News-Gazette files new bid for officers' names
CHAMPAIGN — The News-Gazette has refiled a Freedom of Information request, asking the city of Champaign for names of police officers against whom citizens have filed complaints during the past five years.
It is the newspaper's next step in what has become a nearly 15-month-long process to obtain the records. The fresh records request was filed on Tuesday, a week after the city informed the newspaper that it would not comply with an advisory opinion from the state's public access counselor.
The process started when the newspaper submitted the original request on March 31, 2010. Just more than two weeks later, the city released five years' worth of citizen complaints against its police officers, the dates and circumstances of the complaints and their dispositions, but the city redacted the names of the officers against whom the complaints were filed.
The News-Gazette asked the state's public access counselor to review the city's partial denial.
The public access counselor, whose office was created to enforce the state's open records and open meetings laws as well as review government agencies' denials of records requests, spent nearly a year investigating the matter.
In March 2011, the office determined that the city did not prove the information to be exempt from disclosure under the law and that city officials must release the officers' names.
City officials had been discussing how to address the public access counselor's opinion and, in a June 21 letter, informed The News-Gazette that they would not be releasing the records despite the state ruling in the newspaper's favor.
"In this case, the city disagrees with the PAC's interpretation of the FOIA and has decided not to comply with the advisory opinion of the PAC," Deputy City Attorney Trisha Crowley wrote in her letter.
Crowley wrote that releasing complaints filed against officers who were later found to have done their jobs properly could have serious implications for the individual officers and the department as a whole. Those complaints could be used against officers who have, in reality, done no wrong, and it could create a perception of the department as the oppressor rather than the protector, she wrote.
"Because of these conflicting impacts, the more open and easy the City makes the process of filing a complaint, the more we need to be concerned with releasing the names of officers against whom complaints have been filed," Crowley wrote.
"Our efforts recently have been to try to make the process easier for people to file complaints. That, it seems to me, means we also have to make the process of releasing the names against whom complaints have been filed more limited, while complying with any requirements of the FOIA."
According to the records the city released last year, 291 complaints had yielded a decision in the previous five years. Of those, 81 complaints were "sustained," meaning the officer had acted improperly to varying degrees, from applying excessive force to using profanity.
Because of the time lapse between the newspaper's asking for a review and the public access counselor's ruling, the opinion issued in the newspaper's favor was advisory and did not bind the city to any specific action. According to the law, binding opinions must be issued within 60 days of the initiation of the review.
"We don't think it happens very often that a public body doesn't comply with a PAC decision," said Natalie Bauer, spokeswoman for the public access counselor.
The office's first 18 months in existence was significantly focused on educating public officials on the intricacies of the law, Bauer said.
"I would generally say that most public bodies want to comply with the law, but most of the time it's a lack of awareness," she said.
A revision to the law, which has been approved by the Legislature, should help the office out from under a pile of requests and allow officials to focus more time on issuing binding opinions, which compel a government agency to release records it had previously denied, Bauer said.
She said that if a public body initially disregarded a ruling, the public access counselor may be more inclined to issue a binding opinion the second time.
The clock started ticking on the new request for the officers' names Tuesday, and the city has up to five business days to respond to the newspaper. Should city officials deny the request, the newspaper may ask for a new review from the public access counselor.
MoreKeeping in mind that anyone can file a complaint for ANY reason, no matter how frivolous, I'd be much more interested in obtaining a list of the people who filed the complaints. Having a complaint filed against you has no verifiable bearing on the character of the one having the complaint filed against them, but it tells volumes about the character of the one who did the filing.
NG, without both lists your request is meaningless.
"Crowley wrote that releasing complaints filed against officers who were later found to have done their jobs properly could have serious implications for the individual officers and the department as a whole. Those complaints could be used against officers who have, in reality, done no wrong, and it could create a perception of the department as the oppressor rather than the protector, she wrote"
This is a classic example of police officers being placed above normal citizens. If a person is arrested for any crime and then found not guilty or if the case is thrown out, their case is still listed for everyone to see on the Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website. They have to go through an extensive process to have it removed. So why is it if a complaint is filed against an officer that we as citizens do not have the right to know about it? Police officers are just people with a job, just like normal folks and they cannot be placed above the general public. That is when police misconduct and abuse of power will start. Officers are paid and work for the public, we deserve the right to know if complaints have been filed against them regardless if the complaint was found to be valid or not. Repeated complaints against the same officer (even if he/she) is found to have done no wrong may still indicate a problem exists within the department.
Crowley has it wrong and those complaints need to be released. NG - keep pressing this issue.
The system of judging complaints against officers is inherently rigged -- other cops investigate and make the judgement. Most are dismissed but that doesn't mean most complaints are frivolous, it just means that cops tend to let other cops off the hook. We only need to look at recent local history to verify this. We need a citizen review board.
I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption by John. Police are naturally going to protect each other -- after all, the guy you talk about today could be the one who's got your back in the shootout with the bank robber tomorrow. You won't find evidence of it, of course. Cops don't fill out internal review forms with "Benefit of the Doubt" stamps. But I do agree that we need some kind of citizen review board. What are the police afraid of? I for one am not going to get up in arms if a cop swears while he's wrestling some thug to the ground. It's a tough business and I think most people will allow for a little less than refined behavior. It's the really bad apples we're concerned about, and the system right now doesn't necessarily weed them out.
You're absolutely right, ronaldo, but what do we have other than assumptions when the police don't release information? I'm not saying we're going to uncover a scandal. I'm just saying that anyone legally authorized to arrest or shoot people should be subject to a little public scrutiny. And if bias is your chief concern with a citizen review board, then you should really hate the current system.
