Sex Crimes

Chicago Cop Arrested for Sex Trafficking and Child Porn, Accused of Paying Teens—Including Braces-Wearing 14-Year-Old—for Sex

A 26-year veteran of the department, William Whitley's record reveals 28 complaints against him, going back to 1991.

|

Chicago Police Department/Facebook

Another day, another U.S. cop accused of abetting the prostitution of teenagers. Chicago police officer William Whitley, a 26-year veteran of the department, was arrested Tuesday for sex trafficking of a minor and production of child pornography, amid an ongoing investigation into claims that Whitley, 60, paid girls as young as 14-years-old for sex at parties, at his apartment, and even in his car with his partner present. Whitley was also found to have taken graphic photos of the girls and have their phone numbers stored in his phone, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday.

Whitley has been on paid desk duty since a federal investigation into him was launched in September 2015. It started after the 14-year-old was arrested on outstanding warrants after being picked up in an FBI-orchestrated prostitution sting.

At the time, Whitley denied knowing a 16-year-old girl who said he had paid her for sexual activity; he admitted to having sex once with the 14-year-old—a runaway with a full set of metal braces on her teeth—but claimed that he did not know she was underage.

Whitley's case serves as a great example of the culture of corruption and lack of accountability present at so many police stations throughout the country. His file reveals at least 28 complaints against him, going back as far as 1991, including several incidents in which a temporary suspension was ordered. In the past six years alone, Whitley has been sued twice for wrongful arrest, though one case was dismissed before trial and a jury found in his favor in the other.

According to the Chicago Tribune, another Chicago police officer may also have paid underage girls for sex and is still under investigation.

A recent Associated Press analysis of police sexual misconduct found that approximately three U.S. officers per week had their licenses revoked over sexual offenses from 2009 through 2014.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

84 responses to “Chicago Cop Arrested for Sex Trafficking and Child Porn, Accused of Paying Teens—Including Braces-Wearing 14-Year-Old—for Sex

  1. His file reveals at least 28 complaints against him, going back as far as 1991, including several incidents in which a temporary suspension was ordered. In the past six years alone, Whitley has been sued twice for wrongful arrest, though one case was dismissed before trial and a jury found in his favor in the other.

    And if he had simply beat or shot these underage girls, their names would have been added to his fat file and he’d still be on the job.

    1. Faternal Whorer of the Poor-Least

  2. he admitted to having sex once with the 14-year-old?a runaway with a full set of metal braces on her teeth?but claimed that he did not know she was underage.

    “Good enough for me!”

    1. claimed that he did not know she was underage.

      Which is not a defense to statutory rape anywhere in the country. He admitted to a major felony. Why wasn’t he arrested in 2015, when he confessed?

      1. Jesus Crhist RC Dean!

        They put him on desk duty. For a cop that’s utter dishonor! To induce an equivalent pain in a lesser, selfish civilian it would take a 25 year jail sentence!

        What more do you want!

        1. Yeah, just think of the torment he must have endured. Sitting around all day just dreaming of shooting puppies and not being able to. That’s torture!

        2. Well, if it’s that much dishonor to them, they should have the decency to disembowel themselves when it happens.

    2. I’m glad ENB told us a few times about the braces. It really clarifies things.

      1. Straightens things out.

        1. I’m offering a retainer for any lawyer willing to sue you guys for these puns.

          1. funds to be wired on completion.

  3. Accused of Paying Teens?Including Braces-Wearing 14-Year-Old?for Sex

    Despite your sex-positive views, I hope you turned that cop down, ENB.

    1. I like the choice of picture, Elizabeth.

      1. Amazingly it’s from the Chicago PD Facebook page.

      2. If an illustration is witty enough, alt text is superfluous.

    2. RAAACIS-…!

      *unblocks images, looks up*

      lolwut?

  4. sex at parties, at his apartment, and even in his car with his partner present

    Classy.

    1. “Can I watch?”

      1. Gotham Lt. Jim Gordon’s blind eye and, “I ain’t no rat.” sentiments to his partners corruption doesn’t seem quite so endearing when the dirty details come out.

    2. Once again, the 99% of the cops who are unimpeachable failed to single out a lone wolf whose actions besmirch them all.

  5. Can you clarify your position for me, ENB? In other prostitution articles you present sex work as a valid choice for women, and the only choice for some women in desperate straits. But in this article it seems like you’re opposed to teenage prostitution. Is age the differentiator? Because if the girl you highlight really is a runaway with orthodontic bills to pay, it seems like she might have limited options.

