Law enforcement

Another Victory For Police Secrecy (But The Fight Goes On)

Angela Caputo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:23:27 -0800

Chicago's police officers are the city's first line of defense and they deserve our thanks. That being said, they are also paid with taxpayer dollars and should be expected to withstand public scrutiny. Yet again and again, the Daley administration has worked to prevent reasonable attempts to create more accountability around the Chicago Police Department (CPD).

As a record number of citizen complaints have flooded the so-called Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) in recent years, City Hall has fought a legal effort to uncover the names of officers who've received ten or more complaints. This week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Daley administration, denying a petition by journalist Jamie Kalven and 28 aldermen to lift the protective order placed on this list. Kalven and his lawyers are planning to appeal. Meanwhile, the aldermen continue to insist the names belong in the public sphere:

"The unwillingness of the Police Department to provide information to public officials about officers whose conduct may be questionable is a real problem," said Ad. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), a leader of the 28 aldermen. [...]

If the names remain secret, [Ald. Joe] Moore [49th Ward] said, "It makes it more difficult to root out officers who may be routinely violating the law. We, in the City Council, have a right to know so we can call upon the Police Department to explain why these officers have so many complaints. That's what public disclosure is all about.

While CPD would like the public to believe that there's an exhaustive review process, the department's own record of ferreting out abusive cops speaks for itself. As the Chicago Justice Project revealed (PDF) earlier this month, a firing recommendation by CPD's own superintendent rarely leads the Chicago Police Board (CPB) to terminate an officer.

As far as CJP's director Tracy Siska is concerned, the board does not do an adequate job explaining why they regularly approve more lenient punishments. "Our biggest recommendation is for increased transparency," he said Tuesday while appearing on WTTW's Chicago Tonight alongside board chairman Demetrius Carney. Watch it (full video here):

As host Carol Marin explains in the full WTTW segment, the police accountability process in Chicago is a long one. Once a complaint is filed, both an internal investigation and a subsequent IPRA study are launched. The police superintendent also gets a chance to weigh in before a final recommendation is passed along to the mayoral-appointed CPB.

The problem with the process is not the quantity but the apparent quality of the various reviews. By University of Chicago law professor Craig Futterman's count, less than one percent of Chicago police misconduct allegations are sustained by the department's internal investigations. That's far lower than the national average, which has led to suspicion that the city is deliberately sweeping misconduct under the rug.

By fiercely fighting efforts to open up the department to greater scrutiny, Daley is doing little to dispel that notion.

Full disclosure: Jamie Kalven is the father of PI editor Josh Kalven.

More Evidence Of The Need For Reform At Tamms

Angela Caputo — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:40:13 -0700

Back in May, Gov. Pat Quinn called for an examination of the policies at Tamms Correctional Center in response to criticism that prisoners are languishing there in solitary confinement -- in some cases for more than a decade -- despite its intended purpose as a short-term incarceration facility. Those seeking reforms at Tamms have primarily raised concerns about the lack of clear criteria for transfer in and out of the prison. They have also pointed out that holding inmates in solitary confinement for such long periods of time often creates deep psychological trauma which can pose further problems once they're released back into their communities.

In an extensive article published over the weekend, the Belleview News-Democrat added some valuable reporting to this debate. Included in their piece is some troubling data, such as the fact that 54 of the 247 inmates have been held there for ten years or more. Furthermore, 55 were transferred to the facility for committing in-prison assaults "that did not lead to serious injury and can be attributed in some cases to mental illness and a need for self-protection." The reporters also offer several case studies in how long-term solitary confinement has led to psychological deterioration in certain inmates. They also interview the first warden at the prison:

[George] Welborn, who retired in 2002, said he never expected inmates to be held at Tamms for 10 years or more.

"I don't lose a lot of sleep over those guys who have been there 10 years ... (but) I think they should have been given the opportunity to go back to a reduced security facility and then, if they screw up again, it's right back to Tamms. It was not intended to be a place where guys would be there for eight to 10 years."

The whole article is worth a read. Meanwhile, on the same day, the News-Democrat editorial page advocated for instituting more "smart and humane" policies at the prison:

Not only is Tamms not accomplishing its objective, but it seems to be creating new problems. Keeping inmates in solitary confinement for years causes many of them to either develop mental problems, or to worsen existing conditions. Many of these men eventually will be released back into society.

Gov. Pat Quinn has ordered Michael Randle, his new director of the state Department of Corrections, to investigate Tamms. Good. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished, but the state needs to be smart and humane on how it goes about it.

Unfortunately, if the quotes from Randle in the News-Democrat article are any indication, he doesn't appear to gung-ho about instituting significant policy changes at the facility. If that is ultimately the case, look for some lawmakers to revive outgoing State Rep. Julie Hamos' (D-Evanston) bill to "establish clear criteria for transferring a prisoner to Tamms supermax prison."

Religous, Political Leaders Voice Support For Reforming Tamms

Josh Kalven — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:30:33 -0700

Last week, the organization Tamms Year Ten held a rally outside Chicago's Thompson Center to highlight the human rights situation at Tamms Correction Facility in downstate Illinois. It attracted a number of speakers from state and city government, numerous religious leaders, and several individuals with personal experiences to share. From a press release:

The event demonstrated the strong ecumenical opposition to the use of long-term isolation, and added momentum to the growing movement for reform of the prison. Besides the inhumanity of prolonged isolation, speakers identified the senselessness of spending $67,000 per prisoner per year at Tamms for conditions that induce or worsen mental illnesses, create barriers to reentry, and put Illinois in the international spotlight for human rights abuses. By comparison, per prisoner costs are $20,736 at Menard, $32,693 at Stateville, and $33,031 at Pontiac where Illinois’ death row is located.

Below is a great video produced by the group:

Here is the list of speakers:

- Billy Ocasio, senior advisor to Gov. Pat Quinn
- State Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston)
- Timothy McLean, IL Department of Corrections
- Vance Henry, Mayor's Office for Community/Faith-Based Initiatives
- Melvin Haywood, former Tamms inmate
- Johnnie Walton, former Tamms inmate
- Nedra Mixon, mother of Tamms inmate
- Rev. Larry E. Turpin, United Church of Hyde Park
- Jonathan Jackson, Rainbow PUSH Coalition
- Jane Ramsey, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs
- Junaid Afeef, Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago
- Rev. B. Herbert Martin, People's Church and Progressive Community Center

Check out this earlier post to learn more about the efforts to reform the policies at Tamms.

Kirk's Latest Priority: Saving Illinois From "Zombie-Like Kids"

Adam Doster — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:21:42 -0700

Rep. Mark Kirk still can't make up his mind about the possibility for running for higher office next year. This morning, the North Shore Republican told WBEZ that he delayed his scheduled announcement in order to see who else enters both the 2010 gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races. In the meantime, he's trying to raise his profile among moderate voters statewide, introducing a bill that would toughen drug trafficking laws for strong marijuana. Fox Chicago reported on the proposal yesterday, airing a clip of Kirk stating, "This is not your father's marijuana," and warning, "[W]e don't want to create zombie-like kids who can't perform in school or athletically." Watch it:

While Kirk's law could be good politics, it's silly policy. High levels of THC might make the effects of the drug slightly stronger, but it's non-toxic to healthy cells or organs (regardless of potency) and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose.

Testing THC levels requires expensive equipment as well, which would likely add a hefty price tag to the bill's implementation. Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, writes that the University of Mississippi is currently the only place that engages in potency testing.

Kirk's push to lock up more drug offenders in Illinois also comes as activists, academics, and public officials are calling for major reforms to drug crime sentencing laws. ArchPundit, back from a blogging hiatus, adds his two cents:

That said, we don’t need to be populating our federal prisons with people selling dope whether it is supposedly super pot or not. While this is obviously meant to target suburban voters–women especially who are worried about their kids–it’s stupid policy. It increases the number of people in prison for non-violent crime and it’s not going to stop anyone from getting high.

