Chicago Police Algorithm Attempts to Predict Shooters, Victims
In a move that is raising racial profiling fears, Chicago Police are now using a computerized algorithm to decide where officers should patrol, according to The Chicago Tribune. The formula takes information about criminal history and involvement in shootings in order to generate a score that indicates how likely people are to be perpetrators or victims of violent crime. The Chicago Police Department is currently focusing on residents with scores over 400—that is, people who the algorithm predicts to be over 400 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime. This list of high-scoring individuals is known as the “strategic subject list.” The department then meets with the people on the list to try to prevent them from killing, or being killed. The theory, according to The New York Times, is that a relatively small number of people are responsible for most of the violent crime in the city. The trick is identifying who they are. During the meetings, which police call “custom notifications,” police officers inform subjects that they are under intense police scrutiny. At the same time, social workers offer assistance with housing and drug rehabilitation in an effort to provide gang members with a way out of a dangerous life. Civil Liberties Groups Worry List May Be Racial Profiling Tool The department has been running the program for over three years. The program has come in for criticism from several different directions. There have been over 330 homicides this year to date, which is an increase of over 40%. At this rate, there will be over 600 homicides this year. It’s not just the list’s effectiveness that is raising concerns. Some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are concerned that the algorithm used to generate the scores may give disproportionately high scores to racial minorities or residents of high-crime neighborhoods. This, in turn, could lead to disproportionate police scrutiny on the basis of race or geography. The department defends the program, arguing that over 20% of the subjects they visited requested some kind of assistance, and that fewer than 10% were victims of violence after the visits. Illinois Law Prohibits Racial Profiling The Illinois Criminal Code of Procedure of 1963 lays out the law for police officers on arrest, search and seizure. In general, a police officer may arrest someone if they have:
Chicago Algorithm Could Be Unconstitutional Racial Profiling Although the Chicago Police Department has performed mass arrests of gang-related suspects, the “custom notification” meetings are not searches, seizures or arrests. This means that they do not require a search warrant or reasonable grounds for the officers to believe that the subject has committed a crime. Because the officers are requesting permission to enter homes or speaking to the subjects outside, the officers don’t need a warrant to justify forced entry. However, if the police department did use the algorithm or list to decide who to arrest without a warrant, this would be a due process violation: the rule requires that the officer have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime, not that they will commit a crime in the future. Likewise, if the algorithm was based entirely on race, and officers were to use it in deciding whom to detain, this would be a violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights. But even if race were one factor in the algorithm, it might still survive a court challenge. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been falsely arrested, you need expert legal help. Contact an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Independent Authority Recommends Fewer Shootings, More Warnings
The Chicago Police Department should tighten its rules on deadly force, according to a report by the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA). According to The Chicago Tribune, the quarterly report argues that the circumstances in which police officers are allowed to fire at suspects should be narrower. The IPRA thinks the Chicago police should aim to avoid shootings that fall within legal rules but may be avoidable nonetheless. Specifically, they recommend that the City revise its rule allowing officers to fire at fleeing felons. The rule should only allow such shootings when the police believe the felon is an immediate threat to the physical safety of police officers or others. They also recommend that police rules require warnings before officers fire their weapons and that police officers avoid drawing their guns unless they believe they will have to shoot. IPRA Is Soft on Excessive Force Other recommendations included making it easier for police disciplinary authorities to fire or suspend officers involved in shootings. The Chicago Police Department has rarely taken these steps. Only 3 of the 400 incidents in which police shot someone in the last decade have resulted in findings that the officer violated department use-of-force rules. Decatur Herald & Review reports that the IPRA itself recommends punishment in less than 4% of cases with sworn affidavits alleging police misconduct. