Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Top DUI cop is allegedly a brazen serial fabricator

Posted in:

Illinois

* This case is just bizarre…

The Cook County state’s attorney’s office has dropped more than 150 DUI cases in which indicted Chicago cop John Haleas was the arresting officer, officials said.

In all, 156 misdemeanor DUI cases have been dropped, said John Gorman, a spokesman for the state’s attorney. In some of the cases, non-DUI charges against the defendants remain, he said.

Haleas, 37, faces felony charges of perjury, official misconduct and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying and falsifying reports about a DUI arrest in April 2005. According to a grand jury indictment, Haleas falsely reported he gave a defendant various field sobriety tests.

* More…

In April of 2005, two prosecutors joined Officer Haleas for a ride-along as he pursued people driving under the influence. The prosecutors claim Haleas failed to follow basic procedure, including failing to inform drivers of the consequences of refusing a breathalyzer exam, failure to observe a suspect for at least 20 minutes and failing to give the driver a field sobriety test. However, prosecutors say the police report Officer Haleas filed indicated he did all of those things.

* More…

Charged separately are officers Michael Bernichio and Daniel Murphy, partners from the Chicago Lawn District who have been charged with official misconduct and other offenses. Haleas, Bernichio and Murphy each face up to five years in prison if convicted.

* And the kicker…

The Schaumburg-based Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists honored Haleas three times as the police officer with the most DUI arrests in Illinois.

* I’m wondering if you think there are broader lessons to be learned here.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 9:06 am

Comments

Absolutely. DUI is serious and requires serious sanctions. Those sanctions should probably be much stronger than they are. However, when the sanctions can impact violators and their families in as many ways as they now do, there must be extensive defendant safeguards-video of warnings etc. Also, the well intentioned victims groups really need to rethink the concept of awarding the “best” police. A good police does not need rewards-if there is a violation pursue it, if not don’t. This same concept applies to many other things like judging the Medical Discipline Board on how many licenses they yank-this is done by national and local “victims” groups. The license should get whacked when the statutory standards and the facts say so-not to generate statistics that some group will enjoy. Not everything is a sports event to be judged on the final score.

Comment by DUI Guy Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 9:23 am
I’m reminded of the lyrics of the Stones “Sympathy for the Devil:”

“Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But whats confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints”

Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck... Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 9:26 am
An acquaintance who used to be FBI undercover catching drug dealers once told me, “All this cops-and-robbers stuff, a lot of the players don’t care all that much which side of the game they’re on.”

Comment by yinn Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 9:45 am
A couple:

1. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Every profession has its showboats who cut corners for glory. It’s a little scary when it’s a cop.

2. The wheels of justice grind slowly. Prosecutors witnessed this activity three years ago — action is being taken now?

I’ve been out of the cops/courts business for a while, but do the arresting jurisdictions still get a cut of the DUI fine? I was always uneasy about there being financial incentives to enforce some laws over others.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 9:51 am
Ah, yes, the age-old battle between “process” and “results”. If one is strictly focused on the “process” many folks will wriggle off the hook (police lost them after 19 minutes, arresting officer failed to ask one required question, etc.). Occasionally with dire consequences (the guy was released without charges, goes to the bar and gets triple-limit drunk, gets in a wreck that kills a family of four). Sometimes the cops just “know” someone is guilty but procedure ties their hands.

On the other hand, aggressive officers like Haleas is alleged to be accumulate many convictions (”results”) while being sloppy with the process. Occasionally they are caught when a sharp attorney notices something amiss, especially in a pattern. No doubt over-aggressive enforcement removes someone from the road that hands-tied “process” would’ve let go, and likely a lot more. But there is a limit to how much society will tolerate. When the innocent are at risk as much as the criminals due to rogue police behavior, someone usually blows the whistle and the error is corrected at some point.

