2024 IL App (1st) 241145-U
FOURTH DIVISION Order filed: December 26, 2024
No. 1-24-1145
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
TERRENCE CAMODECA, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 23 CH 6616 ) THOMAS J. DART, in his official Capacity as Sheriff of ) Honorable Cook County; and THE COOK COUNTY MERIT ) Joel Chupack, BOARD, ) Judge, presiding. ) Defendant-Appellees. )
JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Lyle concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The Merit Board’s finding that the plaintiff engaged in unauthorized off-duty use of technology and in so doing, violated the Cook County Sheriff’s Department policies and procedures is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Merit Board’s findings that the plaintiff disobeyed orders of his superior in violation of Court Service Policy 101.5.5(g) is against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a consequence, we reversed the Merit Board’s decision in part and we affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order affirming the Merit Board’s decision. We remanded the matter to the Merit Board with directions to determine the appropriate penalty for the plaintiff’s unauthorized off-duty use of technology. No. 1-24-1145
¶2 The plaintiff, Terrence Camodeca, appeals the order of the circuit court of Cook County
denying his complaint for administrative review and affirming the decision of the Cook County
Sheriff’s Department Merit Board (“Board”) terminating him as a Cook County deputy sherif. The
plaintiff contends that the Board’s finding that he violated multiple Cook Couty Sheriff’s
department policies, orders, rules, and regulations is against the manifest weight of the evidence
and that there was not sufficient cause for his termination. For the reasons which follow, we
reversed the Board’s decision in part, affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order
affirming the Board’s decision, and remanded the matter to the Board with directions.
¶3 The plaintiff was employed as a Cook County deputy sheriff on September 18, 1995. On
February 19, 2020, the Sheriff of Cook County (Sheriff) filed two disciplinary complaints against
the plaintiff pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/3-7011, and 3-7012 (West 2024). Both complaints sought the
termination of the plaintiff as a deputy sheriff due to events that occurred in 2019.
¶4 The first complaint, docketed as No. 2222, alleged that in early 2019 the plaintiff made
inappropriate comments to two women who worked at a kiosk selling bread on the concourse level
of the Chicago Daley Center (Daley Center). The complaint stated that the plaintiff stared at the
two women, asked for their ages, and made inappropriate comments such as telling one of the
women that he “was going to have a baby with” her. The complaint further alleged that, once the
plaintiff’s comments were reported by the women to the plaintiff’s superiors on March 19, 2019,
the plaintiff was ordered by to avoid the kiosk and the two women. According to the complaint,
the plaintiff was later observed on video passing by the kiosk multiple times on March 22, 2019,
in violation of that order. The complaint asserted that the plaintiff’s conduct violated multiple
Sheriff’s Department orders, policies, and procedures, regarding conduct and insubordination.
-2- No. 1-24-1145
¶5 A copy of the second complaint which was docketed as No. 2223, is not contained in the
record. However, based on evidence presented at the hearing before the Board and the Board’s
decision, it appears that complaint No. 2223 related to an incident that occurred on April 5, 2019,
and alleged that the plaintiff accessed a computer in the office of the President of the Cook County
Board (“President’s office”) located in the Cook County Building (County Building) for personal
use while he was off duty, after business hours, and after the area had been secured. The second
complaint also charged the plaintiff with sending emails relating to his pending Office of
Professional Review (“OPR”) investigation after he was instructed to not discuss the investigation.
¶6 On motion of the plaintiff, the two complaints were consolidated, and they proceeded to a
hearing before Board Commissioner Wade Ingram, Sr. on March 20th and March 21st, 2023.
Called as witnesses by the Sheriff in support of the complaints were the plaintiff, Sergeant James
Rader, Lieutenant Kristin Marunde, Sergeant Jennifer Griffith, Deputy Carlos Pena, and OPR
investigator Daniel Cramer. The plaintiff called Patricia Horne as a witness and also testified on
his own behalf.
¶7 Called as an adverse witness, the plaintiff testified that he had been a deputy sheriff since
1995 and was assigned to Court Services at the Daley Center and the County Building since 2010.
He acknowledged that he was aware of and was required to follow all Sheriff’s Department
policies and procedures.
