Illinois Supreme Court to Weigh in on Police Disciplinary Decisions
Later this week, the Illinois Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could reshape police accountability in Chicago for years to come over the exact disciplinary procedures for Chicago Police officers accused of the most serious misconduct. At issue is whether Chicago police officers should have their cases decided by the Chicago Police Board in public proceedings, or by a private arbitrator behind closed doors, when accused of conduct that could lead to their termination or suspension for over a year, which has mired these officers in recent years as the two sides fight for what they believe should be the proper venue. For officers, the Fraternal Order of Police’s President John Catazara has argued that officers should have the same arbitration rights as other public municipal employees, that is for them to be resolved by an arbitrator in a private setting. Reformers and the city, as well as Attorney General Kwame Raoul, have instead argued that public proceedings are essential to maintaining trust in CPD, particularly as it navigates the public consent decree enacted over 7 years ago in light of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a CPD officer, any good will of which Raoul argues would be upended if officers accused of grave misconduct were allowed to have their matters resolved outside the public record. In the balance hangs the fate of over 31 cases for officers who have had to wait as these fights have dragged on in the lower courts, with potentially large implications for those who have accused officers of misconduct and any civil actions they may have against the officers and the Chicago Police Department.
State’s Attorney Calls for Electronic Monitoring Reform as Backlash Grows
Last month, Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke wrote in an op-ed that Cook County’s electronic monitoring program is “broken” and urged the Illinois legislature to overhaul the system in light of the changes from the SAFE-T Act which eliminated cash bail across the state. She argued that many of the issues with the program starts with the rapid expansion of the electronic monitoring program in the county, which has ballooned from 500 defendants to roughly 3,000 (the largest number of individuals on electronic monitoring in any jurisdiction in the country) after the responsibility shifted from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to the Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County last year. Critically, of those 3,000, more than 327 of people enrolled in the program are “currently missing,” and many people in the program are charged with serious crimes such as murder or sex offenses. While highlighting advantages and well-meaning underlying thought regarding the SAFE-T Act that takes an person’s ability to pay for bail off the table, she argues that more has to be done to protect the public and judge’s shouldn’t have to resort to placing a person on electronic monitoring as a “third way,” since they cannot set cash bail to ensure compliance from released individuals. When Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke took office, she previously announced changes in policy for seeking pretrial detention in criminal matters, which opponents have argued have significantly increased the jail population of Cook County. The op-ed could be seen as an extension of some of these policies/goals which could result in more criminal defendants being held in pretrial custody. Clearly, there are growing tensions between reformers and government officials over the direction which the criminal justice system overseeing one of the largest population centers in the United States should go.
