Police in Chicago Aren't Easy to Fire

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:10:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Civilian oversight of police departments isn't always a useful mechanism for ridding a department of bad cops. Superintendents in the Chicago Police Department asked the Chicago Police Board to fire 80 officers between 2003 and 2007. The nine member board, appointed by the mayor, dismissed just 21 of them.

Some of the board's decisions are difficult to understand. Officer Gerald Callahan, an alcoholic and manic depressive, cost the city $15,000 after he handcuffed a bartender who refused to serve him. By itself, that incident and the settlement it provoked might have warranted discipline short of discharge. But when Callahan got out of rehab and was about to return to work, supervisors smelled alcohol on his breath. He became abusive when they asked him to submit to a breathalyzer. Callahan had been suspended twice before. How many chances does he deserve? Yet the Police Board decided he deserved yet another suspension, not termination.

[more ...]

Other examples of officers who received suspensions when their supervisors wanted them fired:

• An officer who received a three-year suspension for accidentally shooting a homeless man in what the officer said was a carjacking.
• Two officers who were later charged criminally in federal court, one for unrelated weapons violations and another for the on-duty beating of a man in a wheelchair.

• An officer who allegedly printed 13 photos of a woman from the Police Department's arrest database and gave them to a friend who was later convicted of attempted murder for shooting her and another man.

Disregarding the presidency and the president's political appointees, in what other line of work could an employee behave so irresponsibly and not be fired?

< Maryland Considers the Risk of Wrongful Executions | Sunday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Police in Chicago Aren't Easy to Fire | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Apparently not in Alaska either (5.00 / 11) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST

: This is soooo very ironic. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST

Well, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by LatinoVoter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST

Officer Gerald Callahan, an alcoholic and manic depressive, cost the city $15,000 after he handcuffed a bartender who refused to serve him.

In the incident in Niles he beat two patrons for no apparent reason. He did more than handcuff a bartender.

Alaska State Trooper?

A professional atlete or Radio announcer (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by ding7777 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM EST

I'm going to suggest two reasons (none / 0) (#4)
by jccamp on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:47:12 PM EST

Internal Affairs is considered the worst assignment on most departments. The peer pressure is terrific. No one wants the job, except the occasional misifit who dislikes everyone else anyway. If an otherwise socialized cop gets sent to IA, he tends to let the other cops off. In either event, the investigations are typically shoddy and biased. Police witnesses are evasive or even untruthful. Management needs to somehow bring internal investigators back into some acceptance by the other workers. Unfortunately, internal investigations are far from a priority in most departments. If anything, management usually tends to discourage effective self-policing, because scandals usually equate to short tenure for management.
Police unions have the "defend them all" mentality, regardless of allegation or weight of evidence. This often means inexperienced or stupid investigators (see #1) end up being confronted at hearing boards by smart and experienced attorneys. It's usually a mismatch.

: Depends on the law enforcement (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST

agency. In some, assignment to IA may be a route to upper management if the investigator does a thorough job and is respected for his or her work. The investigator doesn't make the decision; just does the investigation and writes it up.

The investigator will never (none / 0) (#7)
by jccamp on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST

make a disciplinary recommendation. The theory is the investigators make a factual determination, then management makes a decision on appropriate sanctions. And true, in some agencies IA is one way to a command track. Which makes the alienation even worse. The investigators are seen as acting to the detriment of other officers for purely selfish reasons - advancement.

I have never experienced or even heard about anywhere that IA is treated with anything but loathing by the rank and file. The only exception would be when IA is in bed with the rank and file, and whitewashes all.

T-Chris (none / 0) (#8)
by Patrick on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST

How about some balance in your hate the police posts?

Patrick (none / 0) (#9)
by TChris on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM EST

I do not hate the police. Some of my best clients have been police officers. But this blog is about the politics of crime which includes the politics of policing. It isn't about the heroism of individual police officers, which I readily acknowledge. There are other blogs and websites devoted to the celebration of law enforcement. This isn't one of them.


That all sounds (none / 0) (#10)
by Patrick on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:09:02 PM EST

good till someone looks at your posts. Blaming the murdered officer in the Corey Maye case, repeating as fact, proven lies etc. I know this site isn't about the individual heroic efforts of police officer, but when one focuses on only the negative in any subject matter it tends to skew their perception. I thought this officer's action deserved public exposure.


I've taken exception to (none / 0) (#11)
by jccamp on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST

some (actually, lots) of the posts from TChris, but this is not one of them. It's a genuine issue that seemingly, no one has found a solution for.
How much really bad case law has been established because of cops who should have been fired years before their defining moment(s)? How many decent officers have to live under the shadow of their less reputable colleagues? How much management abuse in labor relations (in law enforcement) exists because police unions defend obviously unsuitable officers to the bitter end?

Sorry. I started to rant.


: I agree (none / 0) (#12)
by Patrick on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST

And actually agree that it is sometimes too difficult to get rid of the bad cops. But that's the fault of the unions and government bureacracy most of the time, not a thin blue line or corruption. I realize my post was off-topic to some extent, and wasn't meant as a specific counter to this issue.