¶8 The plaintiff testified that he was aware of a business called Organic Bread of Heaven that
operated at the farmer’s market at the Daley Center since 2014 and that in 2018 the business started
selling bread at a kiosk in front of room CL-113 on the concourse level of the Daley Center. Room
CL-113 contained the lieutenant’s office for the Sheriff’s Department. He stated that he knew two
-3- No. 1-24-1145
women, Mary Bruno and Sarah Franks, who worked at the kiosk. The plaintiff testified that the
women occasionally had a baby named Mercy with them at the kiosk. He also knew that Franks
was pregnant in early 2019. The plaintiff admitted that, approximately two or three times a week,
he had conversations with Bruno and Franks while he purchased bread t the kiosk.
¶9 The plaintiff acknowledged that he participated in an OPR interview regarding the
complaints against him. In the OPR interview, he told the investigator that, at one point, he told
the women at the kiosk that baby Mercy was beautiful, but he denied telling Bruno or Franks that
they were beautiful. The plaintiff testified that, with Bruno and Franks present, he said “[t]hat’s a
beautiful baby”. He agreed that the comment “[t]hat’s a beautiful baby” was quite different from
saying “[y]ou are such a pretty girl, I’m going to have a baby with you, and your baby will be
beautiful.” According to the plaintiff, he told the OPR investigators that he said to Bruno “Mary,
if I had a child, I would let you take care of my child” and that the women must have misinterpreted
what he said. The plaintiff denied making any inappropriate comments to Bruno or Franks. He
also denied staring at the women or looking at them from behind. He maintained that all his
interactions with the women were face-to-face.
¶ 10 The plaintiff testified that he was called into Lieutenant Marunde’s office in CL-113 on
March 19, 2019. When confronted by Lieutenant Marunde with the allegations of inappropriate
comments made by Bruno and Franks, he denied making the statements attributed to him and said
that the only conversations he had with the women were to say “good morning” and make “small
talk”. He stated that he told Lieutenant Marunde that he did not think that the women were lying,
but that they must have misinterpreted what he said. He admitted that at the end of the meeting
Lieutenant Marunde ordered him to “stay away from the two females”. The plaintiff stated that he
-4- No. 1-24-1145
told the OPR investigators that he obeyed the order by Lieutenant Marunde by not speaking to the
women and not going near them.
¶ 11 The plaintiff admitted that, on March 22, 2019, he was again called into Lieutenant
Marunde’s office regarding complaints made by Bruno and Franks. During that meeting, he was
asked by Lieutenant Marunde “[w]hat part of my stay away order did you not understand?” The
plaintiff stated that he responded by telling Lieutenant Marunde “I haven’t bothered anyone.”
¶ 12 The plaintiff acknowledged that, on March 22, 2019, he went down the escalator near the
Organic Bread of Heaven kiosk multiple times. He explained that the Sheriff’s Department lockup
was on the concourse level of the Daley Center, and he used the escalator to get to the lockup. He
estimated that, over the course of that day, he went down the escalator four or five times to get to
the lockup. He also admitted that he walked by the kiosk multiple times on March 22, 2019, but
did not recall the exact number of times.
¶ 13 When questioned about the allegations in complaint No. 2223, the plaintiff gave the
following testimony. He admitted that he previously been assigned to work at the County Building,
specifically in the President’s office on the fifth floor. He stated that he was given an access code
to enter the President’s office while he was assigned to that post. The plaintiff acknowledged that
he was authorized to use the access code for county business only. He agreed that the President’s
office was secured at 5:00 p.m. every evening.
¶ 14 The plaintiff testified that on April 5, 2019, he was assigned to the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
shift and “clocked out” at the end of his shift shortly after 4:00 p.m. He stated that, as he walked
towards the Merchandise Mart, he realized that the cell phone he had purchased two days prior
was missing. According to the plaintiff, he thought that the phone may have been stolen but
-5- No. 1-24-1145
admitted that he did not file a police report of a theft. He testified that he was worried that his
phone might have been compromised, and he wanted to contact AT&T to disable the phone
remotely.
¶ 15 The plaintiff stated that he walked back to the County Building, and at approximately 4:50
p.m., he went to the President’s office to use the computer to look up the AT&T customer service
phone number. He saw Deputy Glenda Rudolph when he entered the President’s office and told
her that he needed to use the computer. He used the computer until around 5:15 p.m. but did not
leave the President’s office until 5:40 p.m. to allow himself to “de-escalate”.
