Chicago hides officer's records...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Autolycus

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
5,456
Location
In the land of make believe.
Chicago Keeps Officer Complaints Under Wraps


Updated: July 17th, 2007 11:36 AM EDT


E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed


FRANK MAIN and ABDON M. PALLASCH
Chicago Sun Times



Records involving cops with more than 10 complaints against them will remain secret until a federal appeals court decides whether to make them public.

The city is trying to keep the potentially embarrassing documents under wraps. They include a list of 662 Chicago Police officers -- one of every 20 cops on the 13,200-member force -- with more than 10 civilian complaints lodged against them between 2001 and 2006.

A week ago, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow ordered the city to release the list, but the city appealed. On Monday, just before the 5 p.m. deadline that Lefkow imposed for the documents to be released, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the city a stay that keeps them secret until the court can decide if they are public.

"The city of Chicago spends unprecedented resources fighting to keep from the public the data about how the Police Department polices itself -- while at the same time, they publicly profess the virtues of openness and transparency," said Jon Loevy, an attorney seeking to bring the documents to light.

SOME HAVE MORE THAN 30 COMPLAINTS

The list will show if a complaint against an officer was "sustained" and if it resulted in discipline -- or if the department deemed it to be "unsustained" or "unfounded" or determined the officer was "exonerated."

The records will identify some officers who have received more than 30 complaints but who did not face any "meaningful" discipline, Loevy said. The documents also will identify the police units with the highest concentrations of cops with 10 or more complaints against them.

"Most police officers do their jobs without attracting any complaints," Loevy said. "It's this tiny portion that cause most of the problems."

Critics of the department hoped the documents would surface before Thursday, when the City Council is scheduled to consider a proposed ordinance that would change the office that investigates complaints against cops.

Under the measure, the head of the Office of Professional Standards would report to the mayor and not to the police superintendent; summaries of the investigations would become public, and OPS investigators would receive subpoena power. Loevy called those changes "window dressing" and a "P.R. stunt."

The information on complaints against cops was gathered by attorneys for Diane Bond, who sued the city claiming she was abused by officers working in a Chicago Public Housing building on the South Side in 2003. She received a $150,000 settlement from the city, records show.

Loevy represents Jamie Kalven, a writer who entered the case as a third party to make the documents public.

"We're at a kind of historic moment in the city in terms of real and meaningful police reforms, and the information in the disputed documents is directly relevant to the public debate that's going on right now," Kalven said.

A spokeswoman for the city's Law Department did not return a call, but in court papers the city argues that the documents should not be released because they did not become part of the court proceedings in Bond's lawsuit and would invade the officers' privacy.

On July 9, Lefkow ruled that the documents were still presumed to be public, writing "the public has a significant interest in monitoring the conduct of its police officers and a right to know how allegations of misconduct are being investigated and handled."

Link to Article
 
It just goes to show....

Ya know, with stuff like this going on is it any wonder that there is a VERY big rift between LEO's and the public? Theres no accountability or honesty.
 
One thing to remember is that even though they have complaints against them, it does not mean they are legitimate in some cases.
 
One thing to remember is that even though they have complaints against them, it does not mean they are legitimate in some cases.
OTOH, it is hard to believe that with so many complaints against just a few officers that none of them are legit.

Keep in mind, many police departments make it very unpleasant for you to even file a complaint. Most people probably just give up rather than go through the rigmarole just to get the form.
 
One thing to remember is that even though they have complaints against them, it does not mean they are legitimate in some cases.

Very true especially in a place like Chicago. Isnt that where JJ and his ilk often ply their trade.

The information on complaints against cops was gathered by attorneys for Diane Bond, who sued the city claiming she was abused by officers working in a Chicago Public Housing building on the South Side in 2003. She received a $150,000 settlement from the city, records show.

Sounds like another ambulance chaser to me but I could be wrong. She could have the best interest of the public in mind and not money.

Records should be released if validated.
Records should not be released if unfounded.
 
Sounds like another ambulance chaser to me but I could be wrong. She could have the best interest of the public in mind and not money.

People can't do a job for money, only for the public interest? I wish I could afford to be so altruistic. If the case has merit, I don't see a problem.
 
Keep in mind, many police departments make it very unpleasant for you to even file a complaint. Most people probably just give up rather than go through the rigmarole just to get the form.

I have seen that. Instead of posting all the details of what happened, I'll just say that I called the PD to file a complaint against a LEO, and when the Officer came out to talk to me, the first thing he gave me was a phamplet telling about how I would be prosecuted if my claim turned out to be false.

Eventually I just forgot about it. I generally try to avoid the police because I have seen to many times how they are not working for me, but for the politicians.
 
