The Chicago "Code of Sience" civil trial

Last November I testified in the Chicago Police civil trial, Obrycka v. Chicago Police Department and Anthony Abbate (this is more fully described in an excellent article, including my expert report, “Code of Silence” by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement at www.aele.org).  You might recall the original incident that occurred back in 2007.  The videotape of the incident captured a very large off-duty, intoxicated Chicago cop, Abbate, coming behind the bar counter and beating the slight framed female barkeep.  As graphic as the videotape showed, it was an incident that occurs all too often with officers throughout the country when they get drunk and go crazy.  What made this different?

This became the Chicago PD’s Code of Silence watershed.  Why?  The City Attorney argued, unsuccessfully, that this was simply a minor battery involving an off-duty, drunken cop.  The City Attorney fought vigorously to deny any supervisory or agency liability.  The jury and Court found differently.  It resulted in a $850,000 verdict and a finding that the Police Department engaged in a Code of Silence to cover-up the involvement of the officers and supervisors.  That verdict doesn’t include the attorney’s fees and costs that might be three times that amount.

How did this assault become a significant and now reported decision for the Chicago Police Department?  Following the assault, the bar patrons called the PD to report the incident after Officer Abbate left.  The two Chicago officers who responded were told that the offender was an off-duty Chicago cop and that the incident was captured on the newly installed surveillance camera.  They left without looking at the video, attempting to determine more about the officer or notifying their supervisor.  It took four days for them to complete their report that also neglected to report these facts.  Abbate, other detectives and these officers were shown by cell phone records to have been in constant contact with each other.

The Department was caught off guard when the plaintiff attorney released to the press.  The Police Department immediately tried to push the case through the local courts as a misdemeanor crime.  Later, in deposition and in court, the Department and members of the State Attorney’s Office kept pointing fingers at each other in denying any impropriety in this decision.  Both Internal Affairs and the Office of Professional Standards investigated the case.  Abbate eventually was terminated and the initial responding officers received suspensions for not notifying their supervisor; not false reporting or false statements to OPS.

And so what does this mean to you in law enforcement?  Shits happens and it frequently happens when off-duty officers do strange and crazy things.  We can handle that!  But when you try to shine dung, you drag in supervisors and your agency.  A methodical and consistent investigative protocol is the only reasonable way to proceed.