¶ 16 According to the plaintiff, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Deputy Rudolph asked him to leave
the President’s office, and she then secured the office. The plaintiff admitted that, after the
President’s office was secured, he used the access code he had been previously given to reenter
the office, and he continued using the computer. He also admitted that, while off duty, he entered
the President’s office and used both the computer and the telephone. The plaintiff acknowledged
that he was not authorized to enter the President’s office after hours. He also admitted that he
entered the President’s office to conduct a combination of personal business and county-related
business. He acknowledged that, during his OPR interview, he agreed that using county equipment
for personal use was not appropriate, but told the OPR investigator that he did not feel that what
he did on April 5, 2019, was inappropriate.
¶ 17 The plaintiff identified forms that he signed after his OPR interviews, on July 2, 2019,
regarding both the harassment incident and the President’s office incident. He agreed that, at the
conclusion of each interview, the OPR investigator ordered him “not to disclose any information
or material related to the investigation other than to [his] union representative and counsel”.
-6- No. 1-24-1145
¶ 18 The plaintiff testified that he used a county email address in 2019 which only he had access
to. He agreed that Sheriff’s Department employees were prohibited from using their county email
addresses for personal business. He also acknowledged sending an email to Sheriff’s Department
Chief of Staff Bradley Curry on July 18, 2019, at 11:03 a.m., stating “I hope when my OPR case
is settled I will be able to return to the County Building”. The plaintiff testified that the email was
likely sent while he was on duty.
¶ 19 The plaintiff also identified an email he sent to Sheriff’s Department Executive Director
Joseph Bellettiere on August 21, 2019, which stated “I fell [sic] my OPR interview went well.
They were very professional and respectful.” He admitted that he also sent multiple emails to the
Cook County Board President’s secretary Pamela Cummings. In a June 7, 2019, email sent to
Cummings, the plaintiff expressed his hope that he would be able to return to his old post at the
County Building. He sent an additional email to Cummings on July 20, 2019, stating “I hope I will
be able to go back to the County Building. My life just hasn’t been the same.”
¶ 20 Sergeant James Rader was the next witness called by the Sheriff. He testified that he
worked in Court Services at the Daley Center. Sergeant Rader stated that, on March 19, 2019, he
was approached by Bruno and, over a hearsay objection by the plaintiff’s counsel, he recounted
the conversation he had with Bruno. The plaintiff’s attorney also made a standing hearsay
objection to testimony and documents containing statements by Bruno and Franks, which came up
multiple times throughout the hearing. Counsel for the Sheriff responded to the hearsay objections,
stating that the statements were being admitted for their effect on the listener and not for the truth
of the matter asserted.
-7- No. 1-24-1145
¶ 21 Sergeant Rader testified that Bruno complained about a deputy sheriff that was making her
uncomfortable and stated that he “tells me I’m beautiful and that I’m going to have a baby someday
and you are going to have a beautiful baby someday.” Sergeant Rader stated that Bruno gave him
a description of the deputy. He testified that he reported the incident to his supervisor and
submitted a harassment complaint form, setting forth Bruno’s accusations.
¶ 22 According to Sergeant Rader, he brought Bruno to Lieutenant Marunde’s office to speak
with her concerning her complaints. He testified that Bruno told them that a deputy sheriff made
a comment to her saying “I’m going to have a baby with you. You’re such a pretty girl and your
baby will be beautiful too.” Bruno identified a photo of the plaintiff as the deputy who made the
comments.
¶ 23 After the meeting with Bruno, Sergeant Rader brought the plaintiff into Lieutenant
Marunde’s office. He testified that, when asked about any interactions with Bruno or Franks, the
plaintiff stated that he just told them good morning and hello and denied making any inappropriate
comments. According to Sergeant Rader, at the conclusion of the meeting, Lieutenant Marunde
told the plaintiff “to stay away from the kiosk by 113 and the two young ladies”. Sergeant Rader
testified that, following the meeting with the plaintiff, Lieutenant Marunde held a meeting with
him and the other sergeants and ordered them not to assign the plaintiff to Post 5 or 6, near where
the kiosk was located.
¶ 24 Sargeant Rader testified that in the afternoon of March 19, 2019, there was a second
meeting in Lieutenant Marunde’s office at which Bruno, Franks, and Bruno’s family, including
her father, mother, sister, and brother, were all present. And again over the hearsay objection of
-8- No. 1-24-1145
the plaintiff’s counsel, Sargeant Rader testified to the substance of the complaints of harassment
by the plaintiff.
