Court Dismisses Illinois Firefighter’s Civil Rights Suit Against Arson Investigator

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit accusing an arson investigator of fabricating evidence and violating an arson suspect’s civil rights. The suit was brought by a firefighter who claims he and the investigator had a history that led to the arson charges being brought.

Samuel Wilson, the owner of a sports bar called Levels and a fire lieutenant with the Country Club Hills Fire Department, filed suit against a retired investigator for the Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal, Kevin Smith. The suit alleged that Smith violated Wilson’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Wilson was charged with arson for the 2015 fire that occurred at Levels, in Sauk Village. He was acquitted following a bench trial and brought suit initially against the Village of Sauk Village, the state fire marshal’s office, several fire officers, and investigators. Here is coverage about the first suit. That case was voluntarily dismissed, and the present suit filed against Smith in 2022. At the time, Smith had already retired from the state fire marshal’s office.

The factual history of the fire and the investigation can be reviewed in the attached decision, but is too extensive to include here, suffice it to say there were some factual discrepancies as to the location of certain pieces of evidence at the scene. Wilson accused Smith a planting evidence to frame him.

Wilson alleged he and Smith had a history going back to an incident that occurred at the Country Club Hills Fire Department, that gave Smith motive to bring charges against him. As explained in the decision [the following sentences are taken out of sequence to explain what occurred in a coherent way]:

• While Plaintiff denies that he had any motive to set Levels ablaze, he contends that Defendant had a motive to frame him for the crime.
• Some ten years earlier, in late 2005 or early 2006, at the Country Club Hills Fire Station where Plaintiff then worked, Defendant made a comment which Plaintiff interpreted as racially charged and directed at him.
• Plaintiff advised the chief of the Fire Department of Defendant’s comment, who in turn told Defendant that Plaintiff took offense to the statement.
• While Plaintiff asserts that the fire chief told him Defendant was banned from the fire station as a result of his comment (and that Defendant and all leadership were notified of this ban), the chief has no recollection of ever banning anyone from the fire station.
• Plaintiff did not submit a formal written grievance to the Fire Department, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, or any other entity regarding the incident.
• Plaintiff points [to that] interaction … as evidence of Defendant’s illegal motive.
• While the parties’ dispute about Defendant’s motive may be genuine, it is not material.
• A probable cause analysis is purely objective; “the officer’s subjective state of mind and beliefs are irrelevant.”
• Therefore, any contention by Plaintiff that the Defendant had a motive to frame him has no bearing on the probable cause analysis.
• In sum, a reasonable officer, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence objectively, had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for arson, and no reasonable jury could find otherwise, let alone conclude that Defendant fabricated evidence.
• For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.

Here is a copy of the decision: