On the same day a study released a damning report finding that Chicago’s civil service review board overturns decisions to discipline police officers found to have committed acts of misconduct in a majority of cases and that officers found to have committed misconduct are rarely fired because of this…
The city announced that they are moving forward with a plan to criminally charge people who file police misconduct complaints that are later ruled as unfounded by internal investigations… and if that’s not enough to discourage complaints about police misconduct they also announced that they are taking every civil rights lawsuit to trial and appeal instead of offering settlements from this point forward.
So… Apparently Chicago’s solution to being criticized for failing to discipline bad cops is to make sure everyone is too afraid to complain about bad cops.
Good to know.
Let me get this straight, if the internal investigation (cops) find that complaints against themselves are unfounded they will charge you with a crime.
Would there be a confirmed misconduct case ever again?
This law is going to end up a Supreme court case.
That is really really scary.
Prediction:
A complaint will be filed and dismissed as unfounded. The city will prosecute for “$500 to $1,000, plus three times the amount of damages sustained by the city because of the false complaint” and win.
And then the video turns up…
I found this in the comments to an article called Daley’s Propaganda War at second city cop’s blog! Whether true or not will remain to be seen!
——————–
This is ABSOLUTELY not true.
IPRA will take ANY complaint against a Chicago police officer regardless how ridiculous it may be. Since complaints can be filed in numerous ways, there is no mechanism in place to obtain the complainant’s sworn affidavit and signature at the time the complaint is made.
Sworn affidavits and signatures are obtained once a complaint log number has been obtained and assigned for investigation.
I.E. no one is required to sign an affidavit before they can make a complaint against a Chicago police officer.
10/30/2009 02:49:00 AM
I don’t know that it matters if it’s exactly that way or not. I mean, first of all, requiring a complainant to sign a sworn affidavit at any point in the process isn’t much different than requiring one to sign right away… In fact, it seems a bit more insidious because, what that process is saying is that, we’ll only investigate credible complaints but will only do so if the victims signs an affidavit… so, the goal isn’t to discourage obviously uncredible complaints, but credible ones.
Besides, even if they didn’t require sworn complaints, the publicly made threat that they will prosecute for unsustained complaints by itself is designed to discourage complaints, even if they don’t intend to follow through with the threat… it’s still a threat designed to intimidate victims of police misconduct.
That’s exactly what I thought when I saw it! Bogus or not these complaints should be taken and handled properly. This is almost akin to a veiled threat!
Mac, we better pray the civil rights activists are on the ball and it’s challenged. It seems that people are standing up less and less and the vice grip is tightening more and more. Disgusting that they are given so many breaks, when you consider the kind of people that become cops in the first place.
The following would seem to be appropriate information to use against any retaliation directed at a reporter.
Anti-SLAPP Law in Illinois
Note: This page covers information specific to Illinois. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-illinois
To challenge a lawsuit as a SLAPP, you need to show that the plaintiff is suing you for “any act or acts in furtherance of [your] rights of petition, speech, association, or to otherwise participate in government.” 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 110/15 (scroll down). Such actions are “immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.”
-ED Corrected text per request of comment author.
Duke,
Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to defend against spurious lawsuits filed by government agencies or their proxies (i.e. police unions) with the express intent to stifle complaints, which is quite important and necessary…
However, sadly, they only apply to civil suits. What Chicago is implying is that they will file criminal charges against complainers, which isn’t covered by anti-SLAPP laws, and that they will fight all civil rights lawsuits filed against the police instead of settling the ones they feel they will lose or will cost more to defend than it would to settle them… again, not covered by anti-SLAPP laws.
What they propose to do is expressly legal… but any police accountability expert will tell you that what Chicago is proposing to do only reduces accountability while increasing both police misconduct and the public’s perception that the government is sanctioning it.
I guess the only other rout would be to take action in the federal courts against the offending officer. I would bet that would take a bite to them were it hurts.
WHO IS AFRAID OF THE TRUTH…..THE GUILTY………SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!!!!!! GARY CHADWICK G4JUSTICE NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Hey Packratt,
Looks like the mob still runs the show in stinky-town.
Just another reason why NOT to live in or travel through Chicago and Vegas.
Only two things can come of this; mass demonstraitions, riots with a sprinkle of revenge & civil suits leading to bankrupcy, and or the legalization of police brutality, hospitals being overrun and of course the eventual doing away with so-called rights. Whew, this stinks. We would have never known about this had it not been for you. Thanks a million.