¶ 25 Sergeant Rader stated that he was approached by Franks on March 22, 2019, who
complained about the plaintiff’s suggestive comments and behavior. He testified that on that date
he again brought the plaintiff to Lieutenant Marunde’s office. During this meeting, Lieutenant
Marunde asked the plaintiff “what didn’t you understand,” referring to her prior order to stay away
from the women. The plaintiff responded that he had not bothered anyone. Sergeant Rader stated
that Lieutenant Marunde again ordered the plaintiff “to stay away from the kiosk on the concourse
level outside of Room CL-113.”
¶ 26 Sergeant Rader testified that, later that same day, Franks came into Lieutenant Marunde’s
office. He testified that Franks told him and Lieutenant Marunde that the plaintiff said
inappropriate things that made her and Bruno uncomfortable, including asking whether she or
Bruno were married and what their ages were. Franks added that the plaintiff made a noise after
learning that Bruno was only 19 years old. She also told them that the plaintiff had stared at her
and Bruno multiple times and that he told Bruno that he wanted to have a baby.
¶ 27 According to Sergeant Rader, he and Lieutenant Marunde reviewed video footage of the
concourse level pedway outside of CL-113 for the morning of March 22, 2019. He testified that
the video footage showed the plaintiff walking by the kiosk “numerous times.” It also showed the
plaintiff stepping towards the up escalator and then turning around to face down towards the kiosk
where Frank’s was working. The video footage itself was not admitted in evidence as an exhibit.
¶ 28 Next, Lieutenant Marunde was called as a witness. She testified that, on March 19, 2019,
she was notified by Sergeant Rader about the harassment allegations made by Bruno. She stated
-9- No. 1-24-1145
that Sergeant Rader brought Bruno into her office later that day to discuss her complaints.
Lieutenant Marunde’s testimony regarding the meeting with Bruno and Sergeant Rader in her
office on March 19, 2019, was consistent with Sergeant Rader’s testimony.
¶ 29 Lieutenant Marunde testified that, following her meeting with Bruno, she summoned the
plaintiff into her office along with Sergeant Rader. She stated that, when told of Bruno’s
complaint, the plaintiff denied Bruno’s allegations of inappropriate comments. According to
Lieutenant Marunde, at the conclusion of the meeting, she ordered the plaintiff to “stay away from
the kiosk area whenever Organic Bread was present.” She also ordered the plaintiff “to stay away
from the two females.” She then called a meeting with all sergeants under her supervision and
asked them not to assign the plaintiff anywhere near Post 5 or 6, near where the kiosk was located.
¶ 30 Lieutenant Marunde stated that she was approached by Franks’ husband in the morning of
March 22, 2019, who told her that the deputy was continuing to come past the kiosk and was
staring at Bruno and Franks. She again summoned the plaintiff into her office to meet with herself
and Sergeant Rader. During that meeting, she asked the plaintiff “if he did not understand what
[she] had told him about staying away from the kiosk and leaving the two girls alone”. The plaintiff
responded that he “didn’t do anything”. She stated that, at the end of the meeting, she again ordered
the plaintiff to stay away from the kiosk and not to look at Bruno or Franks.
¶ 31 Lieutenant Marunde testified that she reviewed video footage with Sergeant Rader of the
area outside CL-113 and the escalator area with Sergeant Rader, and that the footage for March
22, 2019, showed the plaintiff going past the kiosk “numerous times”, and at one point, turning
and staring down at the kiosk as he went up the escalator.
- 10 - No. 1-24-1145
¶ 32 Lieutenant Marunde stated that, on April 5, 2019, at around 5:45 p.m., Sergeant Jennifer
Griffith notified her that the plaintiff had entered the President’s office and was demanding to use
the computer. Lieutenant Marunde testified that Sergeant Jennifer Griffith told her that the plaintiff
was under her command earlier that day, and that she did not authorize him to stay in the
President’s office after the area was secured, nor was she aware of anyone else authorizing him to
do so.
¶ 33 On cross examination, Lieutenant Marunde acknowledged that Sergeant Rader’s written
summary stated that the specific order was to “stay away from the young ladies.” She admitted
that the incident description she completed on the form requesting the video footage did not state
that the plaintiff made verbal contact with anyone at the kiosk. She stated that, on the video, she
did not observe the plaintiff touch or do anything else towards the kiosk or anyone working at it.
