U.S. DISTRICT COURT, BENTON—The former sheriff of Wayne County has filed an appeal in his civil case against the Illinois State Police investigator who targeted him in a bogus sex assault case in 2010.
Jim Hinkle was given leave to file an appeal when a decision was reached for a summary judgment request May 7, the request made by the defendants in the case, state police investigators Rick White, and Tom Oliverio, White’s immediate supervisor at the time of the beginning of the incident (2010).
Hinkle, former Wayne County sheriff (2006-2010) and a former ISP Master Sergeant (retired), first filed action against White and Oliverio under a 14th Amendment civil rights case in February of 2012, alleging interference by the two as keeping Hinkle from finding employment, based on their quest to prove him guilty of a crime against his step-daughter…a crime which the girl admitted early on didn’t happen. When the girl admitted this, independently to an investigator at the Charleston, Illinois, police department, and then later to a private investigator (Kelly Henby, who used to work with Hinkle; see related story, page 3), White and Oliverio didn’t let it get go. Instead, White set about targeting Henby, and continued to pursue the case against Hinkle, despite the fact that upon review of the information submitted, a special prosecutor in Springfield, Lorinda Lamken, refused to prosecute based on the fact that the young girl had already said she’d made up her story in order to get Hinkle in trouble so she could go live with her father in Charleston.
White’s inexplicable pursuit of Hinkle as regards the charges has lead him to a lot more hot water than he was apparently prepared to immerse himself into, and now he’s found himself not only the subject of the appeal in Hinkle’s case, but also is currently under investigation in Richland County for his perjury in Henby’s case of stalking against White there.
Several hints that White was a loser
In the judicial decision, the judge gave several hints that the case had merit in many areas, but lacked sufficient merit in others to the point that the summary judgment sought by the ISP should be awarded White and Oliverio.
The judicial ruling noted that a 14th Amendment of claim of violation of due process was not met, in that just because White and Oliverio “called Hinkle’s good name into question via publicized allegations of child abuse and arson” (that in the burning of Hinkle’s home in June of 2010, the fire determined to have been caused by a lightning strike), that didn’t mean they’d “deprived him of his occupational liberty interest: the liberty to follow a trade, profession or other calling.”
The ruling mentioned that mere defamation didn’t cause Hinkle to remain “free from that defamation absent formal state action” (charges in a court venue, of which there were none.)
As regards the merit for appeal, however, the judicial decision was a little more clear: “Viewed in light most favorable to Hinkle, White’s and Oliverio’s statements about abuse allegations leveled at Hinkle showed an egregious lack of professionalism, especially given a prosecutor’s decision not to bring charges against Hinkle.”
Didn’t rise to deprivation
While cautioning that “grossly unprofessional, even defamatory statements are not—without more—actionable under the United States Constitution,” and stating that the defamatory statements/publications, however seriously they may have harmed Hinkle’s reputation, didn’t deprive him of any ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests protected by the Due Process Clause, the fact that the decision actually spoke to White’s unprofessionalism under the circumstance leaves the door wide open for Hinkle to walk right through it and resubmit a filing of a civil case that brings out the “egregious lack of professionalism” and how that lack affected him.
White, in early 2011, told pretty much anyone who would listen in Wayne County that Hinkle was under investigation for molesting his own stepdaughter, long after the girl had admitted she lied. And while that may be against ISP protocol and not necessarily against the law, mentioning the details of a case that pertained to a juvenile is against the law.
Illinois’ Juvenile Justice Act strictly prohibits investigators, court officers and other professionals involved in a case from disseminating facts about an investigation as they pertain to a juvenile victim and/or the crime against him or her. It was the understanding of many people in Wayne County, some of whom advised Disclosure staff of the matter in early 2011, that not only was White giving details of the alleged “crime,” but was also stating the alleged “victim’s” name, since it was so salacious that she was related (by marriage; her mother had wed Hinkle some years before) and therefore made dissemination of the situation so much more interesting.
Why White remains unpunished over that violation is unknown at this time.
What is also unknown is exactly what course the refiling will take, or whether the case must be submitted to the appeals court as-is, without alterations as to the 14th Amendment violation/liberty interests.
The appeal notice was entered in federal court in Benton by Hinkle’s attorney, Greg Roosevelt out of Edwardsville, on June 5, according to documents on file in Benton.