Absent
Evidence That Polygraph Charts From Plaintiff's Disciplinary Hearing
Were Intentionally Incorrectly Scored His Wrongful Discharge/First Amendment
Claim Fails
On April 4, 1999
Daniel Smock became an Illinois State Police cadet. This was not his
first experience in law enforcement. Between 1996 and 1999, Smock served
as an auxiliary police officer for the City of Canton. In that capacity,
Smock was on patrol with Lieutenant David Ayers one September night
in 1998. At some point, the Ayers/Smock patrol came across two other
Canton City Police officers, Sergeant Richards and Officer Graham, who
were engaged in a traffic stop. Ayers apparently noticed that Richards
and Graham were using their flashing yellow lights in conjunction with
their mars lights--a violation of department procedure. Over the radio,
Ayers directed the other officers to turn off their yellow lights.
Later that same
night, Ayers and Smock again came across Sergeant Richards and Officer
Graham. The Richards/Graham patrol was engaged in another traffic stop
where they were using the yellow flashing lights in conjunction with
the mars lights again. Ayers told the other officers something like
"don't you guys get the clue [about using the yellow lights?]"
After being told that the Richards/Graham patrol did not need assistance
with the traffic stop, Ayers and Smock drove away.
Sometime after this
incident, Ayers had formal disciplinary charges filed against him. One
of those charges related to whether Ayers had sworn at Richards during
the second traffic-stop incident. Smock testified that Ayers did not
use profanity or act in a degrading manner towards Richards or Graham.
Canton Police Lieutenant Dean Putman however, claimed that Smock had
said during an interview that he did hear Ayers swear at Richards. This
claim of a prior inconsistent statement was ultimately reported to the
Illinois State Police, who initiated an investigation into the matter.
Sergeant Eric Hall
of the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigations investigated
the case against Smock. After reviewing the transcripts of the disciplinary
hearing and conducting various interviews, Hall suggested that Smock
take a polygraph exam. Smock agreed.
On August 26, 1999,
Smock submitted to a polygraph examination conducted by Terrance G.
McCann at the Illinois State Police Forensic Crime Laboratory. McCann,
who had been trained in the Reid approach to lie detector scoring, has
been a licensed polygraph examiner since 1976. After scoring the exam,
McCann determined that Smock was untruthful when answering the relevant
questions.
The entire file,
including the polygraph results, was sent to Deputy Director Harold
Nelson. Nelson reviewed the file with an eye towards "integrity
and truthfulness." In the words of the defendant's brief, "Nelson
considered it significant that Putman and Richards had higher, more
responsible positions and were attesting to and agreeing upon the same
allegation." Nelson recommended that Smock be terminated--a decision
he says was partially based on the polygraph results, but one he probably
would have reached without the lie detector result. Nelson's boss, Director
Nolan, accepted the recommendation and fired Smock.
Smock later applied
for a position with the Peoria County Sheriff. That office conducted
a pre-employment polygraph examination in which Smock was asked about
the facts and circumstances surrounding his termination from the Illinois
State Police. That polygraph indicated truthfulness on the matters that
McCann's exam indicated deception.
Smock brought this
suit claiming that he was wrongfully discharged as a result of his First-Amendment-protected
speech. The district court granted summary judgment against Smock. The
7th Circuit affirmed, holding that Smock did not establish that McCann
incorrectly scored his test to make it appear as if he had lied at the
disciplinary hearing, as was required to show that Smock was terminated
in retaliation for his speech at that hearing, in violation of the First
Amendment, rather than for lying.
Smock v. Nolan
Read
the case
The 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
|
Return to Newsletter |
| Thank you for
reading HR Comply's Newsletter Abstracts. If you find this
information useful, you should take advantage of our special "Member's
Only" pricing for the HR Comply Employment Guide and Professional
Series. Click below to find out how. |
| |
|
|