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.

Spfld Dep't of Pub. Aff. v. Civ. Serv. Com.

OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 23, 1983.

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. Richard J. Cadagin, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE GREEN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Rehearing denied March 21, 1983.

Plaintiff, City of Springfield Department of Public Affairs, appeals a judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon County entered July 9, 1982. That court affirmed a decision of defendant, the Civil Service Commission for the City of Springfield, Illinois (Commission), entered June 25, 1982, which denied plaintiff's complaint for the discharge of defendant, Adam Sockel, from his position as a city police officer. The charge before the Commission alleged that defendant Sockel "violat[ed] Police Department Rule 1.07 by refusing a lawful order of [a field commander] to submit to a breathalyzer test * * *." We affirm.

The evidence before the Commission showed that: (1) Sockel was a 17-year veteran of the Springfield Police Department; (2) on March 20, 1981, Sockel worked a shift ending at 3:15 p.m.; (3) Sockel then drove home in an automobile assigned to him for use both on and off duty; (4) sometime after 9 p.m. Sockel proceeded in the same vehicle toward a motel where he had a second job as a security guard; (5) en route to the motel, the vehicle Sockel was driving was involved in a collision; (6) although the collision occurred outside of the limits of the City of Springfield, both a deputy sheriff and a city police officer drove to the scene; (7) neither of the law enforcement officers charged defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol; (8) a Springfield police field commander also visited the scene and later directed Sockel to report to him at the police station; and (9) there, the field commander directed Sockel to submit to a breathalyzer, but Sockel refused to do so.

The following rules of the Springfield police department are those Socket was alleged to have violated:

"Section 1.07: Insubordination

A. Employees shall promptly obey any lawful order, oral or written, of a superior officer or supervisor. This will include orders relayed from a superior officer by an officer of the same or lesser rank. (The term `lawful order' shall be construed as any order in keeping with the performance of any duty prescribed by law or by these rules and regulations, General Orders or established policy and procedure, or one consistent with the preservation of good order, efficiency and proper discipline, which is not in conflict with these rules and regulations.)

B. Insubordination shall include, but not be necessarily limited to, any willful failure to obey or deliberate refusal to obey a lawful order given by a superior, * * *.

Section 1.15: Use of Polygraph, Medical Examinations, Photographs, and Lineups

B. Medical Examinations, Photographs and Lineups. Upon the order of the Chief or the Chief's designee, officers shall submit to any medical, psychiatric or psychological, ballistics, chemical, breathalyzer, or other tests, photographs or lineups. All procedures carried out under this subsection shall be specifically directed and narrowly related to a particular internal investigation being conducted by the Department of the officer's ability to perform his/her duties. The term `medical examination' as used in this Section shall include examinations to determine officers' physical and mental condition and processes."

Sockel does not dispute that he refused to take a breathalyzer test. He maintains the command that he do so was not lawful under the circumstances because: (1) he had not been given the advice contained in section 10-1-18 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 24, par. 10-1-18) which is required before an examination of a city police officer may be conducted; (2) the command for him to submit to the test did not comply with the requirements of section 11-501.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501.1); and (3) the field commander stated that the test was necessary because of a possible violation of Springfield Police Department Regulation 1.59 which was not applicable.

• 1 Section 10-1-18 of the Illinois Municipal Code states:

"Before any officer or employee in the classified service of any municipality may be interrogated or examined by or before any disciplinary board, or department agent or investigator, the results of which hearing, interrogation or examination may be the basis for filing charges seeking his removal or discharge, he must be advised in writing as to what specific improper or illegal act he is alleged to have committed; he must be advised in writing that his admissions made in the course of the hearing, interrogation or examination may be used as the basis for charges seeking his removal or discharge; and he must be advised in writing that he has the right to counsel of his own choosing present to advise him at any hearing, interrogation or examination; and a complete record of any hearing, interrogation or examination shall be made and a complete transcript thereof made available to such officer or employee without charge and without delay." (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 24, par. 10-1-18.)

Plaintiff agrees that no compliance with section 10-1-18 took place before the field commander ordered Sockel to submit to the breathalyzer test. We hold that the failure made the order ...


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.