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has promised to replace the IPRA with a more aggressive oversight body, but so far no concrete plans have emerged. The latest report may be a sign that the IPRA is trying to reform itself in order to avoid more drastic restructuring by the mayor’s office. Illinois Laws on Police Use of Deadly Force The law of the land requires that officers use deadly force only to protect against likely harm. In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court held that police officers couldn’t shoot at a fleeing suspect just because they were suspected of committing a burglary. It would only have been justified if they believed the suspect posed an immediate threat to someone’s safety. In that case, the suspect was unarmed and made no specific threats. Illinois courts have concluded that, in cases where a police officer suspects that a person has committed a forcible felony, the officer it is reasonable for the officer to use force, since the fleeing suspect poses an immediate threat to others. Chapter 5, Article 2 of the Illinois Criminal Code defines a “forcible felony” as including first and second degree murder, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnaping, or aggravated battery. Illinois courts tend to defer to the factual findings of internal police administrative reviews, except when those reviews seem obviously at odds with the evidence in front of the court. Will Police Rules Satisfy Illinois Courts? The standard the Supreme Court laid out in Garner is very broad, but protects suspects who do not pose any physical threat: police officers cannot fire weapons at such suspects. Chicago police are within Illinois law when they fire at a fleeing suspect if they believe that suspect committed a forcible felony, as defined by the Illinois Criminal Code. However, specific police department rules may require the officer to exhaust other methods of arresting the suspect without using lethal force. If the Chicago Police Department implements the recommendations of the Internal Police Review Authority quarterly report, then officers may need to give verbal warnings to suspects before using deadly force. If an internal review body decides that an officer has followed the departmental rules for use of deadly force, a court is likely to respect that finding, unless the evidence clearly contradicts the finding. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney If you or someone you love has been the victim of police brutality, you need expert legal advice. Contact an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today and get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Chicago Police Officer Kills Teen and Grandmother
The family of a dead Chicago teen are suing the Chicago Police Department for wrongful death and the commission of a hate crime, according to Reuters. The victim, Quintonio LeGrier, died on December 26, 2015, after Chicago Police Officer Robert Rialmo shot him. Officer Rialmo also accidentally killed 55-year-old Bettie Jones during the confrontation. LeGrier was 19 years old. Officer Rialmo Text Conversations Included Racial Language The family argues that Officer Rialmo had a racial motive in killing LeGrier. Quintonio LeGrier and Bettie Jones were both African American. The lawsuit alleges that before the shooting, Officer Rialmo exchanged texts with other officers that included racist language. The family is seeking damages under Illinois’ hate crime act, The Chicago Tribune reports. Rialmo’s lawyer argues that other officers used racist terms in the text messages, but that Rialmo did not. Rialmo also argues that LeGrier attacked him with a baseball bat, and that the use of lethal force was necessary under the circumstances. The lawyer characterized the racial terms in the text messages as “hip-hop language.” In addition, Rialmo is counter-suing the city for failing to properly train him on how to de-escalate violent confrontations with mentally ill persons. According to Rialmo, the shooting occurred after he responded to a call about domestic violence. Jones answered the door and pointed Rialmo toward an apartment. Then, LeGrier appeared in the doorway wielding a baseball bat. Rialmo fired his gun at LeGrier three or four times, killing LeGrier. He then discovered that Jones had received fatal wounds as well. Illinois Law Punishes Hate-motivated Crime Although numerous wrongful death lawsuits are ongoing in relation to police shootings across the country, the inclusion of a hate crime claim is unusual. The Illinois Criminal Code defines a hate crime as an assault, battery or criminal trespass, property damage, or harassment committed because of a person’s race, color, religion, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability. These are criminal laws. But to sue someone, there must be a civil law basis. The Illinois Code also provides that anyone suffering from a hate crime may bring a lawsuit against the person responsible if there has been physical damage to someone’s health or property. It provides that the victim can receive actual damages (money to compensate them for their injuries) as well as punitive damages (additional awards designed to discourage other potential offenders in the future). LeGrier Shooting May Be a Hate Crime In a lawsuit like the one against Officer Rialmo and the Chicago Police Department, it’s possible that the victim’s family could convince the court that the officer committed a hate crime. Because