* In the “There oughtta be a law” category, we have this…
It’s not necessarily a crime for a police dispatcher to warn drug dealers about law enforcement activity, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court overturned the conviction of Carmecita Williams, a dispatcher in the Chicago suburb of Glenwood, who was found guilty of official misconduct and sentenced to two years of probation. Prosecutors said she contacted the father of her son and alerted him to police activity that might have discovered his drug-dealing.
“So I’m not sure what agency, you know — if there’s FBI, DEA or ATF or whatever — but we just know there’s agents in the area,” Williams said in one of three calls that authorities recorded on July 12, 1998.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court called Williams’ actions “troublesome” but said they didn’t amount to official misconduct.
That’s because there was no specific law barring Williams from revealing what she knew about police activity, the court said. It clearly violated the police department’s rules, but that wasn’t enough.
* From the opinion…
As a final matter, we emphasize that our holding should not be interpreted as an approval of defendant’s conduct. The conduct here is certainly troublesome and unjustifiable. We hold that defendant did not commit the offense of official misconduct only because the confidentiality rules at issue here cannot be construed as “laws” under the statute. At oral argument, defense counsel asserted defendant may have been properly charged with other criminal offenses. We do not express any opinion on that point. We only hold that the circumstances presented by this case do not establish the offense of official misconduct.
Apparently what happened is that the police chief claimed the employee violated a rule, but the alleged rule was never voted on by the village board of trustees. No vote equals no “law.” No law violation equals no crime.
I think maybe somebody should now make this a crime.
Glenwood might also want to start vetting its dispatchers a bit better.
- Highland, IL - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 11:34 am:
Prediction: This case will be featured in the next round of JUSTPAC political commercials in their quest to control the Illinois Supreme Court.
- S - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 11:37 am:
Unbelievable. Well, not unbelievable, just sad.
Can you imagine being an officer risking your life to protect the neighborhood and catch those dealers, only to find out your own dispatcher sold you out?
Wow.
Meanwhile, I note the Illinois Appelate Defender’s office represented the dispatcher. If I’m not mistaken, that means tax dollars paid her salary and her defense.
Taxpayer-funded and taxpayer-defended moles for drug dealers.
Now that’s something you don’t see every day.
- WOW - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 11:38 am:
This is just proof that Illinois is good for small Business!
- Aaron - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 11:44 am:
Um wow. You would think there was a law against that but if not the court is certainly right.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 11:58 am:
Couldn’t they have charged here with obstructing justice or a slew of other charges? If there’s no explicit law here, then she can’t be charged with that specific law, but I can’t imagine there aren’t others that apply.
But yeah, Glenwood should maybe look at their employee screening process.
- Leroy - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 12:06 pm:
Wow…can’t wait to see what interesting new career paths *this* opens up.
- Wensicia - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
“Glenwood might also want to start vetting its dispatchers a bit better.”
Does this mean background checks should be done on every member of your family for certain jobs? Assuming she was married to the father of her son. If she wasn’t, how do you catch this?
- George - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
Couldn’t they have just brought other charges against her - instead of made-up ones?
Like aiding and abetting. Or obstruction of justice.
- dupage dan - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 12:51 pm:
To get a better picture about this, I would like to know if other municipalites have such specific regulations in place. It would seem to be a basic kind of thing, I would think. I suspect it exists elsewhere - I certainly hope so, anyway.
If Glenwood is unique in their failure to have such basic rules clearly listed then shame on them. Breathtakingly stupid. Truly breathtaking.
- wordslinger - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 1:20 pm:
Maybe she just needs more training.
- Carl Nyberg - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 1:49 pm:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a law. It’s called obstruction of justice.
Maybe the accused didn’t commit acts that satisfied all the elements of the crime. Maybe the state’s attorney failed to prove all the elements.
But I’m not persuaded that this is a shortcoming of the criminal code.
- Northsider - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 1:55 pm:
“There oughtta be a law”? Make it one. That’s a bill that should pass both houses unanimously, and be signed by Gov. Quinn immediately.
- I don't want to live in Teabagistan - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 2:14 pm:
You think Kilbride was proofreading his opinion for the last few months?
(I know, 7 justices joined him…)
- Muskrat - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 2:55 pm:
Conspiracy to commit narcotics offenses, based on an implicit or explicit agreement that she’d help cover up his dealing. But they could never convict unless one rolled on the other.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 3:39 pm:
As many have already pointed out, there are a number of existing laws that could have been used to prosecute this person. The dimwit prosecutor chose some unwritten law to file against this woman.
So, we don’t need any more laws, we need robust prosecution by competent lawyers who are willing to do their jobs and not take a lazy route out. This of course assumes I don’t need one of these
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
because my conspiratorial mind says that perhaps the bad case was filed because the parties concerned did not want the prosecution to succeed.
- girllawyer - Friday, Nov 19, 10 @ 4:40 pm:
There are not “other laws that could have been used” unless the facts fit the elements of the crime. It was not, for example, obstruction of justice. It might sound like it to a layman but if it doesn’t fit the elements, it isn’t. I’m looking at the statute (720 ILCS 5/31-4) and indeed, it doesn’t fit. I’m wondering how many of the commenters who are calling the prosecutors names and attacking their intelligence and work ethic have ever prosecuted a criminal case. It would be nice to think that commenters on this blog only comment when they know what they are talking about but these comments establish that is not the case. Obvioiusly, of all the crimes “on the books” this one seemed the most appropriate. Unfortunately, the Appellate Court concluded that it doesn’t quite fit. That is a problem with the law that can be corrected by the legislator. It is not a problem of stupid or lazy prosecutors.