Hiland v. Trent

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2007 » Hiland v. Trent

Hiland v. Trent

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-06-0500 Rel

Case Date: 05/16/2007

Preview:No. 3--06--0500 _________________________________________________________________ Filed May 16, 2007. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2007 LARRY HILAND, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 9th Judicial Circuit Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Hancock County, Illinois ) v. ) ) 04--MR--8 LARRY G. TRENT, Director, ) Illinois State Police, and ) the DEPARTMENT OF ILLINOIS ) STATE POLICE, ) Honorable ) Richard H. Gambrell Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the Opinion of the Court: _________________________________________________________________ Defendant, plaintiff Larry Department Hiland's of Illinois State for a Police, Firearm denied Owners

application

Identification (FOID) card. Co-defendant, Larry G. Trent, Director of the Illinois State Police, denied Hiland relief from that decision. Hiland filed an action for administrative review in the

circuit court. The circuit court reversed the Director's decision. We affirm the circuit court. BACKGROUND In 1988, Hiland was convicted of several federal crimes, including multiple counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. At the time of his convictions, Hiland was

a registered firearm owner and possessed a FOID card. In 1989, the Department informed Hiland that he was no longer eligible to possess a FOID card because of his convictions.

Pursuant to the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (Act) (430 ILCS 65/10(c) (West 1988)), Hiland requested a hearing with the Director to seek reissuance of his FOID card. At the hearing, Hiland testified that he had been married for 29 years and had two grown children. He explained that in the

early 1980s he was president of a pharmaceutical company, and part of his job was to approve products to add to the company's product line. In 1983, the executive vice president of operations for the

company suggested that he add Vitamin E I.V. to the product line. That vice president, who was in charge of FDA regulations, and the president of the company that manufactured the drug told him that he did not have to obtain New Drug Approval from the FDA because the drug was not new. Based on that information, Hiland introduced The drug was used by

the drug to the market without FDA approval.

neonatal centers to prevent blindness in premature babies. Approximately four months after introducing the drug to

market, Hiland and his company were notified that the drug was causing babies to die. Hiland immediately discontinued the sale of the product. The Justice Department conducted an investigation,

and determined that Hiland should have obtained New Drug Approval from the FDA. In 1988, Hiland was indicted for his role in 2

introducing the drug to the market without FDA approval. Following a trial, he was convicted. He was required to pay a $65,000 fine He also performed over

and spend six months in a halfway house. 800 hours of community service. terrible about the incident."

Hiland testified that he "feel[s]

Hiland introduced several character reference letters on his behalf at the hearing. The authors of those letters described

Hiland as honest, reliable, caring, sensible, responsible and possessing good judgment. The pastor of the church that Hiland A

attends stated that Hiland's "`character' is beyond reproach." letter from Hiland's former probation officer stated as follows: "Mr. Hiland has made a very positive adjustment to

supervision and is not perceived as being a threat to himself or the community. He has no history of violence

in his past and I can see no reason why his rights to own and possess a firearm should not be restored as long as he meets all the filing requirements of your agency." Following the hearing, the hearing officer recommended that Hiland be issued a FOID card because he "would not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety, nor would the granting of relief be contrary to public interest." agreed and granted Hiland a FOID card. director cautioned Hiland that he The deputy director

At that time, the deputy was not relieved of any

3

disability imposed under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.

Download Hiland v. Trent.pdf