Illinois Governor Signs Law Banning Cops From Performing Background Searches On Public Speakers
from the hey,-this-is-the-1st-Amendment.-have-you-met? dept
The Chicago PD has a host of problems. Ones that have gone unaddressed for years and appear to remain unaddressed even after the federal government has been forced to step in. Misconduct goes unpunished, investigations into officers are left uncompleted, the PD buys surveillance tech with forfeiture funds to dodge its oversight, and it operated a CIA-style black site in the city where arrestees and their rights vanished with alarming regularity.
For years, the Chicago PD has also apparently investigated citizens who speak at public meetings. A 2019 investigation by the Chicago Tribune, aided by public records requests, uncovered this secret attack on the First Amendment.
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.
It actually goes back further than 2013. Other public records indicate the Chicago PD has been doing this for more than 15 years, beginning in 2006.
The background searches only targeted certain speakers at certain public meetings: those wishing to express their opinion during comment sessions hosted by the PD's oversight. Upon revelation of this practice, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson offered up two useless comments. First, he claimed the PD had never acted on this information. Then he promised to end it, but seemingly because it was a pointless exercise in police overreach.
“I don’t think we have a reason at this point to continue it," said Johnson, who often attends Police Board meetings with members of his command staff. "It’s done.”
It's really done now -- at least as far as one background search database goes. The involuntary decision to end the practice of running searches on public speakers has been codified.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Friday signed into law a measure that makes it illegal for police to use at least one commonly searched law enforcement database to conduct criminal background checks on citizens who sign up to speak at public meetings statewide.
[...]
The new law, which goes into effect immediately, bars police agencies throughout Illinois from conducting background checks on citizens “for the sole reason” of that person speaking “at an open meeting of a public body, including police disciplinary boards.”
But the bill only forbids use of the LEADS (Law Enforcement Agencies Database System) database for these searches. It doesn't prevent the Chicago PD (and other agencies) from using other criminal record/background check databases they have access to. There's also a public safety exception that allows cops to run searches if they "reasonably" believe a speaker is a security threat or may engage in criminal conduct. That's a pretty massive exemption and one that can be abused without officers fearing they may be punished by employers that have shown little interest in punishing them for their misconduct.
However, if LEADS is used and an officer can't find a way to justify the search, there are actual consequences. A violation of the law can lead to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,500. Considering how hesitant governments are about punishing their own, it seems unlikely we'll see many officers punished for violating this new ban. If the cops want to dig up dirt on public speakers, they'll find a way to do it. The better deterrent is something law enforcement agencies can't control: speakers are allowed to sign up to speak at meetings 15 minutes ahead of its start, rather than 24 hours prior. That gives some power back to the people, making it far more difficult for dossiers to be compiled by police officers more interested in abusing their powers than respecting people's rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: background checks, chicago, chicago pd, free speech, illinois, intimidation, police, public meetings
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My Two Cents
They'll get around it. What are they going to do, investigate and prosecute themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Two Cents
I can hear the excuses already...
"But it was only by performing an unwarranted background search that we were in fact able to determine that that little old lady wasn't a likely security threat or a criminal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My Two Cents
Nah, they just claim qualified immunity because there is no case on record that says they can't violate laws to perform illegal background checks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell you what
When police officers get to speak, citizens get the same right to check their records....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what cops do on public time and the public dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I've placed such a high value on never getting arrested or being mentioned in any form of official court document. But I will admit that the police response at protests has led me to never come close to one. I'm not getting swept up in a mass arrest, ever. It's sad our society has come to that, but I think my stance is justifiable, albeit selfish, since I acknowledge we need protests. I would like to speak at city council meetings in the future though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, Jeff Gray/HonorYourOath has been trying to get them to stop misusing their state database in Florida (DAVID) for probably about a decade now without much success. Looks like DeSantis might have done something marginally good and strengthened the law, but the problem persists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Bose speakers?
I'll see myself out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blue lies mafia don't care about your rights
if we to do a FOIA coast to coast. we would find that most and/or all of the pig farms abuse the database(s) to check on anyone they don't like or know! then put them on a watch list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: blue lies mafia don't care about your rights
Apt comparison on your title. Law enforcement in most places are behaving like mafias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChicagoPD has "slightly" more problems than background searches.
They have a fucking DEATH CAMP called Homan Square in the middle of Chicago.
People are (without warrants) rounded up for being black, taken to Homan Square, physically tortured (Fingernail removal, waterboarding, electroshocks etc), refused access to ANY legal representation, their families aren't even told they are in the camp.
Then they are either "disappeared" or just thrown back onto the streets where they require urgent hospitalization.
The fact the US hasn't sent the army into this horrific WW2 era concentration/death camp always astounds me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some permutations
How does this come down on police using publicly available info to research a person? While I'm not in favor of police using in-house info to research critics, it seems to me the police, like any other gov't organization, ought to be able to use publicly available resources to research critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some permutations
Why? What would they do with the info?
No matter how you look at it, there is no reason for them to do this unless they thought they could possibly use the info to stop someone from speaking in one way or another. They have zero legal reasons for researching people in this matter.
The government should never dig up info like this on their critics unless said critics alluded to some actions that would break the law. Anyone excusing this type of behavior is also then excusing totalitarian behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i wonder how long that will last! there'll be all sorts of accusations thrown about as well as the usual thing of cops ignoring the law! funny how they do that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]