Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Badge case against former officer dismissed

A case was dismissed in Judge Condon's court yesterday, but I guess it wasn't big enough for the local paper to cover right away. Needless to mention, it got quite a splash when it happened. Should it get the same prominence when disposed of?

The case involved former Algonquin Police Department Sgt. Wade Merritt. Merritt was charged by Crystal Lake P.D. for "badging" an officer during a traffic stop. Merritt was no longer a police officer; he had resigned after a mess with his wife one day that resulted in a police visit, charges against him, and a conviction in 2009. He was found not guilty on two charges but guilty on a third, after which he resigned.

Fourteen months later, yesterday, March 28, the "false personation of a police officer" charge was dismissed. Merritt still has to deal with a speeding ticket, and his next court date on that one is April 25.

As I recall, when he was stopped on January 1, 2010, he wasn't ticketed. A week later, he was charged with speeding and "false personation". My guess is that somebody put "2 and 2" together and realized that Merritt was no longer a cop.

What too often happens, when a cop gets stopped for speeding or some other traffic violation? The speeder, if he's a cop, "badges" the officer, identifying himself as a cop. Then the cop gives his buddy a pass. Some call it "professional courtesy". I call it "unprofessional courtesy". For years, I've thought cops ought to be the first to obey the laws, not the last.

So, to me, it looks like the Crystal Lake cop gave Merritt a pass on January 1, 2010. And then, later, when somebody woke up and said, "What a minute. Merritt is no longer a cop", the "wheels of justice" began to creak.

Now the serious charge of badging of cop with an expired badge is gone. Will the speeding ticket be thrown out, too, because it wasn't issued when the violation occurred?

Why do I even write about this? I met Wade Merritt before the first mess happened. I had called him after reading a story in the Northwest Herald about left turns as traffic lights changed from yellow to red. He invited me in to discuss the story, and I enjoyed meeting him. He was a professional cop and citizen-friendly. I was sorry to see him lose his job and career over the incident involving his wife. I suspect that use of an Employee Assistance Program at work would have been a suitable alternative, and he could have continued as an officer.

11 comments:

M.U.G. said...

I thought the police had 12 - 18 months in this state to issue a citation. I know I've read where at least 30 days went by before a citation was issued for a fatal accident in the past but that was some time ago.

Gus said...

A serious injury or fatal accident might be a situation where there is a delay in handing out a ticket.

Even then, an initial ticket perhaps ought to be issued for obvious violations; then charges can be upgraded, when lab tests results come in or if a person dies.

rommel said...

Interesting that you feel this way, Gus. It must be heady living in the glass tower master of all you survey. On the one hand you seem upset that Merritt (whom you apparently like/liked) might have gotten some consideration by a copper thinking that he was a fellow copper when he wasn't. Okay, shame on them if that's true. After all, Lord knows the police NEVER, EVER give John Q. Public a break, right?

Fast forward to the current situation and how badly we feel that Merritt lost his job. Without considering the merit (pun intended) of the domestic abuse case, it it what it is. I can imagine the screaming coming from you had the sheriff's deputies NOT arrested Merritt. That they did speaks volumes of a) either their integrity or b) the egregiousness of Merritt's offense. Fact is they DID arrest him and he WAS convicted - of domestic battery. A learned scholar of both the law and police procedure such as yourself surely knows that a domestic violence conviction is an automatic bar - under Federal law - to the possession of a firearm. Tell me what kind of EAP program would restore Merritt's rights to carry a firearm or give his department a useful officer? Well? Upon conviction, Merritt had two choices: He could resign or he could be fired. Either one was a slam dunk. He's moved on, why can't you?

As for your comment about a rush to charge somebody after an accident, there's a simple reason they wait and charge appropriately (hopefully) the FIRST time. The reason is a little thing called "lesser included offenses." Say there's a crash and somebody dies. All the police know at the time is that the "offender" crossed over the center line. Let's charge him right now with improper lane usage. It's later learned - after he is wisely counseled to plead guilty to that ticket and lay low that he was drag racing at the time. Potential for a felony now but it's not going anywhere because he's already plead out on the case.

