Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Hard-right House Republicans reject Invest in Kids Act compromise
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* In its ongoing series about anti-government extremists infiltrating law enforcement ranks, WBEZ, the Sun-Times and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project published a story entitled “He was a rising football star — then he met this state trooper.” You should read the whole thing to see what happened to the kid, but let’s talk about this…
In a statement last week, state police said they knew Dumais had appeared on the Oath Keepers list, but officials determined that he had only “isolated involvement” with the group in 2009, before he joined the force in 2013. In the leaked data, Dumais appears on membership rolls dated as late as 2015.
“At some point in early 2009 I donated an amount of money which I cannot recall to the Oathkeepers Organization through their website,” Dumais wrote in an internal memo in January 2023. “I do not consider myself a member of this organization.”
Dumais did not return messages. A state police spokesperson defended him as a “decorated officer with no discipline” who was lauded for saving a woman from fatally overdosing and for being the lead investigator in three solved homicide cases.
The spokesperson for the state police said the allegations against Dumais in Mitchell’s lawsuit had been reviewed and it was decided there was “insufficient evidence to support discipline” against the state trooper. The spokesperson also said the settlement with Mitchell was smaller than his initial demand of $1.5 million.
And state police officials said Monday they recently added questions to their job applications to screen aspiring troopers who have been involved in anti-government groups.
The Oath Keepers list was made public in September of 2022.
* One issue not mentioned in the story is that the Illinois State Police Merit Board is specifically prohibited from investigating most actions that took place more than three years before a complaint is filed. So even if a complaint was filed against that trooper, the board couldn’t do anything about conduct in 2009 through 2015, when he was listed as an Oath Keepers member. Here’s the rule…
The Board will not consider any complaint based upon conduct which antedates by three years the date the complaint is filed, except in those instances where the conduct complained of is parallel to criminal conduct as provided by the laws of this state, the United States or any governmental subdivision thereof, in which case this shall conform with the applicable criminal statute of limitations when the applicable criminal statute of limitations is longer. On Petitions for Review, the Board will reverse the suspension based on conduct which antedates by three (3) years the date the suspension was given.
The State Police Merit Board proposed getting rid of this rule in May of 2022, with the support of the ISP. Click here and scroll down to see it. However, I’m told, the legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules asked the Merit Board to withdraw the proposed change due to lack of support among its bipartisan membership and opposition from police unions.
* The Question: Should this statute of limitations-style rule be rescinded, extended or left as-is? Make sure to explain your answer, please. Thanks.
…Adding… JCAR staff recalls this differently. They’re saying that JCAR took a pass because they learned an unfair labor practice charge was pending before the Illinois Labor Relations Board on this very issue, not on the policy per se.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 1:08 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Hard-right House Republicans reject Invest in Kids Act compromise
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t know. Seems like it would be good to know if a police officer belongs to, or at one point was affiliated/supported a group like Oath Keepers. Not sure that alone is cause for discipline, but that’s something supervisors should know at a minimum.
I suspect part of the problem is the large and growing number of these anti-government groups. Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, border militias/vigilante groups, sovereign citizens, etc. There is even one group called the “Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.”
And if we add those by name, it would surprise no one to see groups simply change their names.
I’m a soft no on the question. But I think some JCAR members might be really uncomfortable that you asked this on CapFax. Lol.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 1:51 pm
Let it go further back. Reason being, the three year rule makes it relatively easy for a patient but motivated bad actor to “scrub” his public history, and then you won’t really know who they are… While that may not be a big deal in a civilian job, LEOs have to be held to a higher standard because of the seriousness of the job and the fact they are empowered by the state to take lives (in certain situations). Anyone, I mean anyone with that power - I want to know, before you give them a shield and a weapon - that they aren’t covering up a life long pattern of being absolutely the wrong person for the honor of that job. Specifically the infiltration of gangs and organized crime members into police. Like it isn’t hard enough already to insure you’re not hiring unsuitable applicants with dishonest agendas?
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:09 pm
Every other law enforcement officer in Illinois has no sol for discretionary revocation of their certification. Meaning, ILETSB has no such bar to revocation.
Comment by Me. Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:20 pm
Extended.
I believe in forgiveness, and I know personally that people change over time. But as an old man, I also know that changes in beliefs take time, and are rarely so swift.
I think it makes perfect sense to say The Board will consider and evaluate any complaint arising in the past ten years, in those instances where.
If a felony conviction is grounds for consideration, and if prior use of drugs is grounds for consideration, then prior membership in anti-government organization and prior use of force should also be evaluated.
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:21 pm
Rescinded. If left in place, we will soon be beyond the date for review of activities related to 1/6/2021.