Because I have personal experience with it and know it to be a sham, at least in the case I was involved in, which was actually with the university police force not the CPD. And again, recent local history shows how cops circled the wagons around one of their own who was extremely drunk and driving down a highway in the wrong direction. Your attempt to equate collegial review of alleged misconduct with peer review of scholarly work is way off the mark. Why not have a citizen review board? What's the argument against it?
I have a real problem with this information it's call a Right to Privacy those officers deserve to be protected from government FOIA. I don't believe names should be released at all, maybe badge numbers which can always change after the this newspaper gets what it wants. This request only has to do with one thing making a good police department look bad. I don't consider using profanity to be a complaint which should be addressed. Because Police, Freeze AH is better than halt police. The top officials have a lot more to deal with than crap. I think the officers union or legal body could come back on the city for releasing the information. The only thing this news paper needs to run is an article with the City's Number of Complaints vs The Crime index something this newspaper has been shady on and how it conducts themselves with the police in general by only reporting a few stories. The bigger picture is crime has been up but when you can't do your job because of media and fear of complaints against you because of this information being released presents a real problem. To those in Blue I support you, I know that you have one of the hardest jobs and this just hampers the justice system. Maybe the news paper should take a look at Julia Rietz State's Attorney record on letting those responsible for attacks on every day people lose just so it can happen again this summer.
The News-Gazette posted a copy of the letter that Crowley wrote, and I think it's a good idea to download and to read the enclosed document..
In the attached document the lawyer cites a case where, "The effectiveness of a city's police department depends importantly on the respect and trust of the community and on the perception in the community that it enforces the law fairly, evenhandedly, and without bias. If the police department treats a segment of the population of any race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual preference, etc., with contempt, so that the particular minority comes to regard the police as oppressor rather than protector, respect for law enforcement is eroded and the ability of the police to do its work in that community is impaired. Members of the minority will be less likely to report crimes, to offer testimony as witnesses, and to rely on the police for their protection. When the police make arrests in that community, its members are likely to assume that the arrests are a product of bias, rather than well founded, protective law enforcement. And the department's ability to recruit and train personnel from that community will be damaged."
In other words, if the majority of citizen complaints are revealed to have come from a specific demographic, then it lends to the perception of the police department as the oppressor. The way the above article is written, it appears as if releasing the names of officers would have added to that perception. Pages seven and eight of the document shows a small sample of the complaints filed, and it appears that many of the individuals who filed happened to be African American. If the data were to show that a disproportionate number of complaints came from minority residents, that can certainly have an impact on public perception of the police department. This data also appears to be available without releasing the names of the officers involved in the complaint process.
My impression is that, on behalf of the city, Crowley was expressing some other concerns regarding releasing the names of officers who have received complaints. In particular, there was some concern that the information may be used against an individual officer testifying in a criminal court case. Additionally, there is some concern that an officer might be targeted by civilians in the course of doing their jobs. This is explained on page three of the letter. I wonder if the NG would be willing to publish the names of officers who have had complaints filed against them, even after an internal investigation indicates no wrongdoing.
The NG should absolutely publish the names of officers whose complaints were resolved with a determination of no violation of law or professional practices. They publish the names of people arrested for crimes who have not yet been convicted. Your character/good name should not be the press's concern. Their job is to report; not bow to others' public relations concerns. If the majority of complaints come from the African-American community, that does not create the perception of oppression, it is a substantial indicator that police/city relations with this segment of our community is an area in need of improvement. Data is data; it is how it is interpreted and reviewed that matters.
Absolutely! A very wise person once told me you should never write, say, or do anything you are not comfortable having on the front page of the news paper. Good words to live by in the digital age. If you wrote a complaint, your name should also be released. There is no 'Right to Privacy' expressly detailed in our constitution as the someone else posted (not you ronaldo, just wanted to reference the point). The 'Right to Privacy' is a construct that has been created through judical interpretation and has been relatively confined to specific areas such as health care, and other sensitive matters that have no bearing on government or public policy. Basically, if you work for the government, never assume that your personnel record is private.
I think if I were a part of the Champaign Police Department I would tell the NG to go pound sand. They under the law and 1st amendment right have no right to the names of the officers as long as the data is provided by the Champaign Police Department Chief Finney I believe released the information back 2009 report. The only reason the NG wants names of officers is so that they can harass and obstruct justice. Instead of taking on the real issues in the community. If your and officer you need to talk to your legal rep and supervisor and express your concern over this issue. Express how it violates you rights under the 4th amendment and that you will seek actions against the NG and others if your name is released. http://ci.champaign.il.us/departments/police/police-reports-and-statistics/
Read Patriots post immediately preceding yours. Harassment, plain and simple, although I'm shocked that the NG would want to expose our law enforcement community, those with arguably the most difficult jobs around, to this. There is no other valid reason. This reeks of the same stench associated with the failed attempt of the looney left gun-grabbers suing to have the names of the law-abiding gun owners names released via their lapdog Lisa Madigan. Harassment, nothing more. Nothing less.
A judge in Springfield recently ruled that police misconduct records are public information.
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1595581211/Judge-again-rules-that-polic...
While I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns expressed by the city, I am also of the opinion that public servants need to be accountable to the public that is served. The City of Champaign may be withholding this information illegally, and we need to hold our public officials accountable.
That may be true but how can you say misconduct by an officer before the investigation is complete. NG wants names of all officers that have complaint whether they are found later to be clear of any wrong doing. Is that fair? I bet there would be no follow up by the NG at a later date showing the results of the investigation if in fact the officer was cleared.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.