Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Another view
Posted in:
* Francia Garcia Hernandez at the Riverside-Brookfield Landmark…
State Rep. La Shawn K. Ford (8th) called on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board to reinstate Riverside police officer Zenna Ramos, who was decertified as a police officer by the state board in April. […]
Ford said the state board has taken the language of the state law known as Safe T Act as a reason to decertify Ramos after the village of Riverside requested the board waived basic training for the officer. Decertification means she can’t serve as a police officer anywhere in the state. […]
In 2008, Ramos was arrested for allegedly stealing three shirts, valued at a total of $14.99, from J.C. Penney at the North Riverside Park Mall. She was not a police officer then, but rather a 22-year-old single parent struggling with domestic violence-related issues who acted out of desperation.
“I take full responsibility for my actions,” Ramos said, standing next to Ford, near tears. “I did everything right to better myself for myself and my family so I could be a police officer.”
Ramos is a mother of three and her husband is a Cicero police officer.
* The Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board literally stretched the law’s intended reach in its general counsel’s letter to Riverside…
50 ILCS 705/6.1 provides that the Board must review law enforcement officers’ records to ensure no law enforcement officer is provided a waiver if they have been convicted of a felony or disqualifying misdemeanor. Among the listed disqualifying misdemeanors is theft (720 IL.CS 5/16-1). Interestingly, retail theft (730 ILCS 5/16-ag) is not specifically listed, however, P.A, 101-652 (effective July 1, 2021) added the following language to 6: “or any felony or misdemeanor in violation of federal law or the law of any state that is the equivalent of any of the offenses specified therein.” Retail theft is not only the equivalent of theft but is arguably an even more serious offense. Simple theft of property not from the person and not exceeding $500 in value is a Class A misdemeanor, whereas any retail theft of property valued in excess of $300 is a felony. Furthermore, where a literal reading of a statute would lead to inconvenient, unjust, or absurd results, the literal reading should yield. See Kelly vs. Village of Kenilworth, 156 N.E. gd 480 (I* Dist. 2019).
And yet, instead of yielding, the board’s chief lawyer Patrick Hahn went with the unjust and absurd result.
* More from the ILETSB’s denial letter…
Past behavior is a logical predictor of future behavior. In the 2000s Ramos appeared to have a propensity for stealing from stores. In addition to the 2008 retail theft conviction, Ramos was also placed on court supervision in 2003 for retail theft. There’s an old proverb that says, “the person who steals once is always thought a thief”, and while such thinking may be unfair, it is not uncommon particularity in light of today’s jury opinions of police. Ensuring the credibility of prosecution witnesses is a modern-day challenge, which requires the reputation of testifying officers to be above reproach. Maryland v. Brady, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) was the landmark case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate a criminal defendant. Brady has been expanded to include evidence that calls into question the credibility of testifying officers. Ramos’ prior retail thefts call her credibility and character into question, which can be exploited to a criminal defendant’s advantage.
That looks to my eyes like a classic example of concern trolling from a SAFE-T Act opponent.
…Adding… Excellent point in comments…
“the person who steals once is always thought a thief”
A SAFE-T Act opponent in a position of power within the Law Enforcement standards agency having this opinion is a wonderful advertisement for why the SAFE-T Act was necessary. Law enforcement and prosecution have deep-seated opposition to believing that anyone who commits a crime can rehabilitate in any way.
* From comments on an earlier post…
If a young person commits a petty crime, and then leads an honorable life, they deserve not only our forgiveness, but our appreciation. They become a role model for other young people who do stupid stuff.
Holding a petty theft committed at the age of 22 over the head of a 37 year old person who has lived an honorable life is ironically not petty. It is malicious and contrary to the whole concept of reform. Rather than being able to go out into the schools and streets and tell young people, “I know your struggle, I have been there, and I can tell you there is a better way,” it appears the ILETSB would prefer to not provide role models for troubled youth.
* ILETSB Chair Sean Smoot has set up a waiver review committee chaired by Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly to deal with over-reach by legal staff, etc. Maybe Kelly can straighten this out.
…Adding… Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid says he delivered this statement at last month’s Riverside village council meeting…
I stand with Ms. Ramos and the Village of Riverside in calling on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board to reverse its decision to decertify her. The charges against her were dismissed and vacated. She worked hard to turn her life around, to support her family, and to serve her community. I hope the IETSB promptly reviews its decision, and that the State’s Attorney’s Office removes her name from the Do Not Call list. This is simply the right thing to do.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The ILETSB’s website has a complete list of decertifiable offenses. Retail theft is not on it.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Gov. Pritzker…
— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) August 23, 2023
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 10:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Another view
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Perhaps there’s some merit to SA Foxx exercising prosecutorial discretion and not pursing charges in cases like Ms. Ramos’.