Such behavior by potential candidates is intolerable and should be an automatic prohibition against the person becoming a police officer.
Furthermore, even peripheral associations with groups such as oath keepers and such ilk ought to be used as a means to keep someone out of law enforcement.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:21 pm
Rats. 2:21 pm twas I.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:22 pm
What’s missing in the story is the date that the Oath Keepers became verboten. If it wasn’t a violation to be an OK member (an Okee Dokey?) in 2015, then there’s nothing for the Board to consider. You can’t backdate a prohibited act. Also, the trooper was hired in 2013. Why would the Board go back to look at things in 2009?
With respect to the three-year limit, it’s probably not a big issue either way. The merit board cases are not citizen complaint cases, they concern discipline for policy violations. They can range from excessive force violations to time-clock or dress-code violations. The serious violations will almost always arise in three years. Do we care that a trooper forgot his tie more than three years ago?
Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:27 pm
Do we care that a trooper forgot his tie more than three years ago?
Oh just stop. That’s not any part of the disciplinary process at either agency.
Comment by Me. Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:29 pm
===But I think some JCAR members might be really uncomfortable that you asked this===
Heh.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:35 pm
Rescinded. The public trust is the most valuable currency LEO have and membership of a hate group at any point should automatically trigger a substantial and transparent investigation to assure the public that said officer can be trusted to no longer hold those bigoted views as they police our communities.
As another poster said, 3 years from 1/6 is coming up pretty soon and I don’t know how many folks would feel comfortable with a 1/6 participant protecting our schools or government buildings.
Comment by Sensible Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:36 pm
Removing the sol is one of the most important parts of police reform. Certain violations from the past should be forgotten. But some should end a career as police officer, no matter when they come to light. Also, past conduct may be part of a pattern of violations that should be considered together.
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:39 pm
I’d remove the SOL as I think in cases where it was a kind of random donation or such the board can handle that reasonably. Not commenting on the specifics of the case because the article was too long to finish at the moment.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 2:49 pm
Answer: Modified rule.
A complacent board will look the other way no matter what the rule is. Back the blue mindset has caused an incalculable amount of damage.
“withdraw the proposed change due to lack of support among its bipartisan membership and **opposition from police unions**.”
Nobody wanted to be seen as going against the police, and their decision is the outcome of that.
Even so, If you joined a group 10 years ago, and there is no superseding detail showing you have left said group, then the group membership is coterminous with the date the complaint was made -not years prior to it- and should be investigated as such.
It’s not a stretch to consider even under the existing rule the merit board should have looked at a potentially ongoing membership. Being a member of a group with intention to overthrown the government meets the exception listed in the current rule. Instead, the excuse of a membership list showing membership from years ago was used as a reason to cease investigating. This situation seems more like a desired outcome in search of a reason to justify it.
We’ve forgotten the rest of;
“A few bad apples… spoil the bushel.”
Instead, “A few bad apples” is used as a supposedly valid excuse when this behavior shows up, to dismiss it and move on. We’ve already moved the bar that this is acceptable. If a bad apple shows up, that’s a failure in screening. If a few bad apples continue to show up, that’s a structural failure.
We will get the government we allow.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 3:02 pm
I’m inclined to rescind the SOL, or at least lengthen it. Perhaps another consideration should be when the conduct was discovered. Suppose an officer steals property from the evidence locker and it’s not discovered until 3 1/2 years later? Why should he be shielded from discipline?
By the way, = The spokesperson also said the settlement with Mitchell was smaller than his initial demand of $1.5 million. =
That’s why it’s called a settlement. Sheesh.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 3:30 pm
I kinda thought post-MJM dems would be a little bit more strong willed when it came to things like this (ie left-leaning but not especially for our state). Very sad to see them bury this obviously good, no brainer idea.
Rich, I hope this causes some folks to rethink their position.
Comment by SWSider Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 3:41 pm
Show of hands — who is “surprised” that cops are close to whack jobs like the Oath Keepers? The correct answer no one.
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 3:54 pm
Absolutely eliminate or lengthen the SOL. 3 years is completely arbitrary, and heinous behavior more than 3 years ago should definitely be considered. People don’t change that fast.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 4:05 pm
Of course there should be no time limitation on ISP for investigating its officers. It can take a long time for corruption and wrongdoing to surface.
Comment by Rufus T. Firefly Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 4:07 pm
=dems would be a little bit more strong willed…Very sad to see them bury this obviously good, no brainer idea.=
JCAR is evenly split between Rs and Ds and thus a party line vote loses. Republican members defeated this
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 4:29 pm
Wait until artificial intelligence starts conducting investigations…
Comment by Stacy Tuesday, Oct 24, 23 @ 4:42 pm