Justin said...

Gus you are VERY VERY wrong. If the police charge under a lesser charge and the person runs in, pleads guilty and pays the LESSOR offense, then all is done and BuBye upgraded charges. YOU NO KNOW SO LITTLE but pretend SO MUCH!

Gus said...

Come on, guys. Put your real names on the line and I'll be glad to debate these points with you.

rommel said...

What difference does a name make? Snidely may be taking potshots but I have stated facts - a foreign concept to you, I know. Easy enough to prove or disprove whether my name is Donald Duck, Mata Hari, Barack Obama, or Gus Philpott.

You obviously are ignorant of many basic things and when you get called on it you squirm. I challenge your position with facts and you deflect. Hmmmmmm... why does that sound familiar?

I'd use my real name but I'd never hear the end of it if any of my friends or co-workers knew that I actually read your stuff.

Gus said...

Come on, Picket. You know that's not the reason.

Either 1) you fear using your own name because of the retaliation/ retribution you fear within your own department; 2) you are forbidden by General Orders, which might in themselves violate your First Amendment rights; 3) you wish to take pot shots and hide behind a poser name.

But the reason surely is not the one you stated.

Dudley DoRight said...

What is there to debate with these two? Both (Pickett and Snidely)appear spot on regarding upgrading charges and the “Merits” of the case.

Whether or not they place their name on their post here seems meaningless. If the information is correct, that is the objective.

There is no rush to charge on traffic charges. Sit back and wait until all the facts are in, assess the data and then charge the appropriate charge. You seem to think charging someone with a lesser charge is the way to go. As was stated by Snidely, if a lesser charge is issued, the person simply pleads guilty and the State is dead in the water.

Let me ask you this. WHY is it so important to charge something even if it isn't the appropriate charge? Pickett makes some very valid points and Snidely adds to the flavor of the blog with sarcasms. Regardless how they say it or what name they list, you’re just as wrong.

Gus said...

Sam, thanks for your comment.

Here's my take. Let's say that a drunk driver crosses the centerline and hits an oncoming car, killing the driver. Why not charge him immediately with the lane violation? And add, Further charges may be filed.

Then, when the blood test comes back, file a new charges of DUI and manslaughter (or whatever).

It's very hard for me to believe that the drunk and his lawyer, running into court for an early plea and a $75 fine, would preclude additional charges.

However, this being Illinois, I guess I can believe anything.

Why is it important? When cases drop off the front page, sometimes they get "lost" on the way to the courthouse. The public forgets them after a day or two; they become "old news". Obviously, survivors don't. Even the media might forget them, while they search for the news of the day.

rommel said...

Yeah, Gus, it really is the reason. I don't work for LE. Nobody really wants to be associated with you. Really!

Another error in your master plans is a financial one: take it one step further in your "rush to charge something, anything" when there is an accident involving death. Let's say the guy/gal at fault is injured to the point they require hospitalization. Wanna guess who's primarily responsible for that hospital bill? the overtime guarding him if they are under arrest at the hospital? Now if it happens to be an illegal, well, a judgment call has to be made as we all have seen many such defendants disappear overnight only to return months later with a new set of identification. But what about Joe Sixpack the drunk from Crystal Lake or Cary. You know the drunken homeowner. Where's he gonna go? How hard will it be to find him even if he does? And yes, cases do get disposed of by somebody pleading out to a lesser included offense due to hasty decisions made by the police or prosecutor's.

That you don't/can't/won't understand that doesn't make it untrue.

What you DON'T know about the law and law enforcement could fill a book (as is the case with most of us). The difference is that you have no idea of your limitations or chose to ignore them.

Gus said...

Picket, thanks for reminding me of a quote I first heard more than 25 years ago.

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours" - thanks to Richard Bach, author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull and other good books (1936 - ).