On redirect, Lieutenant Marunde clarified that her order to the plaintiff on March 19, 2019, was
“to stay away from the kiosk and to leave Mary and Sarah alone.” She added that the plaintiff was
instructed to walk outside and not use the pedway between the County Building and the Daley
Center, and that, if he needed to go to CL-113, he was to come down the escalator and straight into
the office.
¶ 34 Sergeant Jennifer Griffith was the next witness called by the Sheriff. She testified that on
April 5, 2019, at around 5:40 p.m. Deputy Rudolph came into her office in CL-113 at the Daley
Center. Over a hearsay objection, Sergeant Griffith testified that Deputy Rudolph asked her to
come over to the County Building to speak to the plaintiff. Sergeant Griffith stated that she went
to the County Building to investigate the incident, but the plaintiff had left the building by the time
she arrived. She reported the incident to Lieutenant Marunde. She stated that the plaintiff was
- 11 - No. 1-24-1145
under her command for part of her shift, from 10:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. when the plaintiff’s shift
ended. Sergeant Griffith testified that she did not authorize the plaintiff to stay in the President’s
office after the area was secured, nor was she aware of anyone else authorizing the plaintiff to do
so.
¶ 35 Deputy Carlos Pena testified that, on April 5, 2019, at around 5:10 p.m., he was working
on the first floor of the County Building. At that time, he was approached by Deputy Rudolph
who asked him to go to the President’s office. Over a hearsay objection, Deputy Pena testified
that Deputy Rudolph asked him to come upstairs because she wanted him to witness that the
plaintiff was in the President’s office after hours. Deputy Pena stated that he went upstairs with
Deputy Rudolph, saw the plaintiff in the President’s office, and asked him to leave the area. Deputy
Pena told the plaintiff that he should not be in the President’s office on the computer after hours.
He testified that he returned to the President’s office at 5:30 p.m. to do his routine rounds and saw
that the plaintiff was still in the office. Deputy Pena again told the plaintiff that he should not be
in the office.
¶ 36 OPR investigator Daniel Cramer was the final witness called by the Sheriff. Cramer
testified that in June of 2019 he was assigned to investigate two complaints against the plaintiff;
one related to harassment complaints and the other was for the plaintiff’s actions in the President’s
office on April5, 2019. Over a hearsay objection by the plaintiff’s counsel, Cramer testified about
the details of the allegations made against the plaintiff by Bruno and Franks and Lieutenant
Marunde’s order that the plaintiff was to stay away from the two women. As to the complaint for
a violation of the personal use of email policy and a security breach, Cramer then testified , again
- 12 - No. 1-24-1145
over a hearsay objection by plaintiff’s attorney, that the plaintiff was in the President’s office using
the computer for personal use after hours and after the office had been secured.
¶ 37 Cramer testified that, during his interview of the plaintiff, the plaintiff admitted that he
went into the President’s office after the area was secured and used a county computer and phone
for non-county business. Several times during his testimony, Cramer was asked whether, “during
the OPR interview, did you order the respondent [the plaintiff] not to disclose any information or
material related to this investigation to anyone other than to his union representative and counsel?”
In each case, Cramer responded “yes.”
¶ 38 The first witness on the plaintiff’s behalf was Patricia Horne. Horne was the Director of
Supply Chain Management for the Sheriff’s Department, working at the warehouse located at 2323
South Rockwell Street in Chicago. She testified that she was familiar with the plaintiff and
interacted with him daily for approximately four or five years when he was working at the
warehouse. Horne stated that the plaintiff had excellent attendance and was meticulous in handling
his assignments. She testified that the plaintiff exceeded expectations and that losing him as an
employee would hurt her unit.
¶ 39 Testifying on his own behalf, the plaintiff identified numerous mitigation exhibits,
including letters from various Sheriff’s Department officials including one from Sheriff Dart
praising his charity and volunteer work. Regarding the allegations against him in complaint No.