Cops As Crossing Guards?

Josh Kalven — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:43:50 -0700

This is a bizarre proposal:

Nearly 300 Chicago crossing guards, detention aides and traffic control aides could face layoffs next month as their jobs are replaced by city police officers, a union representing those workers said today. [...]

"The police officers make a lot more per hour than the regular Crossing Guards, Detention Aides and Traffic Control Aides." SEIU Local 73 Secretary-Treasurer Matt Brandon said in the news release. "Anytime you're doing something like that, how do you justify it financially?"

"On top of that, the real tradeoff is public safety," Brandon added. "These layoffs would take police off the street at a time when the city's murder rate is already way too high."

On the Local 73 website, Brandon surmises that it might be a ploy to squeeze concessions out of these civilian public-safety employees:

The union is consulting with its attorneys regarding its legal options.

“Based on current media coverage, it would not surprise us if the city came to us and proposed concessions in return for saving these jobs,” Brandon said.

Stay tuned ...

UPDATE: Brandon talks to the Sun-Times:

“Detention aides work in lock-ups. They’ll be replaced by police for sure. Crossing guards are replaced by police now if they’re absent. Layoffs will mean more of that. And traffic control aides would probably be replaced by uniformed officers,” said Matt Brandon, secretary-treasurer of Local 73.

“When you take police away from enforcement, it hurts the public. It means less police on patrol in areas where crime is high. Instead of layoffs, they should use some of the $1.2 billion rainy day fund to offset” a threatened, $300 million year-end shortfall.

Full disclosure: The SEIU Illinois State Council sponsors this website.

Blackout On A Blackout

Josh Kalven — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:16:03 -0700

On Saturday, the Chicago Police Department's computer systems went down for a full 24 hours, according to the Second City Cop blog, which described the entire police force "reverting to paper arrest reports, paper inventories, no fingerprints, no photographs, no anything." The malfunction also apparently caused the lock-ups to "overfill," as those arrested on petty offenses weren't being processed at the normal clip. It's reasonable to expect that a prolonged computer "blackout" of this sort would eventually start draining the streets of police officers as more and more of them are stuck filling out hard-copy forms they haven't touched in years (if ever).

Seems like a story worth reporting on, particularly considering it's been less than a month since calls were found to be "disappearing completely" from the city's 911 emergency system.

So can you find a single news article on it? I sure can't.

"An Unbelievable Defiance Of The Law"

Angela Caputo — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:07:18 -0700

This week, The Chicago Reporter exposed how the Illinois State Police (ISP) has refused to carry out thousands of court-ordered expungements and sealings of individual criminal records. They found that, contrary to judges’ orders, at least 2,700 unwitting Illinois citizens still have a criminal offenses on their records.

In a press release yesterday, Attorney General Lisa Madigan responded with appropriate outrage, describing ISP’s conduct as “an unbelievable defiance of the law.” Indeed, as Roosevelt University legal studies professor Michael Sweig pointed out to the Reporter, the underlying statute was only as good as the people enforcing it:

“You can have all the legislation in the world, but if you’re going to have an agency like the police that’s going to second guess the court, I don’t know how you’re going to stop it and I don’t know how you’re going to guard against it,” he said. “If you can’t get the king to follow the court, that’s a problem.”

So how did ISP manage to ignore so many court orders? The Reporter explains:

The agency took its cue from this passage in the Criminal Identification Act, added in 1991: “Any court order contrary to the provisions of this Section is void.” Police believed this so-called void-order provision mandated their defiance. “A void order may be attacked at any time and in any court—either directly or collaterally,” said an October 2008 court brief.

Disputes between the police and judges increased after the 2005 amendment, in part, because the amendment is dense and complicated. It contains clauses that say, for instance, convictions are sealable when “at least 4 years have elapsed since the last such conviction or term of any sentence, probation, parole, or supervision, if any, whichever is last in time.” Most judges interpreted this waiting period to mean that living crime-free for four years entitles ex-offenders to seal any eligible offense. Police said it meant eligible offenses could only be sealed if they are at least four years apart.