Comment by The Opinions Bureau Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 10:48 am
People.Change. People learn from past mistakes. Everyone deserves a second chance. This police officer should not be tormented in this way. This is the kind of overly rigid, holier than thou thinking that both defies common sense and is Exhibit A for the need for reform.
Comment by Lydia Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 10:55 am
Rules are rules… Kinda hard when you start making exceptions, creates snowball effect.
Comment by Red headed step child Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 10:55 am
===when you start making exceptions===
What exceptions? The dude unilaterally added a provision that wasn’t in the state law.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 10:58 am
There is letter of law and then there is spirit of law. The spirit of a law should always be considered so exceptions can be made when logic dictates. Black and white rules aren’t always practical in a gray world.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:01 am
There is no merit to not prosecuting shoplifters, as it only encourages more shoplifting, which endangers the functioning of society overall.
Likewise, there is no merit in holding petty theft charges against someone for the rest of their lives, if they don’t reoffend, as it amounts to a life sentence for a very small harm.
Why must it be one or the other? These are not mutually exclusive
Comment by JB13 Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:02 am
In the eyes of any logical, normal person it’s stretching the letter of the law to absurd lengths. One question I would have, that I’m not certain of, is would this criminal history require this officer to be placed on the list discussed a few weeks ago of officers whose history or criminal record possibly make them an impeachable witness who trustworthiness makes them unable to testify? That’s the only possible (but still crazy) rationale I could see for this interpretation and decision. They mention Brady, which sparked that thought in my head.
Comment by fs Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:03 am
“Past behavior is a logical predictor of future behavior.”
If that was true, I’d be on parole.
By the by, the “snowball effect” argument vies with the “dominoe effect” argument for laziest arguments of all time.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:03 am
My hope is that Smoot, the committee and Kelly can find a reasonable way to get to reasonable solutions to situations that aren’t all that simplistic and cut and dry.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:04 am
The folks at ILETSB should be thankful DCFS exists, it’s the only thing that keeps them from being the worst run agency in state government.
This latest episode exposes them as officious jerks. But on the other hand, they have scandalously bent the rules to hand badges to politically connected individuals with no police training (Warren Buffett’s son and Sean Smoot.) Not to mention they are ignoring the plain language of a new law requiring them to issues credentials to retired deputies and correctional officers.
https://apnews.com/article/concealed-carry-guns-law-enforcement-attorney-general-909770e47c355ecac1351e409ca73a7a
The hubris is incredible.
Comment by Tony T Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:06 am
Under the previous administration, the title of this post would be Concernin’ Trollin’.
Comment by George Ryan Reynolds Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:27 am
“the person who steals once is always thought a thief”
A SAFE-T Act opponent in a position of power within the Law Enforcement standards agency having this opinion is a wonderful advertisement for why the SAFE-T Act was necessary. Law enforcement and prosecution have deep-seated opposition to believing that anyone who commits a crime can rehabilitate in any way.
Comment by NIU Grad Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:33 am
Can’t win in this situation. Your an agency with scandals of your own in the past and now you pass judgement in writing like that, it is absurd. Flip side any officer that slips through this process and is involved in something stupid is ILETSB responsibility. Heavy is the crown.
Comment by Strange Days Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:34 am
“… Warren Buffett’s son … .” Had more than enough training hours, just not in required areas. And someone was fired for that.
“… correctional officers.” Correctional officers are not trained to the same level as law enforcement officers. And some never carry a weapon while employed (this was fully aired when the original federal legislation was passed in 2004).
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:41 am
Interesting that a young Hispanic woman officer is a sacrificial lamb for ILETSB’s SAFE-T Act gripes. Women officers are already few and far between, vastly underrepresented in Illinois communities.
The ILETSB is comprised of some really well-respected and thoughtful individuals. It’s truly surprising to see this kind of pettiness pass for acceptable on their watch.
Comment by Politix Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:43 am
=the worst run agency in state government=
For decades.
Comment by Politix Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:45 am
Maybe Mr. Hahn should be removed for his incompetent legal analysis, if people believe in harsh consequences.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:47 am
First, I’m middle of the road, not a progressive and not a conservative.
I have to say criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The risk of making someone a cop who had shoplifted twice is, defense counsel may bring it up to impeach their testimony. Even if it’s a bench trial the judge might find the defendant not guilty if he or she decides reasonable doubt has been created.
