Suchomel v. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1968
• Docket Number: No. 40822,40822
• Citation: 40 Ill.2d 32,240 N.E.2d 1
• Parties: George SUCHOMEL, Appellant, v. SUBURBAN LIFE NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 1

240 N.E.2d 1

40 Ill.2d 32

George SUCHOMEL, Appellant, v. SUBURBAN LIFE NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 40822.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 29, 1968.

Marco & Mannina, Downers Grove, for appellant.

Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago (Don H. Reuben and Lawrence Gunnels, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

The plaintiff, George Suchomel, brought this action for libel against several defendants, among them Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., and one of its reporters, Karl Bell. The circuit court of Cook County granted the motion of the named defendants for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed. (84 Ill.App.2d 239, 228 N.E.2d 172.) We granted leave to appeal.

Several issues are argued in this court, but we find it necessary to consider only, (1) whether the plaintiff, who was Sergeant of Police and Juvenile Officer of the Village of Countryside, was a 'public official' within the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, and (2) if he was, whether the record discloses the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants published and alleged libel with 'actual malice,' as that term was defined in the New York Times case.

In his complaint, Suchomel alleged that the defendants, 'well knowing the premises, but wickedly and maliciously intending to injure (him) * * * and to bring him in public disgrace and scandal, * * * wickedly and maliciously composed and published * * * a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel * * *' in the form of a front-page newspaper article. He further alleged that the statements contained in the article were 'libelous per se and actionable as a matter of law.' The full text of the article follows:

'CITY POLICEMAN ACCUSED OF BURGLARY (headline)

Countryside Sergeant Denies Charges Brought Before City

Council (sub-headline) By Karl Bell

For the second time in three months Countryside's police force was placed into the limelight Wednesday when, after a city council meeting, a resident read a statement reportedly received from an area woman who contended, among other things, that Sgt. George Suchomel had twice within the past year, and while on duty made break-ins in the trailer court which is in the city.

According to the statement read by Robert J. Brinkman, 5339 Kensington, the woman, a divorcee and mother of two, also charges that the two often spent 'from one to seven hours' together when the sergeant was supposed to be on the night shift and they spent time drinking liquor in the squad car.

Sgt. Suchomel denied all the charges.

Brinkman refused to identify the writer, although requested by Mayor Melvin F. Eggert. Brinkman stated that her identity has been known to the mayor and to Police Chief John Girard for weeks.

In the statement read by Brinkman, the letter writer claims that the sergeant in uniform and using the squad car, would pick her up and then they would drive to a tavern where he would buy liquor which they would share as they sat in the police car.

The woman contends, according to Brinkman, that Sgt. Suchomel would ignore radio calls and often would lie about the location of the squad car.

Also stated was that several times the sergeant fired his weapon into the air 'for no apparent reason' and that he had twice broken into residences in the trailer court in Countryside.

The letter writer also was quoted as stating that she had informed the sheriff's police about the sergeant's activities and that she later denied them under pressure to do so by the sergeant.

Sgt. Suchomel has denied the allegations.

He told the Suburban LIFE yesterday, 'I was not at the meeting so I can't say I heard the actual statement read by Mr. Brinkman, but I've heard what was read and, excet for the fact that I know the woman who I think Mr. Brinkman is referring to, there's not a charge in her statement that is true.

'I've told the mayor I have not done any of these things. So far I haven't been given a chance to formally answer any of the charges, for no formal complaint has been made.'

Brinkman stated that the mayor had known about the contentions, as brought out by the woman, before the mayor read to the council on September 25, a report from the sheriff's office in which the sheriff stated his investigations of earlier charges against the chief and the sergeant had no basis for criminal action.

Brinkman also contended that charges as brought out now by the woman have been confirmed by an investigation of the sheriff's police and that the mayor has received an affidavit from the sheriff's office signed by the woman.

He stated the mayor has been 'holding out' y not disclosing the material to the city council.

Wednesday night the mayor said he would release the contents of the affidavit to the council members.

Mayor Eggert told The Suburban LIFE yesterday that on Thursday he contacted the woman in question and that she implied she would be willing to sign a formal complaint that night.

'The formal complaint was all written up, but when she appeared at the city hall Thursday night she refused to sign. She gave no reason.

'The question now is, inasmuch as no formal charges have been filed, which group can take any legal action, the council or the civil service board through the police commission?'

He said he hoped to secure a legal opinion on the matter by today.

'I think we have to clear the air and see that the man has every right to be heard as to whether he's guilty or innocent. Surely, she also has every right to prove her side.'

Brinkman, along with former officers Richard Kocek and Richard Martin are defendants in a libel suit brought against them by Police Chief John Girard.

He seeks approximately $200,000 damages from each.

Wednesday night the city council accepted the resignation of Officer Richard Martin.'

The original complaint was filed on February 6, 1964. The United States Supreme Court announced its decision in the New York Times case on March 9, 1964. More than three months later the plaintiff filed his amended complaint, and more than one year later the defendants moved for summary judgment. In the New York Times case the Supreme Court stated: 'The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' 376 U.S. at 279--80, 84 S.Ct. at 726, 11 L.Ed.2d at 706.

In the New York Times case the court refused to define the term 'public official' (376 U.S. at 283 n. 23, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d at 708, n. 23.) Subsequently, however, it has been applied to a variety of law enforcement officers. (St. Amant v. Thompson (1968), 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 36 L.W. 4333 (deputy sheriff in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana); Henry v. Collins (1965), 380 U.S. 356, 85 S.Ct. 992, 13 L.Ed.2d 892 (chief of police of Clarksdale, Mississippi); Pape v. Times, Inc. (1965), 7 Cir., 354 F.2d 558, cert. denied (1966), 384 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 1339, 16 L.Ed.2d 361 (deputy chief of detectives in Chicago); Coursey v. Greater Niles Township Publishing...