Go directly to jail - do not ..

... even go home first.

Two jailers (err, correctional officers) at the McHenry County Jail (errr, Corrections Center or Facility, whatever the $10,000,000 word is) are in hot water over an alleged crime that occurred inside the jail over the week-end.

Word is that one has already been arrested and action is being considered against a second. As passed along to me, the crime involved some alleged physical attention to a female inmate of the jail.

The talk already is that one jailer will be fired; suspended could be the better word at this time, since the Sheriff's Department Merit Commission may be the public body that approves all firings, unless employment of jailers, as non-sworn employees of the Sheriff's Department, is not governed by the Merit Commission. It may be that jailers, if they are not governed by the Merit Commission, are at-will employees of the Sheriff's Department, meaning they can be directly fired.

Now, inmates are supposed to be safe in jail; right? Safe from harm by other inmates, and definitely safe from harm by employees of the jail.

Of course, the other side of the story could be that a female inmate complained of being touched inappropriately and maybe it didn't really happen. All such accusations must be investigated. It's not unknown that those in jail complain to get their keepers in trouble.

Jailers could be particularly vulnerable to such charges, because of their continual interactions with inmates. Inmates should be treated firmly, but with respect. And there should be strict rules governing cell checks or other interactions between jailers of one gender and inmates of the other.

[9:00PM Late this afternoon the Northwest Herald reported that Corrections Officer Elias Dario Fortoso, 29, was charged after an investigation started about July 13.]

Hit-and-Run Leads to $380 Fine

In early June I was tipped off to what was referred to as a "hit-and-run" accident involving a McHenry County Corrections (jail) officer at a Friday, May 9th party at Coleman & Co. on Lake Avenue in Woodstock. The party was the "Bailiff's Ball." Having read nothing in the local news about it, I contacted Woodstock Police Department with a FOIA Request on June 15.

On June 18 Karen Webb was fined $380 in McHenry County Court for "Failure to Give Notice of Accident." The charge was amended from the original charge of Leaving the Scene.

Witnesses to the crash reported that a woman backed a Ford Explorer out of a parking place and backed into a Ford pick-up truck. The driver got out of her vehicle and walked to the back of it (point of impact). Then she returned to her vehicle, pulled back into the parking space and then walked back into Coleman's.

A Woodstock police officer was dispatched to Coleman's and was told by customers that the driver of the Explorer had left Coleman's, and he could not locate her.

On Saturday morning a police sergeant met at the police station with a woman suspected of being the driver of the Explorer. She was read her Miranda rights and refused to sign the Miranda Notice. She also exercised her right not to answer questions. The sergeant directed the officer to proceed with identification steps, and the officer conducted a Photo Line-up with witnesses to the crash. They identified the driver positively.

Karen Webb was charged on May 15 with Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Accident and ordered to appear in court on June 18. Webb posted a $100 bond.

On June 18 Webb was fined $380 on the amended charge of "Failure to Give Notice of Accident."

The lesson? Could it have been easier and cheaper to 'fess up that Friday night and just settle the damage claim? Did she really think that she would not be recognized and identified? Was there a reason that she did not want to talk to the Woodstock cops that night? Had she just found the other driver, it probably could have all been handled without any police involvement.

There is no reference in the police report to this being an alcohol-related crash. Was it? Obviously, with no contact with the driver immediately after the crash and before she re-entered Coleman's, it would be nearly impossible to convict on DUI, if she had been drinking. We all know that criminal justice system personnel never drink and drive; right? And a gathering of buddies at a local watering hole? They were all drinking sodas and lemonade...

The BIG question is why did it take a Freedom of Information Request to get this information? Why didn't the Woodstock Police routinely release this information to the press?

Woodstock Police have a precedent (at least one) of not releasing information to the press about accidents involving law enforcement personnel. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. City Administration and the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners must represent the public's interest and require the Police Department not to withhold accident and ticket information when police or deputies are involved.

My original FOIA Request was denied - not by the FOIA Officer at the Woodstock Police Department, but on his behalf by the law firm of the City of Woodstock. The unusual change in procedure probably resulted in unnecessary expense to the Police Department (City of Woodstock/taxpayers). Advice and letters from the City Attorney do not come without charge.

Why did the Police Department go to that expense, instead of just sending the denial letter using their boilerplate response?

My appeal of the FOIA denial was granted by Woodstock's City Manager Tim Clifton, although the response was heavily redacted. With the Case Number, the name of the driver was readily available from Court records.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

Why So Secretive?

On May 15th I filed a FOIA Request with the City of Woodstock for information about a traffic crash in which a McHenry County Corrections Officer allegedly left the scene of an accident after a party at Coleman & Co. called the Bailiff's Ball.

Standard procedure with FOIA requests is to address them to the City's Freedom of Information Officer. That person makes a determination whether, and to what extent, the request can be complied with, and that person responds.

On June 20 the law firm of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle replied on behalf of the Woodstock Police Department and denied my request.

Their letter informed me that the official responsible for the denial is Sgt. Richard Johns (of the Woodstock Police Department).

Here's my question to the City: Why didn't Dick Johns reply directly to me? Why were City funds (so precious now, to hear the City say) expended to have the City Attorney's office reply to me and pass out the "boilerplate" reasons denying my request? Just how much did that letter cost? $150? $300? Did the City think I would be more impressed (or scared off) by the law firm's letterhead on the response? (I'm not.)

The denial was based on the position that release of the information would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of person privacy..." Baloney. If it was a hit-and-run, what "privacy" is a driver entitled to? Sure, he's innocent until found guilty.

And we all know he wasn't drinking; right? No sheriff's department employee would go to a bar for a Friday night party and drink. Would he?

If a driver leaves the scene, gets tracked down and is issued a ticket, that's public information. Woodstock PD should have issued a Press Release, and the information should have been in the paper and on the radio within 2-3 days. The citation goes to the courthouse, and a trial date is a public record. If the City wants to redact his address, DOB, D/L number, fine.

The second reason for the denial was that "... disclosure would interfere with pending law enforcement proceedings and deprive the individual involved of a fair trial or an impartial hearing." This one is a double slice of baloney.

How in the world could releasing court date information interfere with his getting a fair trial?

What I am interested in, is that he GETS a trial! That is, he ends up in court and doesn't skate off into the blue because he is connected with the Sheriff's Department.

The City Attorney's office also informed me that I could appeal to Tim Clifton and, if the denial is upheld, file suit in Circuit Court.

I mean, this is all stupid! This is how Woodstock wants to spend its taxpayer revenues? The appeal with Tim Clifton will be filed.

And, since it seems to be standard practice in the law enforcement field to blow this kind of smoke, suspecting that an individual doesn't have the resources to file a further appeal in Circuit Court, maybe it's time to figure out just how to file such an appeal. It's all boilerplate, just as the Motions to Dismiss or to Suppress that will follow are boilerplate, as are the subsequent Responses to Motions.

What we need in Woodstock is a transparent government and not one that thinks it is better than the people it is here to serve.

If anyone has more information for me about that crash and especially the name of the driver , actual charge, or the court date, please let me know right away.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!" (John Philpot Curran (1750-1817), Irish judge and politician)