2223, the plaintiff stated that downloaded onto his cell phone was an application entitled
application “FirstNet,” which he used for his work with the Sheriff’s Department. He stated that
he purchased the cell phone intending to use it both for work and personal purposes. He admitted
that while off duty he went to the President’s office on April 5, 2029, to call AT&T about his lost
- 13 - No. 1-24-1145
phone. When he arrived, he spoke to Deputy Rudolph at around 4:50 p.m., asking to use the
computer. He stated that Deputy Rudolph told him that he could use the computer and that the
office was about to close. The plaintiff testified that he used the computer to obtain the number for
AT&T’s fraud department and then called the number using an office phone. He stated that he
requested AT&T to shut off his phone remotely. He testified that he left the President’s office at
5:40 p.m. The plaintiff maintained that he only used the computer to get the number for AT&T’s
fraud line and that he was on the computer for less than 10 minutes. According to the plaintiff, he
did not want to use the phone in Lieutenant Marunde’s office in CL-113 because there were other
deputies in that area, and they would have overheard that he lost his new phone.
¶ 40 The plaintiff then testified regarding the harassment complaints made by Bruno and Franks.
He admitted that during his March 19, 2019, meeting with Lieutenant Marunde she told him “you
will not talk to those girls, you will stay away from those girls, don’t talk to them.” He interpreted
the order as directing him not to violate the personal space of Bruno or Franks and to be far enough
away from the kiosk so that the women did not feel intimidated. The plaintiff testified that, when
he went by the kiosk on March 22, 2019, a “husband and wife team” were at the kiosk, but neither
Bruno nor Franks were there. He stated that he acknowledged the two people at the kiosk and told
them good morning, but did not get closer than five feet from the kiosk. He admitted that he was
facing downward on the escalator at one point that day but explained that this was due to some
problems he was experiencing with vertigo at the time.
¶ 41 The plaintiff also testified about the emails he sent after his OPR interview. He explained
that he sent the email to Curry because members of the Cook County Board had handed him their
business cards and told him to reach out to them if he ever had any problems. The plaintiff
- 14 - No. 1-24-1145
interpreted that to mean that he could email them about issues he was having at work. He denied
disclosing any facts about the OPR investigation to Curry, and stated he did not believe he violated
Cramer’s admonition not to discuss the investigation. He testified that he also did not believe his
email to Cummings violated Cramer’s admonition not to discuss the OPR investigation.
¶ 42 On cross-examination, the plaintiff testified that he understood Lieutenant Marunde’s order
to mean that he was not to get closer than 5 feet from the women at the kiosk. He stated that he
encountered four different people at the kiosk, the husband-and-wife team on “Tuesday [March
19, 2019],” and Bruno and Franks on “Thursday [March22, 2019].” The plaintiff testified that he
did not know whether the wife that was present on Tuesdays was Franks. He stated that, despite
his vertigo issues, he used the escalator four to five times on March 22, 2019, to go to the concourse
level of the Daley center, because it was a faster way to get to the office in CL-113 than using the
elevators.
¶ 43 After hearing closing arguments, the presiding commissioner took the matter under
advisement. On July 10, 2023, the Board then issued its final written decision containing findings
of fact and conclusions. However, the manner in which the decision was written has made the
resolution of the issues in this appeal somewhat difficult.
¶ 44 Under the heading “Findings of Fact” are facts under the subheadings of “Docket No.
2222” and “Docket No. 2223.” The facts set forth under the subheading “Docket No. 2222” appear
to be merely a recitation of the facts alleged in the Sheriff’s complaint which appears in the record.
In the absence of the Sheriff’s complaint docketed as No.2223, we are unable determine the source
of the facts set forth under the subheading “Docket No. 2223.” In neither case, however, is there
- 15 - No. 1-24-1145
any indication in that portion of the decision which of the facts set forth were found by the Board
to have been proven.
¶ 45 The Board’s decision also contains a heading titled “Conclusion” followed by the
following sentence:
“Based on the evidence presented, and after assessing the credibility of witnesses and the
Weight given by the evidence in the record, the Board finds, by a preponderance of the
Evidence, that Respondent Terrence S. Camodeca did violate the Cook County Sheriff’s
Department Rules and Regulations.”
That sentence in the decision is followed by a recitation of the content of what are captioned
“Sheriff Order:” 101.5.2 (L) and (M); 101.5.5 (g), (ab) and (as); 136.4; 136.4.5, and 138,3.
