Algonquin PD Seeks to fire Sgt.

I first met Sgt. Wade Merritt several years ago, after I read an article about left-turn tickets at traffic lights (not photo enforcement) in Algonquin. I called him with questions, and he invited me into the police department for a conversation. He greeted me in a professional and friendly manner, and I was completely satisfied with full answers to all my questions and felt confident that the Algonquin PD was enforcing traffic signal laws fairly.

It is disappointing to read in today's paper that Algonquin PD is running on the same tracks as Woodstock PD.

According to today's paper, Chief Russell Laine wants the Algonquin Police Commission (similar to Woodstock's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners) to fire Sgt. Merritt "because he violated the law by allegedly striking his wife in the head..."

To my knowledge there is no law that is violated by "allegedly" striking someone. Keyword? "Allegedly". Here's another case of sending out to the hardware store for rope and getting ready to give someone a "fair" trial and then string him up. Sgt. Merritt is not guilty of anything until a court finds him guilty. But the police department is going to shred him before it ever gets to court.

Oh, wait; "allegedly" going to shred him.... or is it, going to allegedly shred him...?

The whole story of a husband-wife argument has yet to be told in court. Until it is, Merritt is innocent. Yet Algonquin PD is trying to destroy him.

The Algonquin Police Commission (read, Village of Algonquin) is playing the same game as the Woodstock BOFPC (read, City of Woodstock). No surprise here. Both use the same municipal law firm.

The State law is sloppy enough that a Board can drag it out for months, running an officer out of money. How does this work?

A board must conduct a fair and impartial hearing on charges and must commence within 30 days of the filing of charges. Here's the kicker: "...which hearing may be continued from time to time..." So a board can hide behind the "continued" word and keep dragging its feet, changing and escalating the discipline slightly but not promptly holding the actual hearing.

But the law also says that a board "...may suspend any officer pending the hearing with or without pay, but not to exceed 30 days." Again, another sloppy word, "pending". They can say that they are holding hearings and continuing them, but can they stretch a calendar and count on only 30 days from May 5 to June 17?

Merritt's attorney is right that Merritt is entitled to a closed hearing, and he is right to decline to comment to the press.