State Rep. Constance Howard (D-Chicago) and Sen. Kimberly Lightford (D-Westchester) have introduced HB 3961, which seeks to clarify the expungement process laid out in the Criminal Identification Act. The bill sets a 60-day timetable for filing a response to relevant court-orders. It would also heighten oversight of the ISP decisions by requiring the agency to generate additional reports for the Governor, General Assembly, Attorney General’s office, and the Illinois State Appellate Defender’s office to review.

Meanwhile, Judge Paul Biebel, head of the Criminal Division of the Cook County Circuit Court -- whose orders were ignored by ISP roughly 13 percent of the time in 2007 alone -- has taken on the job of sorting this mess out. Madigan is also working with a team of pro-bono attorneys -- from the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, the Chicago Legal Clinic-Austin Circle Law Center, and the Cabrini Green Legal Aid Clinic -- to make sure the situation is rectified.

This team will try to obtain an audit detailing exactly how many court orders ISP has skirted. Advocates are also hoping for a court-directive for compliance that would mandate the review thousands of cases -- some dating back to 1991 -- and then figure out an outreach plan to help identify those in limbo between the court’s orders and ISP's actions.

Number Of The Day: 8,583

Progress Illinois — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:51:46 -0700

That's how many court orders requiring the Illinois State Police to seal or expunge the records of reformed ex-offenders were ignored between 2004 and 2008, according to an investigation by The Chicago Reporter. In response to this finding, Attorney General Lisa Madigan appeared before Cook County Circuit Court Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. today to "begin work on a court mandated compliance and remediation plan to require the State Police to follow the law." In a statement, Madigan said, "This is a shocking defiance of the law. Ignoring these expungement orders negatively impacts the lives of too many people who deserve a fair opportunity to get a job in order to take care of their families."

Read the Reporter's summary of the data here. Their full investigative story will be available tomorrow.

Judge Gettleman Calls City's Behavior "Absolutely Intolerable"

Adam Doster — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:15:52 -0700

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman was not a happy camper in court this morning. In a brief hearing, Gettleman reamed Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis -- and, by extension, the Daley administration -- for initially refusing a court order to hand over a list of officers with five or more citizen complaints filed against them since 2000.

With Weis before him, Gettleman asserted that the city’s intransigence “flies in the face of everything this court stands for” and sends the wrong message to citizens as well as the officers who look to the police chief for leadership. Before pondering aloud why this hearing had to take place at all, Gettleman quoted U.S. Appellate Judge Ann Williams, who said during the Robert Sorich trial that “Robin Hood may have been a noble criminal, but he’s still a criminal.”

Gettleman also emphasized that the court was not ruling for wholesale disclosure. As we highlighted last week, the judge only asked the city to disclose the list to the plaintiff’s counsel under protective order, something the city has agreed to in countless other civil rights case. After Gettleman held Weis in contempt of court, the police chief handed over the list late Friday.

Ald. Ed Smith (28th Ward), a vocal critic of Weis’ conduct, said he was surprised the police chief took the position he did, arguing that it sends the wrong message to the community. The plaintiff in the underlying case, Donna Moore, was equally frustrated: “It’s my expectation that [Weis’] paramount responsibility is to the millions of citizens of Chicago, not 1,000 so-called repeat offenders.”

Speaking to reporters following the hearing, Weis offered a weak justification for his actions, calling it “one of the most difficult decisions” he’s made in his life and apologizing for offending Gettleman. He said that while he has total confidence in the court’s ability to protect the listed officers’ identities, he is concerned that lawyers or third-parties may seek the release of the document at a later juncture.

Weis is right to believe that such a sequence of events could occur. After a separate lawsuit involving police misconduct was settled by the city several years ago (Bond v. Utreras), local journalist Jamie Kalven -- along with 28 aldermen -- intervened seeking the release of a list that had surfaced in the case including those officers with 10 or more citizen complaints. A federal judge granted their motion, but the city appealed and the matter is currently being considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Referring to the prospect of these “repeat offender” lists ultimately being made public, Weis rolled out the same, tired rationale he and Daley have repeatedly used to justify their secrecy: In a job that often calls for split-second aggresive action, officers can’t be worried about whether their name will later be dragged through the mud.

