintain a level of conduct in line with the standards of the profession; and (7) his failure to use his issued equipment for its intended purpose.2 While counts 3 through 7 presented misconduct with varying levels of potential reprimand according to the ISP's discipline matrix, counts 1 and 2 were both punishable by termination.
¶ 11 During the ensuing administrative hearing, the videotape of the stop, as well as a transcript of the audiotape, were presented to and played before the hearing officer. Plaintiff and
Page 7
officer Austin also testified. Briefly, in addition to his recount of the incident, officer Austin stated that he never intended to give plaintiff a ticket and told him as much at the outset of their encounter. He described that, due to his belligerent behavior,...
To continue reading
Request your trial