State's Attorney blinks on Koziol

The following press release was issued by the McHenry County State's Attorney

PRESS RELEASE

December 18, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Deputy Sheriff Sergeant John Koziol brought forth allegations that Undersheriff Andrew Zinke committed a crime when he violated multiple General Orders of the McHenry County Sheriff.  The allegations were presented in a Petition, with a supporting sworn Affidavit, to appoint a Special Prosecutor.  It was filed in the McHenry County Circuit Court by and through his attorney, Jonathan D. Nye, on October 30, 2012, alleging that the violations of multiple general orders constituted the commission of Official Misconduct, a Class 3 Felony (720 ILCS 5/33-3) (b) (c) which carries a term in the Department of Corrections from two to five years and a maximum fine of $25,000.  Subsequently, on November 2, 2012, the Petition was heard before Judge Thomas Meyer and denied.  We immediately initiated an investigation and requested the Office of the State’s Attorney Appellate Prosecutor to make themselves available for assistance and/or consultation.

After an investigation and review, it is the conclusion of the State’s Attorney’s Office that even if all of the facts as set forth in Sergeant Koziol’s Petition and Affidavit were true (that is, the purported leaking of the DEA investigation by Undersheriff Zinke), such conduct is not illegal under Illinois law.  While some may consider the dissemination of what would appear to be highly confidential and sensitive information an alarming and problematic matter, such conduct does not violate the Official Misconduct Statute.  Accordingly, the question of whether the allegations were true and whether the information was disseminated is a question for Sheriff Nygren to investigate and make a determination.  In short, whether or not the Undersheriff violated the general orders of the Sheriff is a question for the Sheriff to resolve.

The Supreme Court of Illinois, in People v. Williams, 239 Ill.2d 119, 940 N.E.2d 50 (2010) made it clear that a police department’s rules and regulations (i.e. Sheriff’s General Orders) are not laws and therefore any violation of such rules do not and cannot support a charge of Official Misconduct.  In Williams, a police dispatcher was accused of leaking information to another person about a drug investigation.  The Supreme Court stated:  “[ ] we emphasize that our holding should not be interpreted as an approval of defendant’s conduct.  The conduct here is certainly troublesome and unjustifiable.  We hold that defendant did not commit the offense of official misconduct only because the confidentiality rules at issue here cannot be construed as ‘laws’ under the statute.”  Williams, 239 Ill.2d at 134.

Will SAO investigate Sheriff?

The big question for some now, as a result of Judge Meyer's decision yesterday to dismiss a request for a Special Prosecutor, is whether the McHenry County State's Attorney will open an investigation into the issues raised by an employee of the Sheriff's Department.

SAO attorney Don Leise fought hard to keep one from being appointed. His position was that there is no conflict-of-interest that would rise to such a level that it would impair the ability of the State's Attorney to properly investigate allegations that have begun to surface about Sheriff Keith Nygren.

Did the People win yesterday? Was yesterday's hearing about protecting the interest of the People? About saving the cost of a Special Prosecutor, when an existing taxpayer-supporting agency was already in place? Attorney Leist was quite animated when he said that five Special Prosecutors had been appointed in McHenry County in the past two years, whereas none had been appointed in his previous 25 years years in the practice of law. What did that possibly have to do with how Judge Meyer might decide?

Will the public trust be maintained in the Office of the States's Attorney? Will it begin to investigate the issues for which a Special Prosecutor was being sought?

Was the State's Attorney's Office fighting on principle on behalf of the People, when it filed its Motion to Dismiss (the request for a Special Prosecutor)?

Or was the State's Attorney already representing its client, the McHenry County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Keith Nygren, when it fought so hard to prevent the appointment of a Special Prosecutor?

Was it a defense of the sheriff to prevent the appointment, because its client's position was that he did not want to be investigated?

When will the State's Attorney's Office begin its investigation?

Open Letter to State's Attorney Bianchi

Dear Mr. Bianchi,

I am writing to call your attention to an unfair and expensive procedure, over which I understand your office might be able to exert some influence.

When the McHenry County Conservation District issues a ticket to a person found in an MCCD park after-hours, the ticket requires that person to appear before a judge, if he does not pay the $75.00 to MCCD within about 7-10 days.

A Guilty plea at the first court appearance results in an exorbitant amount of court costs and fees. On Monday the sum of $111.00 was assessed on top of the $75.00 fine.

The recipient of the ticket inquired before the court date about paying the $75.00 at the Payment Window of the courthouse and was told payment would not be accepted and that a court appearance was required.

