A major topic in the city of Chicago recently has been the Chicago PD. More specifically, the corruption, brutality, and racist tendencies frequently exhibited by its police officers. The conversations came to a head this past year when Mayor Rahm Emanuel hid the video footage of the death of Laquan McDonald, and then kept the cop who shot him on the payroll for the following year. Even without Emanuel’s misstep, however, the police department has been facing scrutiny for their overall policies, practices, and mistakes. The community has lost its faith in the Chicago PD, and it is clear that changes need to be made.
Police Shootings The reputation of the police department has been called into question consistently over the past few years, as Chicago has seen a rise in crime and, in response, gotten more media attention. The death of McDonald on October 20, 2014 brought these issues to light again, as the officer charged with first-degree murder denied what had happened. Additionally, the other officers on the scene were accused of lying about the incident, and Mayor Emanuel hid the video for over a year. These facts did not surprise many Chicagoans, as such behavior has occurred in the past. This particular shooting death comes on the heels of many other police shootings across the country, and perhaps this is why the PD has come under such intense scrutiny. The country is on alert for corrupt cops who are trigger-happy and don’t face consequences for their actions. There is now a call for police departments to be reorganized in a way that will help the officers better protect us while following the law. For example, some believe the officers should be retrained in all areas, such as search and seizure, how to properly frisk, and the use of force and what is considered excessive. This would be a good place to start to build the PD’s reputation back up; at the very least, it would help for Chicagoans to see its officers trying a new tactic and attempting to make amends. Is Race An Issue? While the police department itself is quick to deny that race is a factor in the performance of their jobs, the numbers say otherwise. Black citizens in Chicago make up 72 percent of the street stops, and 74 percent of those shot over the past 7 years were black. Even Mayor Emanuel admitted to this fact after McDonald’s death, but quickly turned the focus on what they were going to do about it. Some suggestions included adding a Deputy Chief of Diversity to the department, releasing videos of incidents with 60 days, and generally being more transparent. The inclusion of these could help bolster their reputation, as citizens will be better able to understand what goes on and trust that the officers are doing their best. Need Legal Help? Cases involving police brutality or misconduct are becoming all too common. Each case is different, though, and often the facts can get confusing or overwhelming. Contact Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case with a dedicated Chicago civil rights attorney. For more information, see related blogs posts. It’s almost impossible to go literally one week without reading another story in the Chicago media about the city paying out another huge settlement in a police misconduct case. The latest settlement to get attention in Chicago newspapers and TV is for $3.2 million, but this is literally a drop in the bucket to what the city has paid out in recent year. Since 2004, the city of Chicago has paid out more than $500 million to settle complaints of police misconduct. And each of these latest claims alone has settled for more than $1 million.
So what police misconduct resulted in these latest settlements? Read on to find out. Chicago Police Shootings Continue to be a Problem Earlier this month, the City Council Finance Committee approved two misconduct settlements. The first is for $2.2 million, while the second is for $1 million. In the first incident, a 23-year-old man reportedly hit another vehicle and drove off while on his way to his overnight job at a sausage factory. Police claimed that after this initial hit-and-run the man forced a police cruiser off the roadway slammed into the back of another vehicle. Police then claimed that they blocked the man’s vehicle into an alley, and the man pinned one off-duty officer to the front of his car. Chicago police officers then fired 42 shots at the man, striking him 16 times. However, forensic evidence has raised serious questions about the account given by police officers. If indeed an officer was stuck by the man’s vehicle, he could not have fired his gun at him as he claims. In addition, tire tracks at the scene, purportedly from the suspect’s vehicle, appear to have to have been faked. Evidence later uncovered in the course of the lawsuit also showed that the off-duty police officer had been drinking before the incident, and Chicago police did not thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the suspect’s death. For example, rather than interview witnesses, one police officer submitted a report simply made up of a typed narrative from another officer. The second settlement, for $1 million, also included allegations of the police fabricating that evidence. In that case, a 27-year-old man under investigation for alleged involvement a cell phone theft ring, was shot by police after allegedly pinning a police officer between two vehicles. However, just as in the other case, forensic evidence called that official story into question. It actually appears as if the man may have been shot while fleeing the scene rather than harming a police officer. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Lawyer There is perhaps no greater breach of trust than when police officers ignore the law to injure or kill innocent people without provocation. But as these latest settlements illustrate, such activity is all too common in the city of Chicago. If your civil rights have been violated by police officers, you too may be entitled to compensation from the city. Contact Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case with a dedicated Chicago civil rights attorney. In the city of Chicago, allegations of police misconduct made by citizens are supposed to be investigated by the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA). This board is tasked with determining whether police officers are acting in accordance with the law, and it’s supposed to hold them accountable if they act out of bounds. Yet one recent study by the city found that the IPRA is chronically understaffed and underfunded. The IPRA can’t even fully investigate 40 percent of the complaints that come before it.