In the old days, people would know who and where the aggressive cops were and they would be extra careful around their territory. Nowadays, people do what they’re gonna do and let the outcome depend on their attorneys.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 9:59 am
Disclaimer: All following comments assume the accusations and press reports are true. Sometimes they are not…

I’m a cop and all I can say is this guy deserves whatever punishment he gets. Not playing by the rules is unacceptable. Play hard but play fair. This is apparently not a case of a good cop who made an honest mistake but a case of a cop who brazenly disregarded the rules and lied in his reports. I can’t get behind that even if the people he arrested were truly drunk. In policing, all you truly posess is your integrity.

I’ll go on to say that the response by AAIM concerns me. It strikes me as zealotry. I don’t care how important “the cause” is, the behavior of this cop is unnaceptable and should be condemned by all involved.

Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 12:32 pm
The cops conduct should not be tolerated.

Setting aside the seriousness of the situation, there is a bit of a funny idea in the procedures. He was not telling people the consequnces of failing to take the breathalyzer. First off, it is a law that says what happens, when did we decide ignorance of the law IS a defense? (no one told me what i was doing was wrong and I could be punished so set me free?) More interestingly, assume the person is drunk/impaired. So we are failing to provide legal information to somone whose thinking is imparied by alcohol so that they can make a reasoned decision? I am actually not opposed to this requirement, but can see the comedy skit now with the drunk (who already decided driving was a good idea) being apprised of the law in order to come up with a reasoned decision.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 12:42 pm
When they refer to the officer not informing the defendant of the consequences of not taking the breath test, here is what I believe they are talking about.

Before offering the breath test to the offendere, part to the procedure is to read the defendant the “warning to motorist”. It is a full page long stream of legal gibberish that warns the defendant that if he submits to the test, is over .08 B.A.C. and is a first offender his divers license will be suspended for 3 months. If he is not a first offender his drivers license will be suspended for six months. Those times are basically doubled for offenders that are “not first offenders”.

It is part of the implied consent process and is a form supplied by the Secretary Of State. It is a civil procedure to suspend the offenders drivers license and really is not part of the criminal arrest but is an important part of the entire process.

And Ghost, you are correct, reading this legal gibberish is comical, even a drunken lawyer probably couldn’t decipher it.

Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 1:30 pm
It’s good to know Freeze that there are peace officers out there like you. What should infuriate us about this case, is all of the cases that will be dropped because Haleas was overzealous. The reason, Ghost that people can be let off on procedural grounds, is keep everyone enforcing the law from skirting the letter of it. When they know that not following procedure can set an arrestee free, they are very careful to extend the rights under that law to the accused. Remember our criminal courts were designed with the principle known Blackstone Ratio: better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 3:36 pm
Two thoughts on this,

1. A DUI pretty much ruins your life for a while. Apparently he didn’t mind so I think the courts should treat him the same way he treated citizens.

2. The in many cases, not all, the primary difference between a cop and a criminal is a gun and a badge. OK, sometimes it is only the badge. Please do not take this as an indictment of all officers, there are some very good officers out there and then there are some that are a disgrace. Please screen carefully who enforces your laws.

Thanks

Comment by with liberty for all.... Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 5:09 pm
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve worked all across northern Illinois and most of the cops I know conduct themselves with integrity.

If the reports are true, he should go to prison.

Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Apr 17, 08 @ 10:03 pm
If proper proceedure is complex, there should be checklist notebooks, just like pilots use to ensure safety for all involved.

As for broad lessons, it’s the same paternalistic mentality commonly found in schools, miliitary, and government, where “authority” knows what’s best for you and will rationalize the outcome as justifying most any means.

School kids see right through it, but over time internalize that paternalistic and unjust appoach to solving problems, especially when given postitions of power and authority, only perpetuating problems for another generation.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 18, 08 @ 8:04 am
There are checklists. I don’t know that it is THAT complex, there is alogical order for each step of the process, any street cop should have no problem with it whatsoever. I don’t know if this guy was lazy or trying to make all of his cases seem more solid or what his motivation was. I also wonder where the supervisors are in this- These problems should be very, very obvious to his supervisor.

Comment by Freezeup Friday, Apr 18, 08 @ 10:21 am