    I mean, obviously cops patronizing prostitutes under color of authority is fraught with moral problems and political corruption. But I’m just curious if you’re legitimately opposed to teenage prostitution or just engaging in some moral posturing because a cop is involved.

    1. Age is the determining factor. People under 18 cannot enter into contracts, so sex with those under 18 is icky, illegal and is a void contract. kids 17 and under cannot give consent legally.

      A prostitute 18 and over is a consenting adult who can enter into contracts and can decide for him/herself to have sex for money, jewelry and/or marriage.

      1. In some states 16 year olds can legally consent to sex. But not prostitution or porn. Which does look a bit like a double standard.

      2. So everything done with someone under 18 is icky, illegal and a void contract? Just clarifying because you alluded to just that.

        Besides, 16 is legal in many states, 14 legal in many developed nations.

    2. obviously cops patronizing prostitutes under color of authority is fraught with moral problems and political corruption

      You answered your own question. Presumably this wouldn’t be an issue if prostitution weren’t illegal, which leaves prostitutes groveling for mercy from police.

      1. The question I asked is whether ENB is casting prostitution by teenagers in a negative light, and if so whether that is because they are under age. Even if prostitution were legal, it might not be for people under a certain age. I stipulated the cop thing because its an obvious problem that I am retying to remove from the equation.

        1. Yes, but we have no idea how the market would treat teenage prostitutes. We know right now that they’re preyed on by unethical police, and because selling sex is illegal they have no recourse. That’s probably a good enough reason to keep selling sex legal for teens, even if we criminalize buying sex from a teenager. It’s never the 14-y/o girlfriend who’s punished, it’s the 19-y/o boyfriend with whom she had consensual sex.

    3. to Hugh – as you said, the cop aspect complicates things (/makes it abhorrent even if we are just talking about paying an adult for sex, since even if that cop isn’t doing it his colleagues are busy rapidly rounding people up for the same thing). In terms of teenagers and prostitution … if you’ll notice, I try to refer ever referring to teens as “sex trafficking victims” unless there’s evidence that’s what they actually were, and not just teens, however perhaps naively, choosing to sell sex. From a legal perspective, I think it makes sense to prohibit employing someone under 18 (or perhaps whatever the legal age of sexual consent is in that state) in a sex business or paying them for sex, but I think there should be some room for reasonable claims to lack of knowledge about age, and I don’t think it should be treated (as it currently is under federal law and in some states) as akin to sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. The old laws against aiding/abetting a minor in prostitution or facilitating the prostitution of a juvenile, etc., actually work just fine in many instances (i.e., cover the conduct we wish to prohibit without imposing crazy harsh penalties), but if we must call it sex trafficking now when minors are involved, I’d settle for getting it defined as ‘statutory sex trafficking’ or something…

      1. this garble if you’ll notice, I try to refer ever referring to teens as “sex trafficking victims” unless there’s should be “I try to never refer to…”

      2. this garble if you’ll notice, I try to refer ever referring to teens as “sex trafficking victims” unless there’s should be “I try to never refer to…”

        1. Maybe we will finally get that edit button 😛

      3. That makes sense. My concern is for kids who are in the situation like braces girl. If you criminalize the buyer side, you scare away everyone except the people who don’t care about criminality, who may be more likely to get violent or whatever to someone who is already in a very vulnerable situation.

        1. If we repealed child labor laws, then kids in horrible situations wouldn’t’ have to choose between staying in their abusive homes or selling their bodies in the street to survive…

  6. Support Jordan Peterson. Missed am lynx, but this is important.

    1. Support …. how?

      And important … how so more than a zillion other important things?

    2. How am I to help a Canuck prof?

  7. We should make them take a vow of celibacy, like Mega City One judges. That should clear all this up. It worked like a charm for the Catholic Church, so there’s already a successful model to follow.

  8. Those fantasies about sex trafficking rings all around us won’t fulfill themselves.

  9. “Including Braces-Wearing 14-Year-Old?for Sex”

    Is there something significant about the braces part here that it needed to be mentioned?

    1. I guess it’s supposed to indicate that she was pretty obviously underage. I do know that some people get braces in their 20’s or late teens, so it’s not as good an indicator as a birth date on a driver license…

      Or maybe, if it was receiving oral sex, it indicates the good officer had a kink for danger.

      1. Those little hooks for the rubber bands are extraordinarily painful.

        1. Go on……..

    2. I would say its that he should have reasonably assumed the kid was under 17 or younger because of the braces. Adults have braces but 9 out of 10 times, its a young teenager with braces.