But as Bond lead attorney Craig Futterman explained to the Community Media Workshop’s Curtis Black in 2007, it’s crucial that this information be made available to lawmakers and government watchdogs:

The documents show “an utterly broken system,” Futterman said. While only 5 percent of officers have over ten complaints (85 percent had between zero and three over five years), the department does little or nothing to track rogue officers, and they are extremely unlikely to be punished for misconduct, he said. Out of over 10,000 complaints filed between 2002 and 2004, only 18 officers received “meaningful discipline,” he said.

Only 89 of the 662 officers with ten or more complaints were flagged for monitoring or supervision, and there were officers with over 50 complaints who hadn’t been identified by the department’s early warning system, he said.

In short: It’s hard to fix a "broken system" if you can’t get a close look at its past failures.

Full Disclosure: Jamie Kalven is the father of Progress Illinois editor Josh Kalven.

City Backtracks From Effort To Expand Secrecy

Josh Kalven — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:01:35 -0800

In the past two weeks, we've written repeatedly about the refusal by Mayor Daley and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis to hand over the list of "repeat offender" police officers to lawyers suing the city over excessive force allegations. On Wednesday, a "visibly angry" federal Judge Robert Gettleman found Weis in contempt of court for ignoring an order to produce the list of officers who've received five or more citizen complaints. Gettleman ordered Weis to appear in court on Monday and face questioning from both the judge himself and the lawyers seeking the documents. Now the Sun-Times is reporting that Weis caved and has agreed to disclose the list rather than face Gettleman's wrath.

But this doesn't mean we'll be seeing the names anytime soon.

A separate petition currently before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is part of an effort to release a shorter list to the public -- this one containing those officers with ten or more complaints. That list originally surfaced several years ago during a different civil rights case against the Chicago Police Department (Bond v. Utrerus) and was provided to the alleged victim's lawyers under a "protective order." After the case was settled, a third party intervened seeking access to the list and 28 Chicago aldermen ultimately signed on to his request. (Full disclosure: The intervenor was my father, Jamie Kalven.) U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow ruled in favor of the motion, but the city appealed, sending the matter to the Seventh Circuit, where it is still pending.

In this more recent case (Moore v. Smith), the city refused to do what it had agreed to in Bond and countless other civil rights case -- give the plaintiff's counsel the list under protective order. That distinction got lost in the sparse media coverage, but it's crucial. In effect, the city tried to expand government secrecy here.

As the following excerpt from the March 4 hearing shows, Gettleman was incredulous:

GETTLEMAN: We have the chief law enforcement officer of the City of Chicago basically picking and choosing the orders of the federal court that he will obey or disobey, and he's chosen to disobey this order. I believe he is in direct contempt of the Court. It's not even a rule to show cause situation, because he has told me he will not obey the order of the Court to turn over these documents, which as Mr. Taylor points out are very much or identical to the type of documents that he has turned over, that the City of Chicago has turned over on at least 29 occasions that you know of and probably more and that we've dealt with before.

I don't care whether your sensitivities about the name calling that you accuse the plaintiffs' lawyers of doing might somehow hurt morale. I don't know how that happens. There is a lot worse names that are leveled at the police in this City than "repeater." But even crediting Mr. Weis with a good-faith belief that this would hurt morale, it's his job to deal with his own officers.

And I respect the police department in this City, and I respect Mr. Weis's job, it's a tough job. But it makes it a lot tougher when he comes into a federal court and says "I'm not going to obey your order."

Gettleman went on to tell the city's lawyers, "I don't see using this case as a vehicle to try to test the enforceability of orders of this court." And that's just it: the city was attempting to test the degree of secrecy the court would allow. Gettleman wasn't having it, however, and Daley and Weis clearly backed off, as today's news shows. But it's incredible -- and deeply disturbing -- that they even tried.