Although the Board’s decision referrers to each of the quoted sections as “Sheriff Order,” the
Sheriff’s complaint refers to the sections as being contained in the Cook County Court Services
Department IL Policy Manual. We will refer to the sections consistent with the Board’s title of
Sheriff Order. It is unclear from the decision whether the Board found that the plaintiff violated
each of the referenced Sheriff Order[s] or whether the enumeration was merely a recitation of the
sections of the Cook County Court Services Department IL Policy Manuel which the Sheriff
alleged in his complaints that the plaintiff had violated. We believe that the latter is the case,
because the Board in its decision only made specific findings that the plaintiff violated two of the
Sheriff Orders. We will address each of the specific findings in the order in which they appear in
the Board’s decision. However, before we do, we set fourth our standard of review.
¶ 46 In appeals from circuit court decisions in administrative review actions such as the instant
case, we review the decision of the agency, rather than the decision of the circuit court. Mireles v.
- 16 - No. 1-24-1145
Dart, 2023 IL App (1st) 221090, ¶54. The “findings and conclusions of the administrative agency
on questions of fact shall be held to be prima facie true and correct.” 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West
2024). We will disturb an agency’s rulings on questions of fact only if they are against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Mireles, 2023 IL App (1st) 221090, ¶54. An agency’s factual
determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence where an opposite conclusion is
clearly apparent. Id. ¶56. This court will not reweigh the evidence to make an independent
determination of the facts. Board of Education of City of Chicago v. Illinois Education Labor
Relations Board, 2015 IL 118043, ¶15. However, we will not hesitate to overturn a factual
determination made by an administrative agency when the clearly evident, plain, and indisputable
weight of the evidence compels an opposite conclusion. Dye v Illinois Workers’ Compensation
Comm’n, 2012 IL App (3d) 110907WC, ¶10.
¶ 47 We address first that portion of the Board’s decision which specifically states that “[t]here
is sufficient evidence that the Respondent disobeyed Lt. Kristin Marunde’s direct order to stay
away from the girls (complaining witnesses) and don’t go near their kiosk ***,” and the Board
conclusion that the plaintiff had violated “Court Service Department Policy 101.5.5 (g).”
¶ 48 As it relates to the Board’s finding that he disobeyed Lieutenant Marunde’s orders, the
plaintiff argues that there is no competent evidence to support the finding. We agree.
¶ 49 As noted earlier, on March 19, 2019, Lieutenant Marunde ordered the plaintiff “to stay
away from the kiosk by CL-113 and the two young ladies.” Following her meeting with the
plaintiff on March 22, 2019, Lieutenant Marunde again ordered the plaintiff to “to stay away from
the kiosk on the concourse level outside of Room CL-113” and to leave the two women alone.
- 17 - No. 1-24-1145
¶ 50 The only testimony in the record that the plaintiff approached the kiosk or either Bruno or
Franks after March 19, 2019, was the testimony of Sergeant Rader and Lieutenant Marunde
concerning what they were told by Franks and Franks’ husband, which testimony was elicited over
the standing hearsay objection by the plaintiff’s attorney.
¶ 51 As a general matter, hearsay evidence is not admissible in administrative proceedings.
Abrahamson v. Illinois Dept. of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill.2d 76, 94 (1992). However, the
improper admission of hearsay is not prejudicial error when there is sufficient competent evidence
to support the agency’s finding. Id. At the hearing before the Board, the Sheriff sought to admit,
over a standing hearsay objection by the plaintiff’s counsel, numerous out of court statements
made by Bruno and Franks and Franks’ husband regarding the substance of their allegations
against the plaintiff, including their interaction with the plaintiff after Lieutenant Marunde’s order
of March 19, 2019. The Sheriff’s attorney continuously represented that the testimony by Sargeant
Rader and Lieutenant Marunde concerning what they were told was elicited only for the purpose
of showing the effects of the statements on the listener. As the Sheriff did not raise any alternative
theory for the admissibility of the statements made to Sargeant Rader and Lieutenant Marunde to
establish the truth of the matters asserted either before the Board or this court, we agree with the
plaintiff that the hearsay testimony of Sergeant Rader and Lieutenant Marunde concerning what
they were told could not be considered as substantive evidence of the truth of the matters asserted.