  10. OT: Tell me more about how illegals don’t get welfare.

    In January of 2015 Mayor Bill de Blasio launched the municipal ID program known as IDNYC, an identification card that allows New Yorkers to receive city benefits and perks no matter what their immigration status is. Agarwal said 900,000 people signed up.

    In 2014 the city spent $14 million a year on immigrant services, according to a city budget analysis. Today the city is spending $30 million, launching new programs like Action NYC, a free community-based legal service program.

    Granted, we don’t know how many of those 900K are illegals, but its not zero.

    Query: if they aren’t checking immigration status for these programs, what makes you think they are checking immigration status for voters?

    http://www.fox5ny.com/news/215178506-story

    *lights the Shikha signal*

    1. Come on, dude. In order for you to believe in such a thing as illegal immigration, you need to believe that the government has the right to keep people out. What kind of nutjob would think something like that?

      1. The case against this, at least from my perspective, is not even really about immigration. It’s about allowing politicians to be able to import voters when the voters we already have are not voting the way they like. There is a clear anti-establishment movement going on right now in the US and this has the political elite class scrambling for solutions. Import millions of compliant left leaning government dependent voters is the answer they’ve decided on. Hillary has vowed to bring millions of refugees here from the middle east. Those new citizens will reliably vote for more government.

    2. I don’t believe they do check immigration status for voters- and from what I understand, definitely not in New York. We’re just repeatedly assured that whatever’s going on that might not be cricket, doesn’t rise to a level that really affects any elections.

    3. If they don’t check immigrant status for voters, New York State might go to the Democrats!

    4. Illegals absolutely do vote and they absolutely do get benefits from the state. The extent of it, I don’t know, but I do know it’s happening here in MD. The problem is, is that most of these new arrivals from Latin American don’t see anything wrong with the taking benefits part, at least. They see government as something that is supposed to provide for their needs. And when the government in their own country has failed to do that, because there’s no money, they see the United States as the new big sugar daddy. Now, all Latin Americans are not like this and I’m not trying to generalize here. But the majority of them are like this and real statistics prove it.

      1. They definitely get benefits from the state in MD. I know you don’t have to be a citizen or have legal status to qualify for food assistance, and I think that also applies for stuff like heating subsidies, etc. As for voting, I know the rumor in my town is that the local Dem operatives check the rolls for old people, poor people, people who died recently, get a list of names, then go pick up some illegals to go vote in exchange for some cash.

    5. Granted, we don’t know how many of those 900K are illegals, but its not zero.

      Given that the entire purpose of the card was to register illegals, one can guess.

    6. Your initial comment is a bit of a straw man. I think that the more common argument is that illegal immigrants don’t come here for the welfare, but mostly to work. If places like New York go out of their way to make it easy for them to get welfare, then of course some are going to take the welfare. The other part of teh argument is that immigrants, including illegals, pay lots of taxes. I don’t know how that adds up or if they are a net drain on the system or not.

      Query: if they aren’t checking immigration status for these programs, what makes you think they are checking immigration status for voters?

      Well, there is the legal citizenship requirement for voting, which evidently isn’t a requirement for welfare. Of course that doesn’t mean that they are checking necessarily, but there is a good legal reason to do the one not the other.

      Anyway, the problem is the welfare programs. A federal law forbidding federal money being spent on welfare for immigrants would do more to solve the actual problem and is probably at least as likely to happen as actually securing the southern border against illegal crossings.

      1. Anyway, the problem is the welfare programs.

        Nonsense. The problem is not enough immigrants are being allowed to join the American race.

      2. immigrants, including illegals, pay lots of taxes

        Many of them pay no income taxes, which is far and away the biggest hit.

        A federal law forbidding federal money being spent on welfare for immigrants would do more to solve the actual problem and is probably at least as likely to happen as actually securing the southern border against illegal crossings.

        So, no chance at all?

        1. A good way to make them pay income tax is make them ‘legal.’

        2. Yeah, maybe. But see my comment below. Maybe it’s all politically impossible. But a lot of people who claim to be on the side of liberty seem to favor the more liberty restricting option for keeping immigrants from coming here and voting illegally and becoming dependent on government handouts.

          If it were easy for people to cross the border to work and difficult to cross the border and collect welfare, you’d have a lot more people learning the value of work and self-reliance and a lot fewer people in subsequent generations who have learned that the government is there to give them free shit.

      3. A federal law forbidding federal money being spent on welfare for immigrants

        I think that’s pretty much already the law. I’d have to look into it, but such a law assumes two things:

        (1) That people check for immigrant status.