I have seen that. Instead of posting all the details of what happened, I'll just say that I called the PD to file a complaint against a LEO, and when the Officer came out to talk to me, the first thing he gave me was a phamplet telling about how I would be prosecuted if my claim turned out to be false.

Eventually I just forgot about it. I generally try to avoid the police because I have seen to many times how they are not working for me, but for the politicians.

I see your point.
 
[have seen that. Instead of posting all the details of what happened, I'll just say that I called the PD to file a complaint against a LEO, and when the Officer came out to talk to me, the first thing he gave me was a phamplet telling about how I would be prosecuted if my claim turned out to be false.

and the officer could "sue me" if charges were unfound . that's a quote from the police LT . Scare tactics ? Most John Q Citizen's will just walk away . the cop's know that and bank on it .
 
OTOH, it is hard to believe that with so many complaints against just a few officers that none of them are legit.
When considering that question, remember that Alvin Weems, a Chicago cop, shot an unarmed, unaggressive man in the head, while standing under transit company video cameras. After killing the man, he continues to converse with another man as though nothing untoward had happened at all.

After the shooting, the officer, apparently unaware that there was video of the killing, spun an incredible story of being surrounded, people trying to snatch his gun (he'd left his primary service weapon UNATTENDED on the ground elsewhere), fearing for his life and so-forth. A virtual frame by frame analysis of the video by a local weekly newspaper shows that everything he said was a lie. The Chicago PD machine, up to and including the Superintendent echoed these lies. The shooting was claimed to be an accident. If I remember correctly, the victim was killed with a Ruger SP-101 double action revolver. I invite anyone who thinks he can, to explain how it's possible to "accidentally" shoot someone with a Ruger SP-101 with the hammer down. Ruger revolvers aren't exactly renowned for their light, silky smooth double action. It's simply inconceiveable that someone "accidentally" shot someone DOUBLE ACTION with a Ruger. That means that either Weems was waving a cocked revolver around in a public place (gross negligence) or he INTENTIONALLY shot the victim, Michael Pleasance, in the head with a long, double action pull. I vote for the latter.

After the video became public knowledge, the Chicago PD did everything in its power to keep it from being released to the public.

A police disciplinary board recommended that Weems be fired. The Superintendent of Police, Phil Cline, stepped in and overruled the board, instead giving him a THIRTY DAY SUSPENSION for what appears at best to be manslaughter.

To this day, Weems has not been charged with a crime. Since the shooting, he has been PROMOTED to Detective.

The family of Michael Pleasance is sueing the City of Chicago and Weems. They will no doubt win, aided in no small part by Weems's recent admission under oath that the shooting was not justified.

This despicable farce is merely one in a long series of crimes and attendant coverups perpetrated by the Chicago PD. The two recent beatings by intoxicated Chicago cops were also followed by failures to respond properly to 911 calls, failures to charge criminally, attempts to undercharge the perpetrators, intimidation against victims and witnesses, attempts to conceal the crimes from the public, preferential treatment towards the perpetrators, intimidation and harassment of the media, and various combinations of the foregoing acts.

Then there's the long history of organized torture of suspects by the Chicago PD. But that's a story for another day...
 
The Chicago Police are undoubtly a reflection of the police brass and the politicians who run Chicago. They serve themselves rather than the people. Keep up the fine work Herr Daly!!!
 
Records should be released if validated.
Records should not be released if unfounded.
Unfounded by whom? Internal Affairs? That's exactly the problem that's being fought here--IA providing no meaningful oversight. It is vital that the records be released so that the citizens (the government's employer) can evaluate the performance of their employees.
 
Records should be released if validated.
Records should not be released if unfounded.

Records should be released period.

The problem with the "unfounded" part of you statement is you are assuming that when the police determine one of their own did no wrong that they are in fact correct.

I think you would be shocked at just how far police will allow one of their own to go before they decide its too far. Many police officers have committed very serious crimes and even though their brother officers know exactly what they did, they chose to do nothing at all about it. Internal affairs is mostly about going after cops who aggravate the brass and politicians and covering up anything else.
 
The problem with the "unfounded" part of you statement is you are assuming that when the police determine one of their own did no wrong that they are in fact correct.
In Chicago the question is not so much of the "correctness" of the findings of any internal police investigation of police misconduct or criminal acts, as of the TRUTHFULNESS of any such findings.

As the Weems case conclusively proves, UNtruthfulness is a hallmark of any "investigations" which the Chicago PD does of itself, from the Superintendent on down. TruthFUL findings will be overridden by the chain of command when deemed necessary.
 