Officer Rialmo aimed a gun at LeGrier, the victims may argue that the officer committed an assault (threatening action) and battery (contact that causes an injury) against LeGrier. The more difficult questions is whether the officer had a racial motive in shooting LeGrier. This may depend on whether the jury believes that Rialmo had racist views based on evidence like his text message conversations with other officers. The court would also need to decide whether any racist views Rialmo held led to his decision to shoot LeGrier. Rialmo will likely argue that his real motive for shooting LeGrier was not the color of LeGrier’s skin, but the perceived threat of LeGrier hitting Rialmo with a baseball bat. If the court concludes that racism motivated LeGrier’s death, then the surviving family may receive both money to compensate them for the value of LeGrier’s life plus additional damages to discourage other possible offenders. Contact a Chicago Civil Rights Lawyer If you have been the victim of police misconduct, you will need expert help. Get in contact with an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney Hourihane today to get the compensation you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Police Shooting Cases Change Use of Force
Recent headlines could change the way police use force during arrests, according to the Chicago Tribune. Criticism of perceived racism and police brutality in the high-profile shootings in St. Paul, Minnesota and Baton Rouge, Louisiana has added tension to already strained police-community relations in Chicago. The video of the fatal shooting of Laquan Davis late last year led to protests and lingering anger against police. Some police officers believe the critical attitude toward police has lead to less “proactive” policing, such as traffic stops. Tension May Lead to Police Brutality However, today’s shooting of five police officers at a protest in Dallas, Texas underlines the danger facing on-duty police. In the past few days, several other attacks have occurred against police in Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri, possibly in response to the accusations of police brutality in Louisiana and Minnesota, the Huffington Post reports. It’s possible for this perceived threat to lead to more use of force in arrests if police overestimate the danger of the situation. This could lead, ironically, to more incidents of police brutality. The Law on Deadly Force in Illinois Even if the social and political environment has changed, the law still lays down strict rules on the use of deadly force by police officers. In Tennessee v. Gardner, the Supreme Court held that police may only use deadly force when the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others. The Illinois Criminal Code repeats this rule on the use of force and elaborates on the type of situations that might pose a threat of serious physical harm. One specific situation is where the person the officer wishes to arrest has attempted or committed a violent felony that involved serious physical harm to someone, and where that person is attempting to escape. The statute specifically states that the use of a chokehold during an arrest should be considered deadly force. A chokehold is any contact with the neck or throat that is meant to reduce the intake of air. No Unreasonable Use of Deadly Force But when is a police officer justified in concluding that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer? In general, a court will evaluate whether the police officer’s decision was reasonable in the context of the facts as they appeared to him or her at the time of the use of force. For example, if a suspect reaches into their pocket, the police officer may only conclude that this justifies the use of lethal force if the circumstances at the time justify it, according to what a reasonable person would think. Since there is no hard and fast rule about what a reasonable person might perceive as a threat of physical injury, there’s no clear line between justified and unjustified use of force during an arrest. Get Legal Help Have you or someone you know been the victims of police brutality? If so, you’ll need expert legal guidance to help you get justice. Contact a police brutality lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the help you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Chicago Man Arrested on Basis of Eyewitness Identification
A Chicago man was arrested today for a shooting in Evanston, according to the Chicago Tribune.The shooting took place in the parking lot of an IHOP this past Sunday morning. The suspect, Cornelius Jones, is accused of shooting a Beach Park man multiple times. Jones was identified from a lineup by the shooting victim. Police identified Jones as a suspect based on distinctive tattoos on his forehead. When the shooting occurred, police had an active narcotics investigation involving Jones. Police executed a search warrant at his apartment on Wednesday night. Jones was taken into custody. During the search, they discovered a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handgun with ammunition. They also discovered a small amount of marijuana. Jones is charged with aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and unlawful possession of cannabis. Bail was set at $250,000, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. When Lineup Evidence is Admissible at Trial Jones was identified using a lineup. Suspect lineups are subject to strict rules under Illinois law. The Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure sets out rules for several different types of lineups:
