Failure to supervise?

A comment appeared this week to one of the articles in the Northwest Herald about the trial of a man who was charged after an investigation by detectives of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.

During the short investigation the lead detective and a woman who became a (not so) confidential informant (C.I.) developed quite a cozy relationship.

Hundreds of text messages and phone calls from the detective's Department-issued and County-paid-for cell phone were exchanged between the two. Isn't that mis-use of County property?

The lead detective set up "knock and talk" visits to the house where the woman said drugs would be found. When the detectives were expected, the woman moved an encased shotgun in the house from the large, crowded crawlspace in the basement to the master bedroom closet. The homeowner didn't think the shotgun was even in the house, because the woman was to have taken it to her father's home in Lake Zurich and was believed to have placed it in his gun safe.

In her deposition before the trial, the woman described her sexual relationship with the detective and told of going to the detective's home after her fiancee's arrest.

The Northwest Herald's reader's comment was, "Now if this occurs in a regulated private business.... it's called 'failure to supervise' and your firm pays a big fine to the regulator."

The public records should indicate when the Sheriff's Department began its investigation of the wrongful relationship between the detective and the C.I.

The big questions are "Who knew about it? and "When did they know?"

Det. Jason Novak was the lead detective. The other detectives who went with him to the house on April 28, 2011 were Det. Kyle Mandernack and Det. Jacob Keltner. At what point did Mandernack or Keltner become aware of the inappropriate frequency of texting and personal phone calls between Novak and the C.I.?

The head of detectives at MCSD is Lt. James Popovits. At what point did he become aware of the texting, the phone calls, and the late night visit of the C.I. to Novak's home for the purpose of a sexual encounter?

The McHenry County State's Attorney concluded that the sex act would not harm their case because it occurred after the arrest was effected. Yeah, right. Like, just hours afterwards. Of course, it would have affected their case! Well, it should have affected their case, but Det. Novak was never called to testify.

The Sheriff's Department conducted an internal "investigation" and gave Novak ten days off and re-assigned him from Detectives to Patrol.

Why is all this still important? Number 1 - it is likely to lead to a lawsuit by the C.I. against the Sheriff's Department.

Number 2 - the responsibility of fellow officers and supervisors to report wrong-doing was brought out in the arbitration of a Des Plaines police officer who punched a prisoner during a transport to the Des Plaines PD. The prisoner was cuffed and in a single-person cage in the back seat. The officer was accompanied by another Des Plaines officer. When nearing the PD, the driver pulled into a parking area and, without notice to his partner, walked around to the back door of the squad, opened the door, and punched the prisoner in the face, causing his eye to swell shut.

He did not report his assault on the prisoner, his partner did not report it, the receiving officers at the Des Plaines PD did not report it, the commanders may have verbally reported it upwards but didn't document it in writing. That prisoner is now suing the Des Plaines PD.

No cop wants to be a snitch, a rat or a whistle-blower. Frank Serpico found out - the hard way. But knowledge of wrong-doing must be reported immediately, and reports must be acted upon immediately by supervisors, command and leadership.

This is what we are lacking at the McHenry County Sheriff's Department. This is why the next election for the Office of Sheriff is so important.