That has long led to many Chicago leaders calling for the IPRA to be disbanded and replaced with a civilian organization. Those calls have long been ignored, but in the wake of constant reporting on Chicago’s police misconduct epidemic, it looks like the city is now finally going to do something about the IPRA’s ineffectiveness. Emanuel Calls for Independent Board to Replace IPRA In a Chicago Sun-Times editorial published earlier this month, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wrote that it is time to replace the IPRA with a civilian board that will increase accountability and oversight of police officers in the city. Emanuel’s comments come in the wake of the release of a report from the Task Force on Police Accountability that he created. After a four a month report, the task force issued a report last month that also called for the current IPRA to be abolished. The report claimed that Chicago police have little regard for the rights of minority suspects. Emanuel did not previously introduce plans to replace the IPRA and claimed it was not part of his agenda prior to reviewing the task force’s report. The mayor was complimentary to toward the current leadership of the IPRA, but said that replacing it with an independent civilian board is necessary to rebuild trust between Chicago police and residents. He has also pledged to increase funding and resources for the board that replace the IPRA. Many of those critical have been supportive of the mayor’s plan. Still, it’s important to note that there are many unknowns about Emanuel’s plan. The mayor has not disclosed exactly what this new board will look like, who will be eligible to sit on it, or how it will be able to better investigate complaints of police misconduct. These details should be brought before the city council at an upcoming meeting, and while the initial proposal has found support, it still remains to be seen whether the council will embrace the details of the proposal. Chicago Police Misconduct Lawyer If the city of Chicago wants to rein in police misconduct, replacing the ineffective IPRA with a civilian board is a good step. However, it still doesn’t end the rampant police misconduct that many Chicago residents live in fear of, or compensate past victims for their injuries. If you believe Chicago police officers have violated your civil rights, an attorney may be able to make you whole ago. Contact Barney & Hourihane online or on the phone to discuss your case today. A recent decision from the Illinois Court of Appeals has strengthened protections for when police officers may enter a home without a warrant. As most Americans know, the Fourth Amendment requires that police officers get a warrant to enter someone’s home without permission, or at least have a very good reason to avoid this rule, such as a reasonable suspicion that someone’s life is in danger if they don’t enter.
Of course, whether the police are right to enter a residence without a warrant is rarely a clear cut issue. Sometimes police believe they have every right to enter a home without getting a warrant first, and if that action results in an arrest, the suspect may need to go to court to have any evidence police find suppressed, and making sure that decision is upheld can even require going before the appellate court. People v. Swanson In People v. Swanson, decided earlier this month, the defendant was coming home from a bar when he lost control of his vehicle on an icy road and crashed into a ditch approximately two miles from his home in Hinckley, Illinois. The airbags deployed and the man only cut his finger, but the vehicle would not start, so he locked his car and went to a nearby home for assistance. At the first home, the residents would not let the man home and even pulled a gun on him. No one was home at the second residence, so he decided to return to his own home. In the meantime, police officers found the abandoned vehicle and contacted the defendant’s wife to tell him that her husband and been involved in a car accident and could not be located. The man soon returned home, however, and his wife contacted dispatchers to let them know that he was safe. This was not enough for police officers though, who insisted on coming to the home to see for themselves. Stories conflict about what happened next, though it did result in the man being arrested and charged with driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an accident, and several other misdemeanors. The woman repeatedly insisted before the trial court that she did not give the police consent to enter her home, though police claim she did. The trial court sided with the woman, and granted the man’s motions to suppress evidence and rescind a statutory summary suspension of his license. The state appealed this ruling, but finding the woman to be credible and no applicable exception that would have allowed the police to enter without a warrant, the appellate court upheld the ruling of the trial court. Contact a Chicago Defense Appeals Lawyer Sometimes the ruling of a trial court is not enough to clear your name, and you must file an appeal to have evidence suppressed or get a conviction vacated. Criminal appeals are complex matters best handled by experienced Illinois appellate attorneys. If you’re considering an appeal in a criminal case, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation about your case. It’s well established that courts will not admit at trial evidence obtained through police misconduct. This means that police can’t coerce you into making a statement and they need to have reasonable suspicion to initiate a criminal investigation of you.