Making such a person a cop risks the cost of their salary and their training if they can’t be used as a witness. It makes the police department less effective than if they had only cops who had nothing they could be impeached for.
Do you want to give someone a badge out of compassion even though it risks criminals going free, a less effective police department, and a million dollars in taxes wasted on the lifetime salary of someone who can’t be called to testify?
Comment by Zenith Kid Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:55 am
===defense counsel may bring it up to impeach their testimony===
I could see that happening if she shoplifted after becoming a cop, but this happened long before - once when she appeared to be a minor.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:58 am
===Rules are rules… Kinda hard when you start making exceptions, creates snowball effect. ===
Counterpoint: The entirety of Les Miserables.
ILETSB is literally coming down on the side of Javert. Victor Hugo didn’t write 1400 pages about justice for this crap.
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 11:59 am
It would be easier to have sympathy for the ILETSB’s hardline position towards a young single mother stealing three shirts while struggling to escape domestic violence if police departments across Illinois weren’t constantly protecting and promoting active domestic abusers.
But no, we get it, crimes against women don’t count as crimes to most cops. Try to report one, and you’ll get to find out how little crimes against women matter.
Stealing bread while starving = no badge for you
Repeated violent crimes against women = just another Tuesday
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:05 pm
Make ILETSB certification optional.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:05 pm
—Making such a person a cop risks the cost of their salary and their training if they can’t be used as a witness. It makes the police department less effective than if they had only cops who had nothing they could be impeached for.
Over $14.99. C’mon man. Juries low opinion of police (which is overstated in the article) has to do with mistreating people, not making a mistake 14 years before they were a police officer.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:18 pm
===I could see that happening if she shoplifted after becoming a cop, but this happened long before - once when she appeared to be a minor.===
Agreed. And yet, it appears this whole mess started when she was put on Kim Foxx’s “Do Not Call” list. How many others on that list had their reputations tarnished without having a chance to respond?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:30 pm
=Do you want to give someone a badge out of compassion===
No, I want to give someone a badge who’s qualified and deserving. Should we should deny a person their chosen career because some people can’t get past personal biases? If that logic were applied universally there would still be legal segregation.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:31 pm
===it appears this whole mess started when she was put on Kim Foxx’s “Do Not Call” list===
I just checked. Nope. Other way around. Her decert was in April. The list wasn’t released until July, so the decert may have had something to do with it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:39 pm
As someone who has dealt with the ILETSB about waivers, the waiver process was hardly consistent. Some departments had huge issues getting waivers for officer with documented education and training easily meeting the training standard. Looks like their counsel is doubling down on making it up as they go along yet again. Maybe a lawsuit will wake them up.
Comment by thisjustinagain Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:41 pm
==she was put on Kim Foxx’s “Do Not Call” list==
By no means am I a Kim Foxx fan, but it’s not “her list”. Brady/Giglio disclosures and issues result from a U.S. Supreme Court case law, and pretty much every department and prosecutor in the country has to deal with it.
Comment by fs Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:41 pm
From the R-B Landmark story linked to above:
“As previously reported, the decision to decertify Ramos surfaced in July, after the officer’s name was placed on a “Do Not Call” list by Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.”
Apologies if I misunderstood/misrepresented that.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:50 pm
Also, if she had already been decertified, why would she need to be on the Do Not Call list?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:52 pm
47th, July was when the list was released. I don’t know when she was put on it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:53 pm
== this was fully aired when the original federal legislation was passed in 2004 ==
The state legislation passed and signed by the governor in 2022 directed them to credential retired deputies and correctional officers, as every other state does. They’ve ignore that. The ILETSB staff seem to alternate between strict and loose implementation of the law on a whim, casually looking the other way if it benefits their pals to suddenly becoming super persnickety if it helps avenge lost legislative battles. Inexcusable.
Comment by Tony T Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:54 pm
Anyone else think that if her last name were JOnes or Smith the outcome may have been different?
Comment by btowntruth from forgottonia Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 12:58 pm
For those worried that she could be impeached with her misdemeanor conviction, I refer you to the Illinois Rules of Evidence:
“Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more
than 10 years has elapsed since the date of conviction or of the release of the witness from
confinement, whichever is the later date.”
