Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: ILGOP chairman “disturbed” by United Airlines incident
Next Post: Pritzker says he supports legalizing marijuana
Posted in:
* Press release…
In an effort to increase accountability among law enforcement officers, State Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago) introduced legislation today that requires sobriety testing following all officer-involved shootings.
The initiative aims to improve credibility in police department investigations. It would require officers to submit drug and alcohol test results no later than one hour after a shooting.
Police-involved shootings have gained much attention over the years as the number of victims has increased drastically. In 2014 alone, more than 1,000 people were killed by police officers.
“Whether these attacks were targeted or unfortunate accidents, this policy will hold law enforcement accountable for the frequent tragedies of deadly force,” Hunter said.
“Officers must be held to the same standard as other professionals who are responsible for the lives human beings. This should be a standard operating procedure for every police department.”
The bill is here.
* The Question: Do you agree or disagree with this legislation? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: ILGOP chairman “disturbed” by United Airlines incident
Next Post: Pritzker says he supports legalizing marijuana
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Sure, why not. Although I do worry about a cop smoking pot a week before, it showing up on a drug test, and now the officer is accused of shooting while high.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:28 pm
So they are trying to make the cops use similar rules to folks with CDLs?
That’s fine, but shouldn’t you folks be working towards a budget?
Comment by Dee Lay Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:32 pm
Too vague. No limits defined. What would be the limit, .o8, .04, 0.00? Needs more specifics.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:33 pm
Nearly every dept in the state already requires drug and alcohol tests in a deadly force situation. What would be nice is if this wasnt another unfounded mandate. Put some money behind the proposal and have the ISP take over all these investigations,
Comment by 51st ward Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:34 pm
Has there been any suggestion that cops involved in these shootings have been inebriated?
Comment by so... Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:35 pm
This is standard procedure for most professional drivers. If you get into an accident, even if it isn’t your fault, they’re required to give a sample. Bus drivers, train engineers, many truck drivers, etc. So it’s not like this is unheard of.
In the case of police, I think there ought to be some cause shown to test an officer following an officer-involved shooting. Or they shouldn’t limit it to shootings, and instead, any infraction where others could be hurt (alleged assaults, traffic accidents, other possible infractions). Why limit it just to when someone is shot?
Also, are officers subject to random testing on the job? If we’re concerned about cops under the influence, maybe we should be more aggressively going after substance abuse/alcohol all of the time instead of simply following an incident.
I’m torn, but I voted no. I could be persuaded though.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:37 pm
Perhaps State Senator Mattie Hunter should be drug tested after each Senate vote. Those folks are far lest trustworthy than our law enforcement. This would be a serious morale killer.
Comment by Almost Retired Guy Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:38 pm
A solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Perfect. Just what Illinois needs right now.
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:38 pm
===- Almost Retired Guy - Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:38 pm:
Perhaps State Senator Mattie Hunter should be drug tested after each Senate vote. Those folks are far lest trustworthy than our law enforcement. This would be a serious morale killer.===
Ha!
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:39 pm
Presumably this would apply to off-duty officers who shoot someone. It’s more likely someone off-duty would be under the influence.
Comment by anon2 Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:39 pm
I thought the problem was systemic racism and lack of training?
Comment by Anon E. Moose Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:40 pm
Yes. But the bigger issue is the long time period allowed for officers to get their stories straight.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:40 pm
Sure, why not? In the rare instance where it might get a positive result, you just did the work for whatever ambulance chaser bringing a wrongful death lawsuit.
And while we’re at it, let’s leave nothing to chance. Require a firearms proficiency test at the firing range using the firearm involved within 8 hours just to prove the officer can hit what he is aiming at.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:42 pm
Agree with those who asked if this is an issue to begin with. Are police stopping for a couple prior to their shift beginning?
Comment by Bogey Golfer Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:42 pm
this would be a kind of search according to the supreme court so this would in effect be a government compelled warrantless search ….without any need for probable cause to suspect they are under the influence….. constitutional rights for me but not for thee.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:44 pm
Disagree. I’m OK with testing for cause based on observed behavior that indicates an employee might be under the influence and have impaired job performance. I think the vast, vast majority of law enforcement officers are good people and having to shoot another person is stressful enough. If there’s cause when an officer shoots someone, then yes, but not as a matter of course.
I’d rather see efforts going into organizational issues, training in particular, and also anything that prevents addressing the behavior of the rare officer doing a very poor job.
Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:47 pm
==Whether these attacks were targeted or unfortunate accidents…==
or, as is often the case, justified in using deadly force.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:49 pm
I can’t believe this isn’t the law now. Good for Senator Hunter. Te last thing we should be tolerating is drinking on the job from our government employees with guns.
