The Department of State Police denied Daniel Braglia a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID). Seeking reversal of that decision, pursuant to statute, Braglia sued the county state’s attorney’s office. His complaint did not make the State Police a party. Braglia requested, and received, an order directing the State Police Department to issue the FOID card. The State Police moved to vacate the order. When that motion was denied, the State Police appealed.
The State Police argued the trial court’s order was void because the Police Department was not named in Braglia’s complaint nor served with summons. On the other hand, Braglia claimed that the Police Department had no standing to appeal because it was not party to the original trial court proceeding. So Braglia moved to dismiss the appeal.
The appellate court granted the motion to dismiss. The court ruled that the State Police Department was not a necessary party because its function in issuing the FOID card was merely ministerial. The Department was no better suited than the State’s Attorney’s office to represent the public’s interest in the matter. The court concluded that the State Police Department lacked any interest that is “direct, immediate, and substantial and that would be prejudiced by the judgment or would benefit from reversal.”