Old habits die hard
Wednesday, Jul 24, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Chicago police have for years compiled profiles on every citizen who spoke at public meetings of the city’s police disciplinary panel, a process that included running criminal background checks and internet searches on activists, a police union official and even relatives of an innocent woman killed in a high-profile police shooting, the Chicago Tribune has learned.
Documents obtained by the Tribune under a public records request show the Police Department gathered the details on nearly 60 people in advance of their speaking at monthly meetings of the Chicago Police Board since at least January 2018. A police spokesman said the background checks go back further, to at least 2013.
The checks appear to be extensive, with police searching at least one internal department database to determine if speakers have arrest or prison records, warrants outstanding for their arrest, investigative alerts issued for them by the department and even if they’re registered sex offenders or missing persons. Police also searched comments that speakers had previously made on YouTube or on their Facebook and Twitter accounts, among other internet sites, the documents show.
Among those subjected to background checks were a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted decades ago by a Chicago police officer, a community activist who gained prominence after the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald by a police officer and a 77-year-old man known for his frequent, flamboyant rants on a variety of topics at public meetings across the city. […]
The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said the practice harks back to the Police Department’s shameful Red Squad history of spying on political and other groups engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment, a practice that ended with a landmark court settlement in 1982 but stretched back in one form or another to the 1920s.
ACLU spokesman Edwin Yohnka noted how for years before the settlement was dissolved in 2009, Chicago officials had argued in court that the surveillance tactics were a thing of the past.
“This suggests that that’s not true,” Yohnka said.
With all the problems in the city, they’re using police time to run background checks on citizens who testify at an open meeting in front of a public body. Not only is it authoritarian, it’s wasteful.
- lakeside - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 2:59 pm:
So many bad apples they’ve had to move the sign up window to 15 minutes to make sure CPD isn’t bothering people. This story was awful.
- benniefly2 - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:18 pm:
CPD has a murder clearance rate south of 20% and yet they have time for this??? Ridiculous.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:26 pm:
Know there are bigger issues I can’t speak to as well as other commenters, but based upon the story it seems CPD didn’t run full background checks on the speakers. All criminal background checks are not created equal. (Bruce Rushton is finding that out as he pursues Jesse White about Candace Wanzo.) A full background check for speakers could violate federal law.
- Chicagobars - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:32 pm:
George Blakemore is 77?
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:43 pm:
Well it would be pretty embarrassing if a wanted criminal testified and they didn’t catch them. So I can understand simple checks to see if warrants are outstanding. No reason to see if they have a record though. That doesn’t prove anything.
- revvedup - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 3:46 pm:
Running background checks on citizens for these purposes also violates Federal and State laws on misuse of criminal justice databases (LEADS and NCIC), since such inquires are not for criminal justice purposes. It is way too far a stretch to consider a public meeting to be for criminal justice purposes, and inquiries are all logged by the FBI and ISP (date, time,terminal ID,purpose of inquiry, who requested, name checked, etc.). Somebody is in big trouble.
- @misterjayem - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 4:22 pm:
“Well it would be pretty embarrassing if a wanted criminal testified and they didn’t catch them. So I can understand simple checks to see if warrants are outstanding.”
If the Chicago police are now concerned about not embarrassing themselves, there are countless other places where they could begin.
– MrJM
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 4:48 pm:
CPD is broken. FOP is a horrendous enabler of all bad behavior by CPD. Rather than take the approach that there are a few bad apples who should be dealt with, they attack any and all comers who call them out. This inappropriate and possibly illegal use of their authority sadly does not surprise me in the slightest.
- Ebenezer - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 5:02 pm:
At what point do you dissolve the organization and start over?
Does anybody think the CPD sees its mission as to protect and serve?
You may be a fine person, but at some point the whole organization is so compromised you can no longer serve with honor.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 5:03 pm:
revvedup
IF the check was done for access to a public safety building, it might be allowable.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 6:58 pm:
===If the Chicago police are now concerned about not embarrassing themselves, there are countless other places where they could begin.====
I’m sure everyone would give them a pass because they already had public embarrassments.
- revvedup - Thursday, Jul 25, 19 @ 8:53 am:
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 5:03 pm:
revvedup
IF the check was done for access to a public safety building, it might be allowable.
No, it’s not allowable. Not even close for a meeting open to the general public in a public building merely on the off-chance you might catch somebody on a warrant. That’s like running names of everybody in a public park because somebody might be wanted. Good way to pick up a lawsuit by the victims of illegal inquiries also. The rule is “cops, courts, corrections” for criminal justice purposes ONLY. Their policy violates the law, as well as LEADS/NCIC rules having force of law. See also, for example the Illinois Criminal Identification Act 20 ILCS 2630/3(A) (”for the prosecution of the criminal laws”).
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Jul 25, 19 @ 9:38 am:
===Somebody is in big trouble.===
We’re talking about an organization that has difficulty firing employees that assist in the cover up of a murder by making false statements and destroying evidence.
These folks also intentionally disable their on board microphones in their squad cars.
I’m not sure we should expect to see consequences for these behaviors unless the public forces the criminal police racket to actually be held accountable.