Media coverage


Judge Lefkow denies motion of aldermen

On October 25, Judge Lefkow denied the motion of a group of aldermen to intervene in Bond v. Utreras in an effort to obtain the police documents she had earlier ruled are public. She no longer has jurisdiction over the matter, she said, because the case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals. On July 9, she had lifted the protective order with respect to the City, thereby removing any legal barrier to providing aldermen with the documents. On that occasion, she recalled, she had said in effect, “This is a political question. You go fight it out.” Now, with her ruling on appeal, she added, “I don’t have a dog in this fight.”

The aldermen have filed a notice to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Despite the absence of Judge Lefkow’s dog, the political fight over the documents has been intense. The aldermanic intervention provoked strong responses from Mayor Daley, the acting superintendent of police, and the head of the police union, as well as from a variety of commentators. Here is a sampling of the news coverage and the debate:

28 Aldermen intervene before Judge Lefkow

Today 28 aldermen filed a motion before Judge Lefkow seeking access to “certain Chicago Police Department documents.” At issue are the documents Judge Lefkow ruled are public in her July 2 opinion. The City has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The aldermen argue that Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, contrary to her representations to several courts, has “wrongfully withheld” the documents from them.

The following aldermen—a majority of the City Council—joined the motion: Toni Preckwinkle, Manuel Flores, Robert Fioretti, Pat Dowell, Leslie Hairston, Freddrenna Lyle, Sandi Jackson, Michelle Harris, Anthony Beale, Toni Foulkes, Joann Thompson, Latasha Thomas, Lona Lane, Willie Cochran, Howard Brookins Jr., Ricard Munoz, Sharon Denise Dixon, Billy Ocasio, Walter Burnett, Jr., Ed Smith, Scott Waguespack, Carrie Austin, Rey Colon, Emma Mitts, Brendan Reilly, Thomas M. Tunney, Helen Shiller, and Joseph A. Moore.

They are represented by Matthew Piers, Judson Miner, and Clyde Murphy. Miner and Piers were respectively Corporation Counsel and Deputy Corporation Counsel in Harold Washington’s administration. Murphy is Executive Director of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

As I have reported elsewhere, the City, in seeking a stay of Judge Lefkow’s order, repeatedly argued that any harm to First Amendment values would be mitigated because the City Law Office would provide the documents to “any City Council member who requests them. ”Having secured the stay, Corporation Counsel Georges refused Alderman Preckwinkle’s request for the documents on the ground that an appeal is pending.

The aldermen argue:

The Corporation Counsel should not be allowed to make representations to three courts, obtain relief based on those representations, and then fail to act in accordance with the representations.

They ask Judge Lefkow to direct the Corporation Counsel to provide them with the documents.They also ask that she modify the protective order, in order to allow plaintiff’s counsel to provide them with the documents.

The aldermen will appear before Judge Lefkow on Thursday, October 25, to present the motion.

Media coverage

Here is a selection of media coverage of the controversy over aldermanic access to the CPD documents:

U.S. Court of Appeals stays Lefkow order to unseal documents pending appeal by City

On July 2, Judge Joan Lefkow of the U.S. District Court granted my motion to unseal a number of documents regarding allegations of police abuse that the City of Chicago is trying to keep secret.

On July 9, in response to an emergency motion by the City, Judge Lefkow granted a stay of her order until 5:00 PM on July 16.

On July 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stay pending the City’s appeal of Judge Lefkow’s ruling.

This case is unfolding in the context of ongoing public debate in Chicago about police reform. A series of events have contributed to the intensity of that debate: the long-simmering controversy over police torture of African-American suspects by officers under the command of Commander Jon Burge; the indictments of six Special Operations Section officers on charges of corruption and brutality; the case arising from the surveillance video seen around the world of an off-duty Chicago police officer beating a female bartender; the case of six off-duty officers charged with beating other patrons at a bar; the resignation of Superintendent Phil Cline; the passage by the City Council on July 19 of an ordinance revising how the Office of Professional Standards investigates civilian complaints; and the appointment of a new OPS director. Taken together, these events have kept the debate over police accountability at the center of public attention.

The disputed documents are highly relevant to this debate. They were produced by the City under a protective order (i.e., stamped “confidential”) in the course of Bond v. Utreras, the case I wrote about in Kicking the Pigeon.

The documents at issue are:

  • A list of 662 officers with more than ten civilian complaints during a five year period.
  • A list of officers with more than ten complaints who were referred to the Chicago Police Department’s “early intervention” programs.
  • A list of officers with more than ten complaints who were assigned to the Public Housing South Unit.
  • The employee complaint histories of the defendant officers in Bond v. Utreras.
  • The CR (“Complaint Register”) files of investigations of complaints against the defendant officers.
  • The CR files of the investigations initiated by Ms. Bond’s complaints.

After the parties in Bond agreed to settle, I petitioned the court to lift the protective order with respect to the documents at issue.I am represented in this matter by Jon Loevy and Samantha Liskow of Loevy & Loevy.

