Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mihalopoulos v. Bd. of Fire & Police Comm'rs

OPINION FILED JUNE 7, 1978.

ARTHUR MIHALOPOULOS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

THE BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF EAST MOLINE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Rock Island County; the Hon. ROBERT J. HORBERG, Judge, presiding.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ALLOY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Defendants Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of the City of East Moline et al. appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Rock Island County reversing the order of the Board of discharge of plaintiff, Arthur Mihalopoulos, a captain of the police department of the City of East Moline.

Plaintiff Arthur Mihalopoulos, a captain of the police department of the City of East Moline, was discharged following a hearing before the Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of the City of East Moline (Board), pursuant to section 10-2.1-17 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 24, par. 10-2.1-17). Plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County against defendants, the Board, the individual members of the Board, the City of East Moline, and the mayor of the City of East Moline. The circuit court, finding that certain factual findings made by the Board were against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the charges against plaintiff were insufficient cause to warrant discharge, reversed the Board's order of discharge. Defendants appeal, arguing that (1) the findings of the Board were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and (2) the acts committed by plaintiff do constitute sufficient cause for discharge.

The record establishes that on November 10, 1975, the mayor of the City of East Moline filed a complaint before the Board pursuant to section 10-2.1-17 of the Illinois Municipal Code against plaintiff Arthur Mihalopoulos, a captain in the East Moline Police Department. Count I of the complaint alleged that plaintiff had on several occasions given false information to agents of the Illinois Bureau of Investigation while those agents were conducting an official investigation. Count II alleged that plaintiff had wrongfully caused a delay in the reporting of an automobile accident in which plaintiff was involved, so as to prevent plaintiff's arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Count III of the complaint charged that plaintiff disobeyed a direct order of the East Moline Chief of Police, directing that plaintiff cease working on the plain clothes detail at the East Moline Downs race track. Count IV alleged that plaintiff engaged on a course of conduct constituting gross neglect of his duties as an officer in that (a) plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol while on duty on one occasion, after being warned against such conduct, (b) on several occasions plaintiff absented himself from work and caused the falsification of roll call records to conceal his failure to work a 40-hour week, and (c) on two occasions plaintiff left his post of duty to attend to personal matters. The complaint further alleged that the acts charged in each count rendered the continuance of plaintiff's employment detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the public service.

Hearings on the complaint commenced before the Board on January 12, 1976, and concluded March 3, 1976. With respect to count I of the complaint, the Board heard testimony from Illinois Bureau of Investigation Special Agent George Economos regarding several conversations Economos and other IBI agents had with plaintiff in the course of their investigation of the 10th race held at East Moline Downs on May 20, 1975. Special Agent Economos testified that he first talked to plaintiff with respect to the investigation on May 21, 1975, and that plaintiff then stated that he (plaintiff) had purchased 96 ten-dollar "perfecta tickets" for the 10th race at East Moline Downs on May 20, 1975; that he won a total of $2,800 with the purchased tickets; that he did not purchase the tickets for another person or persons; that he had borrowed $1,000 from a local bank for the purpose of purchasing the tickets; that he had the loan papers to prove the existence of the loan; that he purchased the tickets using combinations listed on a paper napkin he had earlier obtained from one of two unidentified male white persons who were presented to him (plaintiff) by East Moline Downs Security Chief Raymond Carey; that he gave the napkin and losing perfecta tickets to Carey after the race; that the napkin in question belonged to him (plaintiff); that he was not going to be a "patsy" for Carey or anyone else; and that he (plaintiff) would make no further statements to Economos regarding the matter unless he was first subpoenaed.

Economos testified that on May 23, 1975, he again talked with plaintiff, and that plaintiff then stated to Economos that on May 20, 1975, Carey had asked plaintiff to place bets for two unidentified male persons; that one of the persons gave plaintiff a napkin upon which were printed the combinations on which plaintiff was to place bets; that the person also gave plaintiff ten $100 bills with which to place the bets, that plaintiff purchased the tickets and returned them to Carey; that following the race, Carey gave plaintiff the eight winning tickets, that plaintiff (following Carey's instructions) then collected the $2,800 in winnings and delivered the money to Carey "outside — not in the security office"; and that plaintiff could not identify the persons who had been presented to him by Carey because he (plaintiff) was "schnockered" (half-drunk) at the time he first saw them. Economos further testified that he questioned plaintiff again on May 24 and 26, 1975, and that plaintiff on those occasions gave statements which were generally consistent with plaintiff's statement of May 23, 1975. Economos also testified that on May 26, 1975, plaintiff stated that on May 20, 1975, after plaintiff had given the $2,800 to Carey in the parking lot of East Moline Downs, Carey had told plaintiff not to tell anyone about the transaction which had taken place, and that on May 20, 1975, plaintiff had been drinking beer but was not really drunk at the time Carey presented the two persons to plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified at the hearing before the Board, and indicated that he had, on May 20, 1975, purchased 96 perfecta tickets for two persons at the request of Carey and, after cashing the winning tickets, turned the winnings over to Carey. Plaintiff acknowledged that he had at first informed Agent Economos that he (plaintiff) had purchased the tickets on his own behalf, with the proceeds of a loan. Plaintiff further testified that he subsequently told Economos that the tickets had been purchased by plaintiff at the request of Carey on behalf of two persons presented to plaintiff by Carey.