The person administering the lineup is not supposed to know who the suspect is and who the filler are. Otherwise, they might influence the process to bias the witness. If there are multiple eyewitnesses, they are not allowed to confer with one another. When identifying a member of the lineup, no two eyewitnesses should be present at the same time. Otherwise, they might influence one another’s judgment. The fillers must not be substantially different in appearance from the suspect. Otherwise, the witness might pick the suspect simply because he or she is the only person in the lineup that resembles the perpetrator. What to do when Lineup Evidence is Unfair Violating any of these rules could prevent the use of the lineup procedure as evidence. If some violation occurred, a defendant’s attorney may file a motion to suppress the identification. If the judge decides that the way the lineup was conducted was too suggestive and that it may have produced an unreliable identification, the results of the identification can be kept away from the jury. If the results of the identification are allowed into evidence, the attorney can attempt to convince the jury that they should disregard the results, since they were produced by a biased process. Contact a Chicago Civil Rights Lawyer If you or someone you know has been arrested, you need immediate legal help. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today, and defend your rights. See Related Blog Posts When thinking about criminal prosecutions, most residents are familiar with police investigation and trial. But what about after a conviction? There are many post-trial issues to understand after a person is found guilty of a crime.
Sentencing in Illinois If a defendant is convicted during a trial, or enters a guilty plea, the judge must determine the proper punishment, called a sentence. In many cases, especially for more serious crimes, there is a separate proceeding after the trial to determine the sentence. During this sentencing proceeding, the judge may weigh additional evidence to consider when sentencing. During this process, the judge receives a pre-sentence report with information about the defendant, including information about the family, background, and employment history. State officials develop, implements, and administers a range of recommended sentences for use by judges in criminal proceedings. Although the recommended sentences are discretionary (i.e., judges are not required to follow the guidelines when determining the length and type of penalty for a crime), there are sometimes specific rules that judges abide by in making their decision. For some crimes, the law may require a judge to impose a prison term no less than a predefined amount of time (called a minimum sentence). Minimum sentences differ according to the crime. Appeals in Illinois If a defendant loses his or her criminal trial, the defendant may appeal the decision to a higher court.
Throughout the appeals process, defendants have certain rights. It is essential that individuals facing criminal charges have adequate legal representation. Contact a Chicago Criminal Appeals Lawyer If you have been charged with a crime, it is critical to contact a skilled Chicago defense lawyer. Understanding your rights may be the difference between freedom and criminal prosecution. The experienced attorneys at Barney & Hourihane are dedicated to representing Illinois residents in all types of criminal matters, including appeals. Contact us today to schedule your free consultation. What is privacy?
Privacy means a lot of things, but in criminal court, and in the context of the 4th Amendment, it specifically means that an officer of the law cannot use evidence against you that he or she did not obtain through constitutionally approved search and seizure methods. These methods are complex and lend themselves to various interpretations, but essentially, they boil down to the following fundamental components: 1. An officer must have probable cause to perform a search. 2. If a search was illegal, then evidence seized cannot be used against someone unless an intervening event took place that would have created probable cause regardless of the illegal search (this is known as the “Attenuation Doctrine”) The 4th Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures and has been a cornerstone of our expectations of justice since its ratification in 1791. As part of the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment and subsequent interpretations of it, dictate the limitations on our country’s police authority to infringe upon on our freedom. Essentially, our founding fathers deemed privacy to be a basic human right constituting a major component of freedom. What are my Rights Regarding Unreasonable Search and Seizure? Monday, May 21, 2016, the definition of privacy was changed as traditionally understood in the context of the 4th Amendment. In Utah v. Strieff, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing drug evidence, which was found as a result of