Court rules public can't see list of cops with 10 or more complaints
Chicagoans likely will never see the names of the 662 Chicago Police officers with 10 or more complaints against them.
A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 that an independent journalist and 28 Chicago aldermen "lacked standing" to file a lawsuit asking to see the list because the case the list was compiled for has been settled.
"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.
The court "has effectively restricted press and public access to information about an issue of paramount public importance. It has weakened an important tool for challenging official secrecy. It's striking that the public's interest is scarcely mentioned in the 40-page opinion," said the journalist, Jamie Kalven.
But the Fraternal Order of Police, which fought the release of the names -- on the basis that most complaints against Chicago Police officers are eventually ruled unfounded -- called the ruling the right result.
"It's an appropriate ruling for all the reasons we objected to the disclosure: confidentiality; safety concerns and a misunderstanding by the public of what the allegations really were," FOP President Mark Donahue said.
A majority of City Council members made clear they wanted to see the names, but Mayor Daley said "No," ridiculed the aldermen, and made clear that the city's legal department would stick with him on fighting the release.
Police Supt. Jody Weis defied an order from a federal judge to turn over the names, but now that judge's order has been overturned, making Weis' actions moot.
Ald. Joe Moore (49th) said City Council members need to see those names. If the names remain secret, Moore 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: to determine whether it's unfair or, whether where there's smoke, there's fire."
The case started in 2004 when Diane Bond sued the Chicago Police Department, alleging mental and physical abuse over years. Kalven wrote about her situation for his website. As part of her case, the Police Department compiled the list of the most-complained-about officers.
A disproportionate number of the complaints were filed against members of the since-disbanded Special Operations Section, which was at the center of a burgeoning scandal that includes allegations of theft, kidnapping and murder-for-hire. But the complaints resulted in just one 15-day suspension and three reprimands.
Kalven and the aldermen wanted to see the list, though the Police Department fought the request and settled the case with Bond.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow ordered the Police Department and the city to release the files. Weis refused. Judge Diane Sykes called Lefkow's ruling "a mistake."
"Kalven has no injury to a legally protected interest and therefore no standing to support intervention. Neither do the aldermen," Sykes wrote.
Ironically, city attorneys never argued that Kalven and the aldermen lacked standing to seek the list of officers.
"Although the parties and the district court omitted this threshold inquiry, and the City did not raise the issue on appeal, we have an independent obligation to address it," Sykes wrote.
Judge John Tinder said he felt Kalven and the aldermen did have standing, but did not present adequate argument for overcoming the confidentiality order under which the list of names was entered.
Kalven is considering an appeal.