Foley v. Godinez

62 N.E.3d 286

407 Ill.Dec. 41

Connie FOLEY, Calvin Drew, and Raymond Hayes, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.S.A. “Tony” GODINEZ, as Director of Corrections, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 1–15–1814.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

Aug. 2, 2016.

Josiah R. Jenkins, Arthur R. Ehrlich, and Jonathan C. Goldman, all of Law Offices of Goldman & Ehrlich, of Chicago, for appellants.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Ann C. Maskaleris, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee.

OPINION

Justice HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections refused to certify that three former Corrections officers satisfied a set of requirements necessary for them to obtain a concealed carry permit under federal law. The officers then filed a complaint for mandamus relief to compel the Director to certify. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' right to the requested relief and whether the Director had a nondiscretionary, ministerial duty to certify. The trial court granted the Director's summary judgment motion and denied plaintiffs' motion. The court found that plaintiffs were not entitled to mandamus relief because certifying their status was not a purely ministerial act and required the Director to exercise discretion.

¶ 2 We affirm. Under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A through C (2006)), the Director has authority to decide whether an applicant meets the statutory requirements to be certified as a qualified retired law enforcement officer. Thus, the act of certification was a discretionary, nonministerial act, and mandamus relief—ordering the Director to certify and submit the form—was inappropriate.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

¶ 5 The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA) (18 U.S.C. § 926A through C (2006)) permits qualified active or retired “law enforcement officers” who possess the required identification to lawfully carry a concealed firearm across state lines without being subject to prosecution under state and local laws. Section 926(C), which applies to retired officers, provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision” of state law, a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” who has the requisite identification may carry a concealed firearm in any state, subject to state law restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in certain places. 18 U.S.C. § 926C(a) (2006).

¶ 6 To be deemed a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” under LEOSA, a person must meet these seven requirements: (i) separation in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; (ii) before separation, having been authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and having statutory powers of arrest; (iii) before separation, having served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 or more years or separated from service after completing any applicable probationary period due to a service-connected disability; (iv) during the most recent 12–month period, at his or her expense, meeting the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers; (v) not officially having been found unqualified for reasons relating to mental health or not having entered into an agreement with the agency acknowledging that he or she is not qualified for reasons relating to mental health; (vi) not being under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and (vii) not being prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c) (2006).

¶ 7 As noted, under LEOSA, a qualified retired law enforcement officer must have proper identification before carrying a concealed weapon. The identification requirement can be satisfied in one of two ways. An individual can obtain a photo ID from his or her former agency stating that he or she was previously employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and, within the last year, has met the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(1) (2006). Or the individual can obtain two documents—a photo ID from his or her former agency stating that he or she was employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer (18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2)(A) (2006) ) and a certification from the state or a certified firearms instructor stating that within the last year, he or she has met either the state's active-duty standards for qualification in firearms training to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm or, if the state does not have standards, then standards set by any law enforcement agency within that state. 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2)(B) (2006).

¶ 8 Illinois Retired Officer Concealed Carry Program

¶ 9 In Illinois, the Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (Board) administers a program called the Illinois Retired Officer Concealed Carry program (IROCC) through which qualified retired law enforcement officers may obtain concealed carry permits. 20 Ill. Adm.Code 1720.200 through 1720.290. The Board develops and processes applications and certifies retired law enforcement officers qualified under LEOSA. 50 ILCS 705/10, 710/3 (West 2012).

¶ 10 Before an applicant will be prequalified for firearm certification, he or she must provide the Board with a complete application, which consists of three forms. The applicant completes two of them—the application form and an affidavit attesting to the applicant's law enforcement service and qualifications for carrying a firearm. The third form, the “Retirement/Separation Verification” form, referred to as “Form 3,” must be completed by an authorized representative of the state agency where the applicant previously worked. Form 3 requires the agency representative to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant was regularly employed as a “Law Enforcement Officer” as defined by LEOSA for a specified number of years or was separated from service with the agency due to a service-connected disability. An applicant's failure to provide information necessary to complete the application precludes any further processing and results in denial of the application. 20 Ill. Adm.Code 1720.250(d), adopted at 30 Ill. Reg. 7925 (eff. Apr. 11, 2006). An applicant who submits a completed application is prequalified for the firearms testing and, on successfully completing the firearm certification, receives a card indicating IROCC certification and compliance with state and federal laws.

¶ 11 Plaintiffs, Connie Foley, Calvin Drew, and Raymond Hayes, are former parole agents for the Department of Corrections who retired in good standing between 2001 and 2012. (Eight former Department employees were initially named as plaintiffs, but only Foley, Drew, and Hayes are now parties.) Hayes worked for the Department for 11 years, and Foley and Drew were Department employees for more than 30 years. After their retirement, each plaintiff applied for a concealed carry permit through the IROCC program. The Board advised plaintiffs that their applications would be processed only after receiving Form 3, signed by the Department's administrator certifying that each applicant met its requirements. Plaintiffs asked the Department to submit Form 3 to the Board, certifying under penalty of perjury that plaintiffs met the requirements to be certified as qualified retirement law enforcement officers. The Department refused and advised plaintiffs it would not process, verify, or certify the information on Form 3.

¶ 12 Plaintiffs filed a one-count complaint for a writ of mandamus, asking the trial court to order the Director to certify Form 3 and submit it to the Board. Plaintiffs alleged they had a right to mandamus relief because they met all of the requirements to be deemed “qualified retirement law enforcement officers” under LEOSA. They retired from the Department in good standing after more than 10 years of service and asserted that, as parole agents, they had engaged in or supervised the prevention of crimes and the incarceration of people for violating state criminal laws and had statutory powers of arrest. Plaintiffs also asserted that under section 3 of the Peace Officer and Probation Officer Firearm Training Act (50 ILCS 710/3 (West 2012) ), which requires agencies to “cooperate with the Board by furnishing relevant information which the Board may require,” the Director has a nondiscretionary duty to provide the requested information to the Board.

¶ 13 The Director filed a motion to dismiss under section 2–615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2012) ), asserting that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted because the Department is not obligated to certify Form 3 and plaintiffs were not law enforcement officers under LEOSA. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

¶ 14 The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Director attached to his motion a declaration from Brad Curry, the Department's chief public safety officer. Curry stated that since 2003, the Department has declined to certify Form 3 to the Board because (1) Department employees had “limited statutory powers of arrest” that did not make them qualified retired law enforcement officers for purposes of IROCC, (2) the restrictions pertaining to off-duty firearm use coupled with limited powers of arrest do not warrant the same level of training that is provided to qualified retired law enforcement officers under IROCC, and (3) certifying Department personnel as qualified law enforcement officers for purposes of IROCC raises serious public policy concerns because the Department lacks knowledge as to whether its personnel receive the same...