Courts have also long recognized claims for malicious prosecution, meaning that an individual or agency cannot use the court system to harass someone. For example, you can’t keep filing frivolous lawsuits against someone you don’t like just to make them go through the time and expense of continually going to court. But what if police misconduct is so egregious that it goes beyond merely a momentary illegal search? What if the entire investigative process is tainted? Does such activity allow you to pursue a civil rights action for malicious prosecution against police? That’s the question that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon answer. Manuel v. City of Joliet In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Manuel v. City of Joliet. In Manuel, the plaintiff, who is black, was stopped by several white Joliet police officers. The officers allegedly used racial slurs and accused the man of possessing ecstasy tablets. The man told the police they were lying and he only possessed vitamins. Over the course of seven weeks, the man remained in jail, and police officers testified in court that the man possessed illegal drugs. Finally, a test of the pills revealed that the pills were in fact completely legal vitamins, and the man was released. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have held that the man could not sue for malicious prosecution, but other circuits have upheld similar claims. In Manuel, the plaintiff is arguing that a malicious prosecution claim attaches when the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure is violated. The Seventh Circuit has previously held that the right to not be victimized by malicious prosecution is actually a due process right, and so a viable claim does not arise until judicial proceedings have begun. The argument may seem academic, but the consequences could have a big impact on civil rights lawsuits. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiff in Manuel, it will open the door for malicious prosecution claims against police departments. If it rules against him, then those claims can only be pursued against plaintiffs and prosecutors. While the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, it has not yet set a date for oral arguments. However, a decision is expected by the end of the year. Contact a Chicago Civil Rights Lawyer Civil rights law is constantly changing. What courts may not recognize as a viable claim today could be the basis for a lawsuit tomorrow. Or a unique new case could be the basis for a change in established case law. If you believe the actions of police or another government agency have violated your civil rights, contact Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case with an experienced civil rights attorney. For most people who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime, the most pressing concern is to have their conviction vacated so that they can be freed from prison or otherwise avoid a sentence. However, in some cases that doesn’t go far enough. Sometimes it can be so obvious that police acted unjustly and so much of a person’s life can be lost to a wrongful conviction that the only recourse is to pursue a civil lawsuit for violation of civil rights, as a recent case illustrates.
Fifteen Years in Prison for a Murder He Didn’t Commit Earlier this month, the Chicago Tribune ran an article about a Waukegan man who was found guilty in 1999 for the murder of a mentally disabled Kane County woman. At the time, the man admitted to police that he beat the woman before dumping her body in a woman area, but forensic evidence that came to light last year showed that the woman had lightly been abused for weeks before she died, and her injuries were not consistent with how the man killed her. The defendant had no prior relationship with the woman. In fact, the defendant’s “confession” was an egregious case of police misconduct. Police officers refused his requests for an attorney to be present during his interrogation, and repeatedly threatened him until he confessed to a version of the crime that they fabricated. Other witnesses in the case claim that they were similarly intimidated by police to cook up a false version of events. Last year, the man was released from prison, and Lake County has issued him a certificate of innocence. That has paved the way for him to file a civil lawsuit in federal court against the officers involved in his case on the grounds that they violated his civil rights. The case illustrates serious questions about how police in both Waukegan and Chicago handle felony cases The Chicago Tribune reported that defendants in six major felony cases in Waukegan have been exonerated since 2010 after forensic evidence came to light proving their innocence. The city has paid out more than $27 million to resolve civil rights cases involving police misconduct since 2006. And Waukegan is second only to Chicago when it comes to wrongful convictions. But the most troubling allegation in the Waukegan case is how widespread police misconduct may have been there. In his lawsuit, the newly exonerated man claims that it was a common practice for police at the department to coerce confessions and fabricate evidence, and in many cases police officers were promoted for that conduct. Contact a Chicago Civil Rights Attorney If police have used faulty evidence to convict you of a crime that you didn’t commit it, you don’t have to accept this unjust verdict. Illinois law allows several paths to clear your name in appellate court. And in addition to winning your freedom, you may also be able to pursue a lawsuit against the police for violating your civil rights. To discuss how to file an appeal and pursuing a civil rights lawsuit, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. A lawsuit alleging that a Cook County sheriff’s deputy used excessive force against a suspect illustrates again how civil lawsuits are often the only legal recourse that many people have following incidents of police brutality.