Judge Lefkow’s opinion

In her July 2 ruling, Judge Lefkow found that “good cause” does not exist to keep the documents secret. In reaching that conclusion, she rejected the City’s argument that “granting Kalven access to the protected documents he seeks to obtain is prejudicial to defendants because it would make public documents that cast defendants in an unfavorable light while depriving them of the ability and opportunity to effectively respond to them”:

The fact that the allegations of police misconduct contained in the requested materials would bring unwanted, negative attention on defendants is not a basis for shielding the materials from public disclosure.The public has a significant interest in monitoring the conduct of its police officers and a right to know how allegations of misconduct are being investigated and handled.

Judge Lefkow expressed her confidence that the general public is “sophisticated enough” to understand that allegations of abuse do not constitute actual proof of abuse. And she observed that the City is not without resources to participate in public debate:

The City has its own public relations department and there are no doubt countless media outlets that would invite city officials to participate in an open and frank discussion regarding these and other allegations of police misconduct.

Judge Lefkow also rejected the City’s argument that the privacy interests of the police officers outweighs the public interest in the disputed documents.After noting that I had agreed to the redaction of private information such as addresses and Social Security numbers, she addressed the City’s contention that the documents are part of employee personnel files and thus protected from disclosure:

That information, though personal, has a distinct public character, as it relates to the defendant officers’ performance of their official duties. Without such information, the public would be unable to supervise the individuals and institutions it has entrusted with extraordinary authority to arrest and detain persons against their will.With so much at stake, defendants simply cannot be permitted to operate in secrecy.

In the July 9 hearing before Judge Lefkow regarding the City’s emergency motion for a stay, we emphasized that the documents at issue are highly time-sensitive, in light of the July 19 City Council vote on proposed OPS reforms. We argued that aldermen need access to this information, in order to evaluate the proposed legislation.Judge Lekfow responded by lifting the protective order with respect to the City, so that it would not be legally constrained from providing the documents to any aldermen who requested them.

The Documents

When the Seventh Circuit on July 16 stayed Judge Lefkow’s order pending appeal, it froze the legal controversy for the time being. (Here are the City’s motion and our response.) The political controversy over the disputed documents, however, intensified. On July 17, two days before the City Council vote on the proposed OPS ordinance, Mara Georges, the corporation counsel, conveyed to all fifty aldermen copies of the lists described above with the names of the officers redacted.

Ms. Georges’ cover memo to the aldermen gave this explanation of why the City had not provided the other documents Judge Lefkow had ordered released:

The other category of documents which have been ordered released are complaint register files which are too voluminous to attached to this memorandum.

Here are links to the redacted lists the City provided to the aldermen:

Media Coverage

The controversy over the documents has received a good deal of media attention. I have not made an effort to capture television coverage; it can be accessed on the websites of various local stations. Here is a selection of articles and commentaries:

Kalven seeks Bond documents

On March 15, Jamie Kalven filed a motion to intervene in the Bond case for the purpose of challenging the protective order under which certain documents produced by the City in the course of the litigation are withheld from the public. These include a list of Chicago police officers who have been repeatedly charged with official misconduct, documents that reveal how the CPD addresses or fails to address misconduct charges, and the complaints files of the individual officer defendants.

Kalven is represented in this matter by Loevy & Loevy. The City has until April 3 to respond to the motion. Kalven will then have until April 10 to reply.

Chicago Magazine article on Kalven case

The August issue of Chicago Magazine contains an article by David Bernstein on Jamie Kalven’s legal confrontation with the City of Chicago over the subpoena demanding his notes. Bernstein places the controversy against the background of Kalven’s effort as a young man to complete the manuscript on the American tradition of freedom of speech on which his father, Harry Kalven, Jr., was working when he died.

Judge denies City motions in Kalven case

On June 27, Judge Arlander Keys ruled on two City motions seeking to compel Jamie Kalven to turn over his notes and answer certain questions in connection with the Bond case. Judge Keys’ opinion denied the City’s motions, except insofar as they apply to notes relating to his conversations with the plaintiff Diane Bond–i.e., matters about which he has been willing to testify. The City has filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling. Kalven has also filed a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing that his notes on his conversations with Ms. Bond are “journalistic work product” and hence protected. The parties have until July 28 to reply to one another’s briefs.

City moves to enforce subpoena of Kalven’s notes

On June 13, 2005, Jamie Kalven received a subpoena from the City of Chicago in connection with Bond v. Utreras, et al. It demanded “copies of any and all documents, notes, reports, writings, computer files, audio tapes, video tapes, or any written or recorded item” in his possession regarding any of twenty-four named individuals (members of the Stateway Gardens community and police officers, as well as the plaintiff’s attorney and an expert witness) “and/or any allegations of misconduct by any police officer” at Stateway Gardens.

Kalven refused to comply with the subpoena on multiple grounds; chief among them, the First Amendment.

