Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Hit & Run - maybe not

In response to yesterday's FOIA Request, the McHenry County Sheriff's Department has provided the following information about a blue paint transfer on white Chevrolet SUV (Tahoe?) with license S 56-5.

"The paint transfer you are referring to was caused from an incident in Chicago. On December 14, 2009, employees of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department attended a funeral of a Chicago Police Officer who had also been previously employed by the McHenry County Sheriff's Department. The paint transfer occurred when a Chicago Police squad brushed the left rear bumper of the SUV. The incident was assessed by both drivers and witnesses. Due to the minimal amount of damage, the circumstances involved, the incident did not meet the requirements for a crash report under state law. It was determined that a report was neither required nor necessary. All communication regarding this incident was done verbally.

"The McHenry County Sheriff's Department has no knowledge or record of a minor traffic accident on January 22, 2010 at or near Cardinal Fitness, 11621 Catalpa Lane, Woodstock. If a victim or witness to a traffic crash has any information involving any crash, the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Department encourages them to report this information to the proper police authority."

Many thanks to the Department's FOIA Officer for the prompt and complete response.

18 comments:

Notawannabee said...

Gus,
My question is this. IN light of the FOIA showing that your sources were full of BS, are you going to issue some sort of retraction based upon this new information.

Your own comments in the discussion seemed to have the Lieutenant convicted in your own opinion.

I think there was a rush to judgment. Are you big enough to admit you're wrong and your sources were lying?

Gus said...

Well, NotA, hang on a second. Nothing indicates that my "sources" were full of BS or lying.

You'll notice that the FOIA response says that all reporting was verbal. The FOIA response is based on information give to the FOIA officer; it is merely relayed.

I would be interested in reading the General Orders, because my understanding is that all damage to County vehicles was to be reported. "Reported" means, to me, in writing; i.e., documented.

At the very least, a written report, however brief, should have been filed at the Sheriff's Department, with date, time, location, ID of other vehicle and driver, witness names, etc. If the Chicago PD squad driver was at fault, so state, and that's the end of it, if no claim is to be made.

Then run the vehicle over the garage and have the blue paint rubbed off.

Notawannabee said...

Well I'll take that as a NO. I was going to offer some recipes for Crow, but since no amount of evidence will change your objective. What is that objective?
Try and discredit the MCSO.

It still doesn't change the fact that your sources were dead wrong!

Justin said...

When I read the comments by Gus regarding the original hit and run, it appeared that he had some hard evidence of some real hit and run. Others commented that it appeared to be a witch hunt,but Gus was unrelenting and apparently wanted a pound of flesh from the LT driver of the Tahoe. Defending his apparent witness. Now it appears that the people that thought it was a case of bad info were right.

I wondered if Gus would issue a retraction saying he was in error. I guess a Zebra can't change his stripes and Gus will never say his sources are less than honest.

Gus said...

In four years I have never found one of my sources to be dishonest.

Gus said...

Here's an example of honest sources.

After the drinking party at the Red Mill (you know which one!), I was tipped to the facts. Went to the Woodstock Police chief; he didn't know anything about it.

He told me he sent an investigator to MCSD and later, after the investigator returned, told me no such incident had occurred.

And then later I learned that several deputies (sgt. and above) had been disciplined because of that night's drinking escapades.

So, what happened when the WPD investigator went to MCSD? Did they lie to him? Did he lie to his chief? Did the chief lie to me?

Chief Lowen and I have had our differences, but I believe he has never lied to me. So the truth did not get to him!

Notawannabee said...

What about the people that told you about the hit and run. Seems like they were Ra.. Ra.. Wr.. Wrong.

You seemd to change channels here Gus. You seemed to switch from the hit and run channel to the 'but the guys got in trouble at the Red Mill channel. How about we turn to the "I was wrong channel?" It's available in HD.....

mike said...

Stick to the case at hand, Gus. You now have an explanation of where, when and how this "accident" occurred. Still, this is "suspect" to you because it doesn't conform to YOUR idea or conception of how this should have been handled. The fact that your source stated this happened at Cardinal Fitness and you confirmed it by stating that you had been contacted by YOUR sources confirming this and not until later, when I started asking about Cardinal Fitness, did you deny saying anything about Cardinal Fitness, smells much more than anything you could attribute to the sheriff's department at this point. Even the Woodstock City PD appears to know nothing of this accident/crash. Now the thrust of your "case" rests upon the fact that the report of this incident made it to command verbally. You don't even say WHEN it was reported, etc. Following this whole "saga" we can only imagine that if it HAD been submitted in a written report, you'd be looking for some formatting errors in the written report, i.e. not double-spaced, use of military time vs. AM/PM, etc.