With respect to count IV of the complaint, the Board heard the testimony of three witnesses (two police officers and a police civilian employee) who described plaintiff's physical appearance, breath and behavior on August 7, 1975, and who testified that in their opinion plaintiff was under the influence of intoxicating liquor while at the station on duty at that time. Plaintiff testified that he was not intoxicated while on duty. The Board also heard testimony that plaintiff had on several occasions been late in reporting for work, left work early, absented himself from work for significant periods of time, and caused the falsification of roll call records to conceal his failure to work a 40-hour work week. Further testimony indicated that plaintiff had on one occasion visited the East Moline Downs Race Track while on duty and caused a bet to be placed for himself, and that on June 14, 1975, plaintiff while on duty had an employee of the East Moline Police Department pick up a lawn mower and deliver it to plaintiff's residence, where plaintiff proceeded to mow his lawn.

Following presentation of the evidence, the Board found that the allegations of counts I and IV of the complaint were sustained by the evidence and that the allegations of counts II and III were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the acts proved: tended to bring the East Moline Police Department into disrepute; were conduct unbecoming an officer; constituted substantial shortcomings which rendered the continuance of plaintiff's employment detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the public service; and were acts which the law and public opinion recognized as cause for plaintiff to no longer occupy his position with the East Moline Police Department. Accordingly, the Board, on April 14, 1976, ordered that plaintiff be discharged and removed from his position as captain of the police department of the City of East Moline.

On May 17, 1976, plaintiff filed his complaint in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County for administrative review of the Board's determination pursuant to the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.). In an opinion filed July 1, 1977, the circuit court found that, with respect to count I of the complaint, the inconsistent statements given by plaintiff were so unrelated to his services as a police officer as not to be sufficient cause for plaintiff's discharge, and, with respect to count IV, the Board's determination that plaintiff had been intoxicated while on duty was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the remaining acts within count IV were too trivial to constitute cause for discharge. By order entered July 11, 1977, the circuit court reversed the Board's order of discharge.

• 1 Defendants first argue on appeal that the findings made by the Board were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. With respect to the weight to be accorded the findings of a police board, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District stated in Lieberman v. Rochford (1st Dist. 1976), 43 Ill. App.3d 1001, 1003, 358 N.E.2d 287:

"While the findings and conclusions of an administrative agency are to be held prima facie true and correct (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110, par. 274), our supreme court has construed this provision to limit the function of the reviewing court to ascertaining whether the findings and decisions of the administrative agency are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Davern v. Civil Service Com. (1970), 47 Ill.2d 469, 269 N.E.2d 713.) Moreover, a reviewing court will not reweigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. (Moriarty v. Police Board (1972), 7 Ill. App.3d 978, 289 N.E.2d 32.) A reviewing court may, however, reverse an administrative body's findings where the findings of that body are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Basketfield v. Police Board (1974), 56 Ill.2d 351, 307 N.E.2d 371.) An examination will thus be made on review to determine whether enough evidence exists on record to support the findings of violation. Daniels v. Police Board (1976), 37 Ill. App.3d 1018, 349 N.E.2d 504."

(Accord Kirsch v. Rochford (1st Dist. 1977), 55 Ill. App.3d 1042, 371 N.E.2d 899.) As further stated by the Illinois Supreme Court in Davern v. Civil Service Com. (1970), 47 Ill.2d 469, 471-72, 269 N.E.2d 713, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 918, 29 L.Ed.2d 695, 91 S.Ct. 2229:

"The courts> will not reweigh the evidence, but are limited to a determination whether the final decision of the administrative agency is just and reasonable in light of the evidence presented. (Fantozzi v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs of Villa Park, 35 Ill. App.2d 248, affirmed 27 Ill.2d 357.) Neither the appellate court nor the trial court may substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. (See e.g., DeGrazio v. Civil Service Com. of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.