On May 1, 2006, the City filed two motions. One motion (exhibits) petitions the judge to issue “a rule to show cause as to why Kalven should not be held in contempt for his deliberate and intentional refusal to produce the notes and recordings in question.” The other motion (exhibits) seeks an order compelling Kalven to answer certain questions he declined to answer when deposed in the Bond case.

On May 30, Kalven’s attorneys, Thomas Sullivan and David Sanders of Jenner & Block, filed his response.

The case is in the courtroom of Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys. Judge Keys has said he will rule by June 12.

Email to subscribers


Tomorrow The View From The Ground will resume publication of “Kicking the Pigeon.” This narrative inquiry into police abuses in Chicago public housing focuses on the case of Bond v. Utreras, et al, a federal civil rights suit brought by Diane Bond, a resident of Stateway Gardens, against five police officers and the City of Chicago. Ten installments have been posted. The final seven installments will appear over the next two weeks. Thereafter, we will publish occasional updates, as the Bond case unfolds.

Six months have elapsed since we posted the last installment of “Kicking the Pigeon.” In one sense, little has happened during this period. The case has progressed slowly. In another sense, though, a great deal has happened.

At the national level, Hurricane Katrina, like a great flash of lightning, illuminated the deep racism and structures of exclusion that deform American society. For those of us working in abandoned communities such as Stateway Gardens, the conditions exposed by Katrina were not surprising. Nor would anyone familiar with Chicago public housing policy be surprised by the way various interests seized upon those conditions, once exposed, as rationales for profiteering.

Yet Katrina was revelatory. The strength of the gale that forced perceptions (if only for an extended moment) of conditions of abandonment also made palpable the immense counterforce necessary to hold those perceptions at bay on an ongoing basis. It provided a measure, like the Richter Scale for earthquakes or the Saffir-Simpson Scale for hurricanes, of the energy that must be expended not to know what we know.

A central theme of the forthcoming installments of “Kicking the Pigeon” is how not-knowing is operationalized. The defendants in the Bond case—Officers Utreras, Stegmiller, Savickas, Schoeff, and Seinitz—deny they had any contact with Diane Bond on any of the four occasions she alleges they abused her. Several recent developments suggest that such an edifice of denial requires considerable maintenance:

  • On June 13, 2005, I received a subpoena from the City law department in connection with the Bond case. It demanded that I “produce copies of any and all documents, notes, reports, writings, computer files, audio tapes, video tapes, or any written or recorded item” in my possession regarding any of twenty-four named individuals (members of the Stateway Gardens community and police officers, as well as an expert witness for the plaintiff and her attorney) “and/or any allegations of misconduct by any police officer” at Stateway Gardens. I have refused to comply with the subpoena on multiple grounds; the First Amendment chief among them.

  • In the course of the discovery process in the Bond case, a host of issues have arisen between the parties. Ms. Bond’s attorneys charge that the City lawyers have pursued a litigation strategy designed to frustrate the possibility of meaningful judicial or public scrutiny of Chicago Police Department practices. The issues that have arisen in the context of discovery are now before Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys who has indicated he will rule on them within the month.

  • On September 7, 2005, the day before he was to be deposed by City lawyers, Diane Bond’s son Willie Murphy was arrested by a team of officers that included defendants Utreras, Stegmiller, and Savickas. According to Murphy, one of the arresting officers repeatedly beat him and two other men, all handcuffed, with a heavy extension cord, while making references to the whipping of black slaves.

  • In an emergency motion presented to Judge Joan Lefkow on February 4, 2006, Diane Bond reported that on January 31 she was stopped on the grounds of Stateway Gardens by a police officer who accused her of having drugs on her and searched her. When the officer told her name to a second officer, he replied, “Oh, Diane Bond—from ‘Kicking the Pigeon.’” The second officer ordered her to get into his police car and interrogated her. “You know too much,” he told her. “I could kill you right now.”

* * * *

In response to “Kicking the Pigeon,” readers have contacted The View and asked, “What can we do?” Spread the word, we have replied. Give us your critical feedback by participating in the comments section (recently redesigned by webmaster David Eads). Help us create a forum for sustained critical engagement with these issues.

I have sensed a degree of disappointment with this reply, as if patterns of abuse as grave as those described in the series demand large actions in response and anything less is token. With all due respect, this logic aids and abets not-knowing. Because there is nothing large we can do, we do nothing. Because we do nothing, we cannot bear the burden of perception and so turn away from what we know—from what is knowable—about assaults on human dignity in our time, in our place, in our name.

“Kicking the Pigeon” is part of an ongoing campaign that employs human rights reporting and strategic litigation to press for police accountability. Informed public discourse—sustained against the undertow of denial—is critical to the success of this campaign. We need your help. Together, we have the power to prevent human rights abuses that will otherwise occur.

So, again, we urge: If you find the reporting and analysis in “Kicking the Pigeon” persuasive, encourage others to read it. If you have information or observations to add, share them. If you find our work flawed, challenge and improve it.

Take care,Jamie Kalven

PS: In response to requests from a number of readers, we are resuming our old practice of sending the stories we post on The View concurrently to subscribers as emails.