an illegal stop, to be used against the defendant in criminal court. The arresting officer suspected the defendant of illegal drug activity and followed him to a convenient store and asked for his identification without cause. During this illegal stop, the police officer ran the suspect’s name through the database and discovered that the suspect had a warrant out for his arrest for a prior traffic violation. Upon learning about the warrant, the police officer performed a search of the suspect and did indeed find illegal drugs on him. The officer claimed that the discovery of the warrant satisfied the Attenuation Doctrine, so even though the stop was illegal, information obtained because of the stop gave the officer probable cause to search and subsequently arrest the suspect. The evidence was then allowed in court resulting in the suspect’s incrimination. The Supreme Court agreed. There is of course the following argument: If John Doe has a traffic warrant out for his arrest, then he should be arrested. The polarizing issue here, however, is that the arresting officer suspected him of drug activity, and after performing an illegal stop, was able to use incriminating evidence found during the illegal stop. Essentially, the officer was able to justify the search based on a warrant for an unrelated traffic incident that he wouldn’t have known about except for the fact that he made the illegal stop. The concern is that an illegal stop can now become a means to an end, meaning a person abiding by the law now has a very different expectation of privacy. Not only has the interpretation of 4th Amendment changed in regards to a person’s basic freedoms, but we now must ask how what incentives remain in place for the police force to abide by the mandates of the 4th Amendment. What do I do if I suspect I’ve been illegally stopped and searched? It is critical to protect the delicate relationship between law enforcement officers and the rights of community members. If you experienced any violation of your civil rights as a result of police misconduct, contact Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case with a dedicated Chicago civil rights attorney. Police officers are empowered with certain rights and obligations to uphold and enforce the law. Society has recently called into question the age old notion of “protect and serve”. As more and more cases of police brutality are reported and spread across media outlets, debates over how much force an officer should use have ensued. While police officers have the right to use appropriate force to control dangerous situations, civil rights laws provide remedies when willful police conduct violates an individual’s civil liberties. The fine line rests between the appropriate amount of force and police misconduct in a particular situation.
Understanding the Rules The Chicago Police Rules and Regulations state that the use of reasonable physical force may be necessary in situations which cannot be otherwise controlled. Officers are permitted to use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm. The law also states that the use of excessive and unwarranted force or brutality will not be tolerated under any circumstances. In the wake of several recent cases of police misconduct, it’s important for Chicago citizens to understand legal rights and remedies when stopped and questioned by a police officer. Police officers cannot search your vehicle without permission. You have the right to ask for a lawyer and to be protected by your Constitutional rights. While citizens have the right to protection from misconduct, police officers have rights to stop and question suspects. Respect and cooperation is suggested. However, if your rights are violated, always write down the officer’s name and badge number. If you are injured, seek medical attention and take photos of the injury as soon as possible. Lawyers like [name of the client] can support you in your effort to seek remedy for violation of your rights Beyond mere remedial efforts, the City of Chicago is taking recent events into account as officials seek reform. In an effort to better scrutinize issues of police misconduct, Chicago passed a new mandate requiring police officers to issue “stop receipts” after approaching someone. This mandate, amongst law enforcement reforms, have bi-partisan support and the backing of police unions. These measures are a positive step in the path to justice. Chicago Civil Rights Attorneys If you or a loved one feel a police officers has used unjustifiable force in an encounter, please contact our office today to see how we can help. Our Chicago police misconduct lawyers have years of experience in police misconduct and civil rights cases. We will discuss the facts of your case with you and explore whether you may have a civil rights claim. It’s no secret that the city of Chicago has been having a difficult time trusting the Chicago PD. There has been a rise in police violence and more and more officers have been accused of misconduct. There are currently over one hundred misconduct cases being investigated by the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), and the citizens of the city are not happy. Last week, however, the IPRA did something unprecedented; they released the files of these misconduct cases online for the public to view.