Her conviction was 15 years ago.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 1:13 pm
==Her conviction was 15 years ago.==
It appears she was merely arrested, not convicted, which makes it even worse. People are presumed innocent until convicted.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 1:23 pm
I’m not that familiar with workings of the ILETSB (though I’m a little familiar with its history) but was surprised to see that “there is no formal appeal process.” Since when is the opinion of the GC determinative for an entire Board? It seems the BOARD should have the final word on this and similar matters within their purview, not an employee of the Board.
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 1:42 pm
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 1:23 pm:
LOL, if only that was true in practice.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 1:43 pm
“The charges against her were dismissed and vacated.”
This makes the ILETSB decision even more egregious. So anyone arrested, even if it’s mistaken identity, can be decertified? That’s insane.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 1:54 pm
@ Big Dipper,
According to the Trib article, she was sentenced to 6 months conditional discharge, which she successfully completed.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 2:08 pm
All she had to do was gift a brand new Academy to ILETSB and she would receive her credential.
Comment by I Love Decatur Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 2:23 pm
Seems like the papers disagree on the basic facts lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 2:24 pm
Okay apparently a conditional discharge is not a conviction and if the subject successfully completes it the matter is expunged. So if something is expunged how can it be relied on?
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 2:29 pm
++So if something is expunged how can it be relied on?++
And what does “expunged” even mean if the record can still be drug up from ancient history and used as a weapon against good people.
Comment by Politix Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 2:40 pm
=The ILETSB’s website has a complete list of decertifiable offenses. Retail theft is not on it.+
Sounds like actionable misconduct on the part of the chief counsel.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 3:17 pm
A youthful shoplifting indiscretion should not be a bar to anything. Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth had a shoplifting arrest or conviction in her youth and now she is Asst. Majority Leader. Gov. JB Pritzker should Pardon Ofc. Ramos. That would legally wipe out any conviction, so there should be no impediment to getting her police job back.
Comment by Watchdog Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 3:20 pm
I would like to hear Ald. Walter Burnett’s thoughts.
He is also the chair of Pedestrian and Traffic Safety, if I recall, and Vice Mayor of Chicago.
I’d like to hear his thoughts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 3:29 pm
Watchdog-
There’s nothing to pardon. Ms. Ramos was never convicted. It sounds as though she was placed on court supervision, kept her nose clean during that time, and charges were dropped. The governor’s statement should help the ILETSB ’see the light’. Ms. Ramos is owed immediate reinstatement and a sincere apology.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 3:39 pm
How soon will be see legislation to abolish ILETSB and replace it with a new board that includes more civilian membership / fewer cops?
Comment by cover Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 4:05 pm
==Also, if she had already been decertified, why would she need to be on the Do Not Call list?==
There might be cases she could testify in still in the pipeline.
==defense counsel may bring it up to impeach their testimony==
That seems unlikely to work. Actually convicted criminals testify pretty regularly and the relevant defendants still get convicted.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 4:24 pm
Rich -
I am not the world’s leading expert, but i dont think the argument from the general counsel will hold up in court. The language he refers to “or any felony or misdemeanor in violation of federal law or the law of any state that is the equivalent of any of the offenses specified therein” is boilerplate language used to incorporate crimes committed in other jurisdictions that are “equivalent” to the crimes as they are known in Illinois, even if known by a different name or carrying a different penalty. in other words, Theft committed in texas, missouri or indiana, even when called something else.
But “retail theft” is not in fact equivelant to “theft” in Illinois, as the lawyer points out they are different and not equal crimes. Moreover, the amendatory language contains the phrase “specified herein”, reincorporating the list of offenses by reference, without adding “retail theft” to the list. The members of the general assembly certainly are aware that shoplifting is a crime, and could have added it if they wanted to, and specifically chose not to.
this should be appealable to circuit court? if it is, i would not waste my time with the training board, let the judge beat them up in court for this absurdity.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 5:03 pm
“…I want to give someone a badge who’s qualified and deserving.” Have you ever met Ramos, since you know how “deserving” she is? Lots of cops have disciplinary records that do not accurately reflect their conduct, because citizens are afraid of retaliation.
“Should we should deny a person their chosen career because some people can’t get past personal biases?” Wow, so everyone has a “right” to their “chosen career?” So, “if it feels good, do it?” I thought the 70s were over.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Aug 23, 23 @ 5:32 pm
I always think this is an interesting stat: before the decrim of cannabis, there were more people in IDOC custody for retail theft (shoplifting) than cannabis related offenses. (The numbers by prercentage held pretty steady as of the last time I looked)
I don’t know what the reason is for that, I suspect the IDOC retail theft population must have been the result of something more than a young person walking out of a store with low value items.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Thursday, Aug 24, 23 @ 7:58 am