Before this turns into a cop-bashing thread, please keep in mind that Chicago cops are pretty much a twisted breed unto themselves. I would say that no meaningful assumptions could possibly be made about police in general based on the actions of the Chicago PD.
 
Before this turns into a cop-bashing thread, please keep in mind that Chicago cops are pretty much a twisted breed unto themselves. I would say that no meaningful assumptions could possibly be made about police in general based on the actions of the Chicago PD.
Being from Chicago, I am naturally mistrustful of police.

That having been said, living outside of Chicago has allowed me to see police who do NOT commit murders, as well as police administrators who do NOT cover up murders.

The Cleveland PD is by no means a model of law enforcement efficiency or purity of character. At the same time, the Cleveland PD actually FIRES officers who misbehave, unlike the Chicago PD which PROMOTES them.

The character of the Chicago PD is a DIRECT result of the character of that city's government, and in turn of the people who elect that government. Chicagoans have gotten the government which they wanted. In turn that government has gotten the police which it wanted.

I consider myself privileged to live in a town (Rocky River, Ohio) where the police ARE distinguishable from criminals, and where if you encounter them, on official business or otherwise, you need not fear for you for your life. Those are two qualities UTTERLY lacking in the Chicago PD.
 
Hard to trust Daley 'reform'--Carol Marin

http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/472189,CST-EDT-Marin18.article

Hard to trust Daley 'reform'

July 18, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
Reform? Transparency? Or same old, same old?

Thursday, the Chicago City Council will vote on Mayor Daley's proposal to reform the way police misconduct and brutality complaints are handled.

In the wake of embarrassing television images of off-duty Officer Anthony Abbate whaling away on a female bartender and another bunch of off-duty Chicago cops caught on videotape beating the bejesus out of a bunch of guys in a bar, Daley has ordered the dawning of a new day. He's proposed revamping the Office of Professional Standards, the secretive, civilian agency that has historically done too little, too late, and sometimes nothing at all to tackle rogue officers who betray the public trust and, along the way, taint the reputations of a majority of honorable cops.

How will the mayor's reform be accomplished?

Ah, that's the rub.

Under the mayor's plan, OPS, which now reports to the superintendent of Chicago Police, would answer to Daley.

That would be the same Mayor Daley who has done everything but stand on his head to avoid a thorough, thoughtful or completely candid public discussion of past police abuses that date all the way back to his days as the Cook County state's attorney. The same Mayor Daley whose law department continues to pay millions of dollars to outside legal firms to defend 20- and 30-year-old cases of police torture that center on a rogue clan of cops who reported to former Cmdr. Jon Burge, now living comfortably on a police pension in Florida. It's the same Mayor Daley whose law department has run circles around at least three distinguished federal judges by bailing out of an agreed upon $14.8 million settlement to torture victims and by refusing to deliver their client, the mayor, to sit for a deposition demanded by a federal magistrate.

Just this week, it was Mayor Daley's lawyers who appealed U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow's order to release the names of cops who had 10 or more citizen complaints against them. A total of 662 officers -- 5 percent of the force --have exhibited conduct that any sensible police department and any transparent, reform-minded mayor should want to take a very close look at. Not to mention we, the public, who pay all their salaries.

But no, no, no. The city insists we just don't understand that these are personnel matters, and so they are secret. Off-limits not to be disclosed.

How do you charge off into the future when you haven't honestly dealt with the past? A past, when it comes to unacknowledged, unaddressed cop abuse, that is a stain on this city. And, by extension, a stain on officers who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Let's remember that there are approximately 13,200 cops on the force and 19 out of every 20 do not have a stack of citizen complaints against them.

Of the ones who do, we're told some have been exonerated, others have not, and some units have way more complaints than others.

The only reason we even have those small bits of information is that Jamie Kalven, a Chicago writer, spent years begging for someone, anyone to pay attention to the case of a woman named Diane Bonds who lived in public housing and was shamefully abused by police. Bonds won a federal lawsuit and a $150,000 settlement from the city. But the mayor and his law department don't want us peering more closely into the discovery in the Bonds case to see all the evidence that caused her to win and the city to lose. That's why the city is fighting Lefkow's order to open up the files and let the sunshine in.

So Thursday, when the City Council takes up the mayor's revamp of OPS, maybe the aldermen can explain it to us. Maybe they can tell us why we should believe in promises of transparency when we're still choked to death by secrecy.
 
I read the second city cop site. Wow.

I guess I would say that "if the cop didn't do anything wrong, no complaint would have been filed."

Same logic as "he wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't breaking the law."

Sarcasm, obviously, but the logic goes both ways. I'm tired of two sets of standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top