The Release Police misconduct cases have been in the headlines more often than not lately, and this release comes as one of the first positive pieces of news. The country has been on high alert for reports of police brutality, and the citizens of Chicago especially so after the delayed release of the video that shows Laquan McDonald being shot. The release includes records from as far back as five years ago, and the public can now access videos, audio recordings, and early reports from all of these cases. The common theme seems to be the firing of a gun; if a firearm went off in the presence of a police officer, the record is now likely available. The videos include some graphic incidents. One shows a man who assaulted a bus driver being shocked with a Taser and shot by the police, and another shows a van coming onto the sidewalk at a group of officers who then fired at the vehicle, killing one of the passengers. Others show very little action, and include footage of officers waiting around or an empty parking lot. What This Means This release comes at a good time for Chicago. The increased level of transparency will help to improve the relationship between the PD and those who live in the city, which will in turn help improve morale as a whole. While most are praising this decision, some have found aspects that they find more harmful than helpful. For example, identities of witnesses could be made public if they are recognized either in the videos or audio clips, and due process could become an issue as these are still pending cases. Others think that the release was a good idea but have found issues with the details. The timing of the videos’ release is one concern, as some believe that the 60 day allowance for posting is too long. This release did not happen voluntarily on the part of the IPRA, however. The Police Accountability Task Force, a group hand picked by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, issued a mandate calling for the release. The interesting part comes next; not only did the Task Force issue the mandate, but they have recommended dissolving the IPRA as a whole. This is mainly due to the lack of confidence the public has in the group, as they do not have a good history of conducting their investigations. In fact, there is talk of the next group being comprised of independent civilians, which will hopefully increase the trust between the group and the public and overall bolster the PD’s reputation. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney This new level of transparency will hopefully help to improve the city’s relationship with its police department. However, if you or someone you know has questions or concerns related to this, contact us. Our attorneys can help you better understand these changes and discuss your cases. The statute of limitations is a key factor in any court case; it can truly make or break the case as a whole. In the case of Park Ridge Police Commander Jason Leavitt, for example, a Cook County judge ruled that the statute of limitations had run. However, this May, a panel of judges on the First District Appellate Court overruled that judge, and Leavitt is once again facing criminal charges for the alleged beating of two teenagers in 2006.
The Story Today, stories of police misconduct are all over the news, but it is rare to see something that happened ten years ago. One night in October, 2006, Leavitt was driving home from work in his civilian clothes when something shattered his back window. Two teenagers, whose names have not been disclosed due to their juvenile status at the time, had been shooting rocks at passing cars using their slingshots. According to the teens, Leavitt chased them as they ran, catching one and knocking him down. Leavitt then hit one boy in the head, knocking him down, then straddled him and continued to punch him. Another officer removed Leavitt, who then attacked the other teen as he was brought to the police car by more officers. Both of the teens filed federal suits in 2007, which were settled. Then, in 2009, prosecutors looked more closely at the case, fearing a police cover-up. Later in 2009, two days before the statute of limitations was to expire, Leavitt was indicted by a grand jury in Cook County, and the indictment was sealed. This is where it gets tricky; after this happened, prosecutors investigated the department for 13 months to see if other officers played a part in the alleged beating or in covering for Leavitt. In 2012, the Cook County judge found that the statute had run during that time period, and as such dismissed the charges. The appellate court, however, found that the investigation was a justified delay, that Leavitt’s ability to put on his case was not harmed, and therefore that the statute had not run and the case could continue. What This Means for Leavitt That brings us to today. The details of the incident have remained the same over the past ten years, and the teen who was knocked to the ground testified at the trial this May. While his story remains the same, he has admitted that he can not identify the person who assaulted him. He was the only witness to take the stand, though the officer who pulled Leavitt off the teen was petitioned to testify, and so the case is waiting for that to continue, most likely on June 15, 2016. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney The relationship between police officers and community members is a delicate one. It is built on trust and protection, and when a police officer violates that trust, a community can be thrown off kilter. In this situation, it is important for the officer to be charged and punished accordingly for his behavior. If you experienced any altercation or witnessed police misconduct, contact Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case with a dedicated Chicago civil rights attorney. |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|