        (2) That the feds go after states and cities that do pay welfare to illegals.

        1. So then why haven’t NY and CA lost all their federal welfare money?

          I think I know the answer. But it comes back to the point I’ve been making, that it isn’t any more politically practical to fully enforce immigration law and fully secure the border than it is to change and or enforce the rules about immigrants getting welfare or voting.

          So why aren’t we focused on the solution that is actually libertarian, which would be to cut welfare and enforce the existing rules about voting?

    7. Lot of people in this subthread doing “I don’t know how many people are doing it but I’m damn sure it’s a problem.”

      For a magazine called Unsubstantiated Speculation

      1. Well, I think we know the welfare thing is a problem, at least.

        What I want to know is why the anti-immigration crowd (not just here, but in mainstream politics) is always focused so much on building walls and enforcing immigration and so little on reforming welfare and voter registration to prevent immigrants from coming for the free goodies or participating in elections they shouldn’t be?
        As I see it, getting rid of illegals and closing the border isn’t going to happen without a lot more police state. Real immigration reform and real welfare reform aren’t too likely to happen politically. But I don’t think either is a lot less likely than the other. And reforming welfare and voting rules is a lot less likely to lead to other violations of the liberty and rights of citizens and legal immigrants.

        1. What I want to know is why the anti-immigration crowd (not just here, but in mainstream politics) is always focused so much on building walls and enforcing immigration and so little on reforming welfare and voter registration

          Two possibilities, IMO:

          1. They’re stupid and incapable of recognizing the actual problem.

          2. They personal and/or financial stake in the status quo.

          In other words, either stupid or evil. Take your pick.

          1. It’s also possible that welfare and election integrity and even immigration aren’t really the things they have a problem with.

            1. Ok, I suppose you could also insert:

              3. Fear of the brown/black/yellow/red horde.

              1. Lol, there u go. You cosmos are so predictable

                1. So all those people bitching about the indignity of having to hear things in Spanish sometimes don’t exist?

        2. Because anyone who talks about reforming welfare or tightening up voter registration is shouted down as a racist.

          1. Same applies to people who want to more tightly control immigration. So I don’t think that’s the answer.

  11. About this small percentage of bad apples thing.

    Those are some serious bad apples you don’t generally see in other services or industries. Which makes sense given how much power they wield.

    1. In actual reality, it only takes one rotting apple to spoil the rest.

      1. which would be the basis for the saying…

        so I’m going to propose a new adage: A bunch of rotten apples smells like shit and attracts vermin.

        Admittedly not as catchy as the old one.

  12. So they send cops to classes to teach them to be more aggressive and testosterone-fueled, then are surprised that things like this happen.

    1. So you have a culture and justice system that values cops’ opinions higher than other humans and this is what you get.

  13. The catchy ‘arrested for sex trafficking’ headline seems a little peculiar given past reason articles about the false nature of sex traffic reporting in America. I mean sure that is what he was arrested for, but haven’t you taught us that these are normally trumped up solicitation or prostitution charges ect.?

    Let me signal that this cop should die in a fire; but I’d like to see him stamped with a big old: rape, sexual assault, or coercion charge. I mean knowing what we know — those charges would be more accurate to the matter at hand than sex trafficking, no?

    1. That was actually the charge in this case, “sex trafficking of a minor”

      1. I feel ya, but I wonder:

        1) do you think that is the appropriate charge?
        2) do you think that charge will actually stick; or will it be thrown out (like many of the others) a few weeks down the road?

  14. Looks to me like this was going on for a long time, and his partner knew about it. I’m sure lots his buddies knew about it too, being that this is the kind of shit that cops brag about after a few drinks. This is why I say there are no good cops. If good cops existed, they wouldn’t tolerate this shit.

    1. And I’m pretty sure us normal people would have a legal duty to report statutory rapes happening right next to us.

    2. Preach it, sarc.

      The bad cops aren’t just the ones who commit crimes. Its also the ones that tolerate cops committing crimes. Its a culture of bad copping.

  15. Watch Now….!!! Recomended Streaming Online :
    If This Sound Good For You
    Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Available Here:
    ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2eA9W4k ? ? ?
    Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  16. What the hell do braces have anything to do with anything? 14 year old girls are banging just like adults. Trying to push this “innocence” angle is stupid. Simply, a pig abused his position of authority and sexually abused a young female.

  17. So, he’s kind of like Donald Trump only he likes his girls 4 years older. Ho-hum.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.