By Anthony Rice
In City of Chicago, the arbitrator reduced the Grievant’s suspension from 20 days to 10 days for a Chicago officer charged with interference in the execution of search warrant during an investigation of a car bombing by a suburban Police Department in which the Officer’s friend was a suspect. The arbitrator ordered the reduction after he concluded that the Officer did not interfere with the execution of a search warrant, but did agree that the Officer had been verbally abusive to the investigating officers.
The events of this case occurred when a car bomb was detonated in Schaumburg, a Chicago suburb. The victim was interviewed and stated that she suspected her ex-boyfriend was responsible for the bombing. By early afternoon that day, SPD determined that search warrants should be sought for ex-boyfriend’s car, residence, and business in order to seize any evidence of bomb making materials. The bombing suspect was also arrested.
The Grievant, who was apparently friends with the bombing suspect, arrived at the suspect’s residence to find it surrounded by law enforcement personnel. One of the officers at the scene stated that after he advised the Grievant that he could not enter the residence, he “became verbally abusive to all officers on the scene.” Another officer described the Grievant as being “very belligerent,” and “point[ing] his finger” in officers’ faces. Although the Grievant denies introducing himself as a Chicago P.D., the arbitrator found that the Grievant did, in fact, attempt to use his status as a Chicago Police Officer to gain entry to the suspect’s residence.
Moreover, the arbitrator found that the Grievant went to the SPD Station after leaving the site of the suspect’s residence and spoke with officers there. His conduct at the SPD Station was consistent with his behavior at the scene. After leaving the station, the Grievant then returned to the scene where he continued his “belligerent” behavior. The City disciplined the Grievant for violating two Department Rules—inappropriate conduct and interfering with a search warrant.
The arbitrator found the Grievant did act inappropriately, however, he found that the officer did not interfere with a search warrant.
There is simply no evidence in this case that Grievant in any way interfered with the execution of a valid search warrant. At the Hearing, the City did not deny that the evidence clearly established that Grievant’s conduct occurred prior to the search warrant’s execution, but argued that securing the residence in anticipation of obtaining a search warrant was analogous to having executed a search warrant. I find that while Grievant was verbally abusive to SPD officers, and attempted to convince them to allow access to the residence, such behavior does not constitute interference with a search warrant. I reject the City’s argument.