Punched and Kicked for Doing Nothing Wrong The federal lawsuit was filed by a 50-year-old Chicago man arrested in 2013 on cocaine charges that were later dropped, and is backed up by surveillance video from the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. While the video tape doesn’t contain any sound, the man admits that while in custody he responded to a question from the deputy with an expletive. That might have been disrespectful, the resulting actions by the deputy were truly outrageous. The deputy kicked the man to the ground, and then continued to punch and kick him while he lay in the fetal position. Eventually, the deputy handcuffed the man and dragged him out of his cell. Video Evidence but Little Action From Authorities Shockingly, the deputy in the video has not faced any punishment for his actions. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office declined to press charges, stating that it would be too difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the deputy used excessive force. A complaint was filed with the sheriff’s office, but that also hasn’t resulted in any punishment for the deputy’s actions sticking. While the deputy was initially fired, his termination was reversed by an internal Merit Board that reviews allegations of misconduct by sheriff’s deputies. The Merit Board found that the suspect was resisting arrest. A Cook County judge also sided with the Merit Board, but the Sheriff’s Office has now taken that decision to the Illinois Court of Appeals. The deputy continues to collect a salary. Pursuing Excessive Force Lawsuits As this latest case from Cook County shows, often a civil lawsuit is the only remedy for suspects who have been victimized by police misconduct. This typically involves filing a lawsuit in federal court alleging that your civil rights have been violated, and demanding monetary compensation from the police department or sheriff’s office. However, there may be difficulties in proving that how a police officer acted indeed constituted excessive force. Excessive force claims are judged on a case-by-case basis against how a hypothetical reasonable police officer in the same situation would have acted. This can make it difficult to establish excessive force in cases where a suspect has acted violently, but in clearer cases where a suspect has done nothing to provoke officers and suffered serious injuries, large monetary awards have been paid out by law enforcement agencies in settlements or jury verdicts. Contact a Chicago Police Abuse Attorney Police officers have tough jobs, and sometimes they do have to use force to apprehend suspects. However, police are never authorized to beat and abuse suspects. When police use excessive force, it can result in lifelong injuries, and departments are usually unable or unwilling to do anything to punish bad cops. If you’ve been victimized by police brutality and are considering a lawsuit against law enforcement officers in Cook County, contact Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case. Courts have long recognized the civil right of the accused to have counsel present during custodial interrogations. If you are suspected of a crime and the police bring you in for questioning, they must end the conversation if you ask for an attorney. This is one of the hallmarks of the well-known Miranda warning police must recite in the course of an arrest.