Next time you're over at Woodstock PD, how about doing a FOIA on this crash and get to the bottom of this. While you're at it, do a FOIA on Zane Seipler and see what you get. You may be surprised, but I'll guarantee you that others won't be.

Zane said...

Mike,

That report you read, how did you get it if you didn't FOIA request?

Maybe you found a copy in your departmental mailbox?

Was it passed around at roll call on 1/22/10?

Was any of the documents redacted as is required by law?

Is that legal?

Was it obtained legally?

Did it constitute campaigning on the job?

Were the copies made with departmental paper, ink and manpower?

Were there any witnesses?

Tell you what, I bet those questions will be answered next week.

You guys are so stupid.

You make it too easy.

mike said...

Actually, Zane (Sir Pumkin) until 10:00PM tonight it was just a hot rumor as far as I was concerned. Your friends are talking about it. I think you just confirmed it though.

Thanks!

Unknown said...

Once again, Gus shots off his mouth without any factual information. Even after being provided the true information he continues his efforts to discredit the sheriffs department and then refers to alledged incidents that may have taken place years ago. Hey Mr traffic crusader and self proclaimed know it all. Is there any truth to the rumor that you went past a school bus at the college with the stop arm extended?
Wait till people start digging into your past, thats when the real fun will begin.

Justin said...

To Mike,
I have read and re-read your post and Sir Pumkins post. Neither makes sense to me. Zane posts as Sir Pumkin so I will take a giant leap and say he posted some questions to you and you have a report of some sort. Was something deleted that I missed? What report is Zane refering to? Is there a report at Woodstock PD?

To Gus. If you obtained a FOIA answer and it said the Tahoe was hit in Chicago, doesn't that indicate that the person that told you it happened at Cardinal in Woodstock was wrong? Are you saying the Sheriff or Sheriff Dept is covering up a accident to protect the Lt?

Is the Woodstock Chief under some rule to make sure the Sheriff didn't lie to them?

Notawannabee said...

Well Mr Pumkin, I see you've crawled out of the rabbit hole long enough to make another bizarre nonsensical statement. Better crawl back down and ask Alice for some advice. Maybe some of her anthropomorphic friends will help you with those fantasy allusions.

Gus said...

Mike, generally a FOIA Response is a photocopy of a document, upon which would be the date and time of preparation. In this case, the FOIA Officer wrote a letter to explain a verbal report from someone's recollection.

Had there been a crash or incident report at the time, documenting the damage and parties involved, then a copy of that report would have been sent as the FOIA Response.

And there was no reason for it not to be documented contemporaneously, especially since it is claimed that a Chicago PD officer caused the minor damage on the Tahoe.

And, no, the Woodstock PD chief isn't under any obligation or rule regarding the veracity of information given to one of his officers by someone at the Sheriff's Department. However, when critical information is withheld, I would suspect that he would surely have an opinion about the level of cooperation that exists between MCSD and his department.

Notawannabee said...

What other documentation would there be? This is such a minor incident that I'm sure when the Tahoe is in for service, one of the mechanics will use a little rubbing compound, some elbow grease and it’s gone. It surely doesn't qualify for a traffic crash report.

You seem you are stretching the limits of what is due you in a FOIA. Do you still believe there was some cover up? Seems cut and dried to me.

mike said...

There is a dollar limit threshold on damage before a crash report is required by law. That goes for civilian and government vehicles. Department regulations can vary so long as they are consistent with state law, i.e., if state law requires a report for damage in excess of $250 the department cannot state that a report is only required in cases where damage exceeds $500.

As for FOIA, the Act does not require any governmental entity to create a record if one does not exist. Seems the sheriff's department is bending over backwards to satisfy your inquiry.

Gus said...

Mike, the issue is whether a written report should have been made to MCSD, not to the State of Illinois.

I believe that deputies understand that they are to report every incident of damage, even the most minor.

Should the accident have been the fault of the deputy, then proper training made lead to fewer similar accidents and damage.

Should the accident be the fault of another driver, the deputy stands exonerated.

Ask the patrol deputies what they believe is the standard. I believe they will tell you that they are to report every incident of damage to a County vehicle and in writing.

mike said...

A report was made apparently. While it was verbal, I don't think anyone needs to micromanage the sheriff's department or a city police department. If you KNOW that it has to be a written report is one thing but apparently, like so much else you talk about, you don't KNOW what YOU want done in Gus's perfect world. Two different things, entirely. I realize that you're talking about departmental requirements but that's up to the department to determine - both to set the bar and to determine if their policy was ignored or substantially complied with. In a case such as this, with the "damage" being so insignificant, occurring during a funeral procession, etc. if the command was notified, I don't see the problem and, apparently, neither do they. But then, what you and I feel about the policy isn't really relevant I don't think.