¶ 52 Sergeant Rader and Lieutenant Marunde did testify that they viewed the video footage of
the concourse level outside of CL-113 on March 22, 2019, which they stated showed the plaintiff
walking by the kiosk “numerous times,” stepping toward the up escalator, and then turning around
to face the kiosk where Franks was working. However, neither Sergeant Rader nor Lieutenant
- 18 - No. 1-24-1145
Marunde testified that, subsequent to Lieutenant Marunde’s March 19, 2019, order they saw the
claimant approached the kiosk or either of the women. In his testimony, the plaintiff admitted
only that he went down the escalator near kiosk multiple times on March 22, 2019, to get to the
Sheriff’s Department lockup which is on the concourse level of the Daley Center or the office
located in CL-113. He estimated that, over the course of that day, he went down the escalator
four or five times to get to the lockup and walked by the kiosk.
¶ 53 Based on the competent evidence introduced during the hearing before the Board, we find
nothing to support the Board’s finding that “[t]here is sufficient evidence that the Respondent
disobeyed Lt. Kristin Marunde’s direct order to stay away from the girls (complaining witnesses)
and don’t go near their kiosk ***,” or its finding that the plaintiff “violated the Rules and
Regulations and Policies of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office and the Cook County Services
Department, and the Cook County Merit Board” or any of the “Sheriff[‘s] Order[s]” enumerated
by the Board in its decision. We conclude, therefore, that the findings and conclusions of the
Board that the plaintiff violated Sheriff Order 101.5.5(g) by disobeying Lieutenant Marunde’s
direct orders to stay away from Bruno and Franks and not to go near the kiosk are against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 54 Although not related to any specific finding of a violation of the Sheriff Department Rules
and Regulations, the Board devoted four paragraphs in its decision addressed to the emails sent by
the plaintiff to Cummings, Curry, and Bellettiere. Cramer testified that, following his OPR
interview of the plaintiff, he ordered the plaintiff “not to disclose any information or material
related to the investigation other than to his union representative and counsel.” As set out earlier,
the emails sent by the plaintiff to Cummings, Curry, and Bellettiere do not contain any information
- 19 - No. 1-24-1145
or material related to the OPR investigation. The text of the emails contained in the record cannot
form the basis of any finding that the plaintiff violated Cramer’s order or the “Rules and
Regulations and Policies of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office and the Cook County Services
Department, or the Cook County Merit Board”
¶ 55 We turn next to the Board’s specific finding that “[t]here is sufficient evidence to prove
that the *** [plaintiff] violated Cook County Services Policy 136.4.5 in that *** [he] was off duty
and using Sheriff’s office equipment and being in a secured area after being told to leave.” Based
on the testimony of Deputy Pena and the admissions of the plaintiff both when testifying at the
hearing and when interviewed by Cramer which admissions we set forth earlier, we find more
than sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding that the plaintiff violated Cook County
Services Policy 136.4.5.
¶ 56 Specifically finding that the plaintiff violated both Sheriff Order 101.5.5(g) and Sheriff
Order 136.4.5, the Board terminated the plaintiff’s employment as a Cook County deputy sheriff
effective February 19, 2019. As the penalty of termination was obviously predicated on the
Board’s finding that the plaintiff violated two specific policies of the Cook County Sheriff and
considering that the Board’s finding that the plaintiff violated Sheriff Order 101.5.5(g) is against
the manifest weight of the evidence, we think that the prudent course is to vacate the Board’s order
of termination and remand the matter to the Board with directions to fix and order an appropriate
penalty for the plaintiff’s violation of Sheriff Order 136.4.5.
¶ 57 Based upon the foregoing analysis, we: reverse the Board’s finding and conclusion that
the plaintiff violated Sheriff Order and “Court Service Department Policy 101.5.5 (g) by
disobeying Lieutenant Marunde’s direct orders; reverse that portion of the circuit court’s order
- 20 - No. 1-24-1145
which affirmed the Board’s finding and conclusion that the plaintiff violated Sheriff Order and
“Court Service Department Policy 101.5.5 (g) by disobeying Lieutenant Marunde’s direct orders;
affirm that portion of the circuit court’s order which affirmed the Board’s findings and conclusion
that the claimant violated Sheriff Order and “Court Service Department Policy 136.4.5 by using
Sheriff’s office equipment while off duty and being in a secured area after being told to leave;
vacate the plaintiff’s termination as a Cook County deputy sheriff effective February 19, 2019;
and remand the matter to the Board with directions to fix and order an appropriate penalty for the
plaintiff’s violation of Sheriff Order 136.4.5.
¶ 58 Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
¶ 59 Cook County Sheriff’s Department Merit Board decision reversed in part, vacated in part,
and remanded with directions.
- 21 -