Curiously though, the right to counsel doesn’t automatically extend to minors in all cases in Illinois though this population is the among the most vulnerable for self-incrimination. However, a new law may soon change that. When Minors Do and Do Not Have the Right to Legal Counsel in Illinois Under the current law, any minor under the age of 13 must have an attorney present if police wish to question him or her about a murder or sex crime. If the minor says anything to police without an attorney present, it will not be admitted at trial. While this law is good for extremely young defendants, it has long left those between the ages of 13 and 18 out in the cold. This group is more likely to be accused of a serious crime than extremely young defendants, and may not fully understand the legal consequences of speaking with police officers. Senate Bill 2370 now looks to change that, however. As it currently stands, the bill would require an attorney to be present anytime someone under the age of 18 is questioned about any crime, not just the most serious offenses. Any sort of oral or written statement made while outside the presence of legal counsel would be inadmissible in court unless a prosecutor could show by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was reliable and made voluntary without any coercion from police officers. In addition, minors could not waive the right to counsel under any circumstances. The law would also broaden the definition of what constitutes an interrogation for a minor to include any situation in which the minor would reasonably believe that he or she is in police custody and which might elicit an incriminating response. The bill has garnered more than a dozen co-sponsors on the Illinois Senate, and amendments added to it in committees have only strengthened its protections for minors accused of crimes. The bill is scheduled for a third reading in the Senate in May. Chicago Defense Lawyer The right to counsel is one of America’s post important constitutional rights, and should be extended to minors in all circumstances. If you ask for an attorney to be present while being questioned by police and officers refuse to provide you with counsel, anything you say may be barred from evidence at trial, and this could be used as grounds for an appeal of your conviction. For more information about the right to counsel and the appeal process in Illinois, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation about your case. One of the most dramatic moments in crime TV shows or movies is when a victim is brought the police station to pick an assailant out of a lineup. Lineups are not quite as common in real life, but they are sometimes part of police work. However, lineups have also been known to be the source of many wrongful convictions. So to protect the constitutional rights of defendants, Illinois has put a series of laws in place directing the specific procedures that police must follow when conducting a lineup.
Illinois Requirements for Police Lineups Under Illinois law, police officers may conduct either photo lineups or live lineups in which several people who match the description given by the victim are brought in for identification. Photo lineups usually include at least six photos, if not several more. Typically, only five or six people with similar appearances are brought in for a live lineup. Several amendments to the law that went into effect in 2015 now require police lineups to meet the following requirements:
Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney Police lineups can be a useful investigative technique, but the law is clear that police must follow certain very specific procedures when conducting these lineups to ensure they are not overly prejudicial toward a suspect who may be innocent. If you’ve been convicted of a crime largely based on a faulty police lineup, you may be able to get your conviction overturned on appeal. For more information about police lineups and the appeal process in Illinois, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today to discuss your case with an attorney. Think about your savings for a moment. Whether you’ve just saved up a few hundred dollars for a rainy day, or a nest egg of tens of thousands of dollars, this is important money. And it’s your money. Legally earned and taxed. Now imagine that you’ve done nothing wrong, but the government takes this money and won’t give it back. And then the fight to get back this money goes on for more than a decade. It doesn’t sound possible in the modern American judicial system, yet that’s the exact position that a Chicago man has found himself in for 13 years now.
A Shoebox Full of Cash and the DEA It’s uncontested that the government can seize money related to a crime. If you’re involved in drug dealing or rob a bank, you’re going to lose this money, and there’s not much an attorney can do about it. However, federal law has been expanded in recent years to also give the government the power to confiscate money remotely suspected of being involved in illegal activity. And then the burden is on the defendant to prove his or her innocence to get that money back. The Chicago Sun-Times recently detailed the unusual case of a Chicago real estate developer who, after destroying his credit in college and finding himself unable to open a bank account, began keeping his cash in a shoebox. In all, he saved up about $101,000 in cash over the course of several years. In 2002, the developer gave this cash to a trusted friend to travel to Seattle in search of a new restaurant venue. The friend bought a one-way ticket at Union Station, which raised a red flag for DEA agents who said this was the type of suspicious activity that drug dealers are typically engaged in. The agents spoke with the friend on the train. The government claims the friend gave them permission to search the bags, but this is disputed. Prosecutors also say that a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the presence of narcotics in the bags, but other than this, there is no evidence of any illegal activity. No drugs were found, and there has been no other indication that either the developer or his friend were involved in any illegal activity. The developer has won several victories in court already to get his money back, but also lost on some issues as well. Earlier this year, at a trial, a jury found in the government’s favor. But the developer is now appealing, and it looks as if this case is far from over, especially given how much money is on the line. Contact a Lawyer Law enforcement should never be able to confiscate your legally obtained property. If police or federal agents are holding a large amount of your money that was not connected to any crime, you need an attorney on your side who will put up a fight to get this money back for you. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|