Hearing officer finds man not liable for drinking but says he possessed alcohol at Villa Park hearing

Erica Thomas, the presiding hearing officer at the Village of Villa Park administrative call on July 2, 2026, found that evidence did not prove Michael Ghart consumed alcohol on Village Hall property but said video showed he possessed an open container.

Ghart, who pleaded not liable to a citation under Municipal Code 3-102A for consumption of alcohol on public property, told the hearing he ‘‘categorically deny[ed]’’ the charge and said the municipality had not met its burden of proof. He said he was cleaning up a spilled can and had reviewed police body-worn camera footage and the police report prior to the hearing.

Three witnesses called by Ghart — Khaled Sabri, a witness who identified himself as Mr. Loftton, and Christine Murphy — testified they did not see Ghart bring alcohol into the room or consume it while they were present. Sabri said he ‘‘did not’’ see Ghart consume alcohol; Murphy said she ‘‘did not see anyone consume anything’’ during the time she observed the conference room.

Officer Hilton testified he was advised someone might be drinking in the conference room, saw what ‘‘appeared to be a beer’’ and issued a citation for consumption in a public place. The hearing officer reviewed the body-worn camera footage and police statements as part of the record.

After reviewing the video and testimony, Thomas said the video showed Ghart had an open beer within arm’s reach but that the hearing lacked direct evidence he drank from it. ‘‘I have no choice but to find you not liable for consuming alcohol on a public property,’’ Thomas said. She added, ‘‘you absolutely possessed alcohol on a public property’’ and cautioned that possession under a different ordinance section could have supported a different charge.

The citation at issue was issued under Village Municipal Code 3-102A (consumption of alcohol on public property). Thomas released Ghart and noted he retains the right to contest or appeal the municipal action as provided by statute and local rules.

The hearing record shows Ghart raised additional allegations that the complaint may have been motivated by his prior public-records and open-meetings requests; the hearing officer declined to consider out-of-record conversations as evidence, describing them as hearsay not contained in the sworn report or body-camera footage.

What happens next: the hearing concluded with Thomas’s finding of not liable for consumption; the record reflects the citation and the hearing officer’s observations about possession and available charging options.