Comment by Dan Johnson Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:50 pm
Maybe if you live in Chicago this works, but if you’re in a small community, the situation that sparks a shooting doesn’t always immediately de-escalate. There is still work to be done at the scene, and not every city in Illinois has 20 or 2000 more officers on duty to just send one off if there is no reason to believe there is an issue.
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:55 pm
I guess I am OK with it in principle, but not the “no later than one hour” part. When there is a police-involved shooting like this, there are a lot of things that have to happen at the scene, giving statements, etc. to require the officer to presumably leave and give a blood test within that first hour. I don’t see the harm in giving a few extra hours, as they can always extrapolate back in time from whatever the results show to the level of impairment at the time of the shooting, if any.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:58 pm
===If there’s cause when an officer shoots someone, then yes, but not as a matter of course.===
But who determines if there is cause? The police (at least up here in Chicago) seem to do a terrible job policing themselves. Make it mandatory, and remove any doubt.
Comment by Sox Fan Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:12 pm
Is drunk/drugged shooting by law enforcement a notable problem?
Comment by titan Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:13 pm
More government regulation setting up a solution in need of a problem. also one more move towards de-legitimizing the police.
Comment by Lech W Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:19 pm
Are you kidding me. So many issues, critical issues,
that need to be addressed. This could be important
but honestly . . . can’t our folks in government get to governing. We need a @#$@$%#$! BUDGET! Get your head
out so you can see.
Comment by Downstate Dem Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:21 pm
As a police officer, I agree. The ISP doesn’t allow officers to have any illegal drugs or alcohol in their system while on duty. Hard to believe all the other departments don’t have the same policy.
Comment by Ratso Rizzo Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:22 pm
Are steroids on the list?
Comment by Puddintaine Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:26 pm
>The police (at least up here in Chicago) seem to do a terrible job policing themselves.
Then that’s the problem to address, not focusing on drug testing. I do not know the answer to that one, though.
Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:26 pm
One hour? If there’s any suspicion, test whomever you want to. If not, I’m not sure why this is necessary.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:44 pm
What kind of test? Blood? Urine? Who collects it? Who pays for it? Who gets the results?
Once all that is answered- how about every legislator takes the same test prior to casting any votes? Think we got gridlock now?
Comment by Labor Lou Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 4:27 pm
whatever. drug test the person shot too. that might yield some information. don’t know how the testing works with union contracts.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 4:36 pm
I thought it was SOP to pull blood if a cop was involved in a shooting or a car wreck. That was my experience back in the day. I guess not.
I support it because police shootings are unusual events that already require an investigation to determine facts and whether the action was justified. Ruling out/in possible intoxication would seem to be an important factor in that.
A check on the google finds that New York coppers are fighting such a requirement as a violation of the 4th Amendment. Wee bit of irony there, I think.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/court-upholds-breathalyzer-rule-article-1.1520962
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 5:04 pm
I personally think mandatory regular and random tests for steroids and other drugs would be more useful. If you are going to require welfare recipients to be drug tested or other jobs that require it the people who can kill you should be held to a higher standard.
Comment by Red tower Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 10:20 pm
Cops are under enough pressure…. how about legislation testing elected and appointed official’s including jurist every 30 days?
If there is a positive, they are removed from office and loose all pension benefits.
This alone might save the state budget.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 13, 17 @ 7:22 am
Almost Retired Guy- “Perhaps State Senator Mattie Hunter should be drug tested after each Senate vote.” Turning the conversation around, whining, and claiming he’s the victim. Retired Guy is definitely a cop.
“Those folks are far lest trustworthy than our law enforcement.” It’s okay to insult legislators elected by the people, but never question the integrity of police. We should just trust them, because they say so.
“This would be a serious morale killer.” Right, we wouldn’t want to harm the feelings of police that kill other human beings. We should go easy on them. If an airline pilot crashes his plane and wipes out 200 people they should be drug tested, but not cops, they are above the law.
God bless Mattie Hunter for pulling the curtain off the Wizard of Oz! The fact that a someone has to introduce legislation to test police that hurt people or take life in 2017 proves that this legislation is necessary.
This is about off-duty officers hanging out in bars, a famous Chicago tradition. Interesting side note, when Ohioans for Concealed Carry was trying to get their carry bill (for citizens) passed the first time around in 2003, the police unions opposed them, so they got a bill passed that suspends the police powers of cops who are under the influence. That’s what should be done here.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 14, 17 @ 3:56 pm