Without disrespect to the court or to the judicial process, it seems reasonable to allow a first offender to pay the $75.00 before the court date. Perhaps a small "service fee" ($10.00?) could be added to pay for a clerk's time to accept payment, and probably few people would argue with that, understanding that they would be saving $100.00.

May I invite you to consider my request that the procedure for such petty offenses be changed to allow payment at the courthouse, in person or by mail, before a court date by those persons who intend not to contest the citation?

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Gus Philpott

Deputy had Dalby flash drive

The transcript of the June 1, 2009 sentencing hearing of Amy Dalby by Judge Joseph Condon in People v. Amy L. Dalby makes for some very interesting reading. She had already pled guilty to "computer tampering" and was in court for sentencing.

On Page 16 of the transcript Special Prosecutor David O'Connor, in addressing the Court, said, "It was at this meeting that the Defendant gave an off-duty Sheriff's deputy, who was working on behalf of the political campaign, the flash drive that contained all the data that was removed from the McHenry State's Attorney's office." And O'Connor said, "...the flash drive that the Defendant gave the off-duty Sheriff's Deputy that contained all the State's Attorney computer data has now according to that off-duty Sheriff's Deputy has (sic) allegedly been lost."

So, the unnamed deputy (weren't they nice to omit his or her name?) came into possession of information stolen from the State's Attorney's office in October 2007 at that DeKalb meeting (Dalby was a student at NIU) and he (or she) didn't turn it in?

The hearing transcript refers to 5,000 pages of data (Page 17) taken from the State's Attorney's office on that flash drive. If that deputy was working on the political campaign, it seems to me that he would have known or suspected what the flash drive contained, when it was given to him.

What kind of law enforcement do we have in McHenry County? Even the newest, youngest deputy ought to understand that possession of stolen information is a crime and that it is his obligation to turn over evidence in a crime that "happens" to come into his possession.

But wait! There was at least one more deputy involved. On Page 17 of the transcript, O'Connor continues, "To underscore that this has a lot more to do with politics rather than corruption was at least two off-duty sheriff deputies working on behalf of the campaign played the role at various times in transferring this computer data to others for campaign related purposes."

The claim throughout the hearing by Dalby's defense was that she did not know she was committing a crime by taking data off an office computer. O'Connor called that "disingenuous."

O'Connor was kind in court. Any third grader knows that you don't take things that don't belong to you.

Dalby got off easy when Judge Condon sentenced her to court supervision until June 1, 2010, a $400 fine and court costs. No community service. No other conditions. She doesn't even have to go back to court, if she is in compliance.

In compliance with what? Is there an "understanding" that compliance means staying out of trouble? What kind of "trouble"? But it wasn't defined by the court, as it often is. So it looks like all she has to do is pay her fine and court costs and keep breathing until June 1.

Will the two off-duty sheriff's deputies be identified? Will they be charged with possession of stolen material? Or will all this just fall off the radar screen?

Another driver learns about BAC

Press Release from the Office of the McHenry County State's Attorney on August 18, 2009:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

McHenry County State’s Attorney, Louis A. Bianchi, is pleased to announce that Assistant State’s Attorneys Amanda Fisher and Robert Malen recently won a jury trial in the matter of People v. Robert Carlson. Carlson was charged with driving with a BAC over .08. Mr. Carlson was involved in a single car crash and transported to the hospital. During the course of the medical treatment his blood draw was .10. There were several evidentiary challenges that existed with this case: the blood draw timeline was in dispute and there were no field sobriety tests done. Also, the witnesses who had contact with the defendant, except for the arresting officer, saw no signs of impairment. The defendant will be sentenced September 18, 2009.

SAO nails repeat DUI offender

PRESS RELEASE

McHenry County State’s Attorney, Louis A. Bianchi, is pleased to announce that after a three day trial today a jury returned a guilty verdict in the case of People vs. Steven St. John. The defendant was observed leaving a Crystal Lake tavern and after getting into his vehicle, repeatedly collided with a parked vehicle. He was subsequently detained by officers from the Crystal Lake Police Department and charged with driving under the influence for the seventh time.

The case was prosecuted for the State by Assistant State’s Attorney’s Ryan Blackney and Simeon Kim. The conviction was for a Class X felony violation of driving under the influence of alcohol. The defendant faces a mandatory minimum of 6 years in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections with a possibility of being sentenced up to 30 years.

The defendant was also found guilty of a class 4 felony of driving while license revoked.

This case underscores the problem and dangers caused by repeat offenders who do not get the message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. Those who choose to break the law will be vigorously prosecuted for the protection of the public. One death or injury caused by a DUI driver is one too many and the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office will prosecute those who drink and drive in violation of the law and jeopardize the public safety to the fullest extent possible.