5 Years of Chicago Police Misconduct Cost Taxpayers Almost $400 Million

Repeat offenders accounted for over 40 percent of the hefty cost.

Over the past five years, Chicago taxpayers have forked over nearly $400 million to resolve lawsuits stemming from officer misconduct, according to a new analysis of city data. While around 1,300 police officers were named in the lawsuits, just 200 were responsible for more than 40 percent of the total cost. 

This week, Chicago PBS station WTTW released the results of an extensive analysis of Chicago police misconduct lawsuits. The investigation, which covered payouts from 2019 to 2023, found that city taxpayers footed the bill for $384.2 million in settlements, damages, lawyer fees, and other payouts. Repeat offenders—200 of them—were named in lawsuits that made up $164.3 million of the cost. In total, the city paid to resolve 539 lawsuits over the period studied.

WTTW's analysis also found that a single officer, Sgt. Jerald Williams, was responsible for a staggering $1.4 million in lawsuit payouts, including $850,000 awarded to a victim whom Williams "slammed…to the pavement" after being stopped for drinking in 2019. 

The city should have known that Williams was a liability. According to WTTW, he's had 22 misconduct complaints filed against him throughout his career. Police department officials had recommended his suspension several times for using unnecessary force.

Despite the serious—and expensive—misconduct allegation against Williams, he was promoted and given a raise just a year after the suit that named him was resolved, according to WTTW. 

WTTW's report noted that, in 2017, the Department of Justice released the results of an investigation that found reasonable cause to believe the Chicago Police Department "engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution." The department even recommended that the city "review settlements and judgments on a broader scale to spot for trends, identify officers most frequently sued, and determine ways to reduce both the cost of the cases and the underlying officer misconduct."

This latest analysis of city data indicates that Chicago officials didn't heed this warning. Instead, unaccountable, overly aggressive police officers are not just posing a danger to the communities they're supposed to protect, but they're draining city budgets, too.

Comments

[Rick James]

And that's WITH qualified immunity!

[sarcasmic]

Trump wants to give all police total immunity from criminal and civil lawsuits.

[Idaho-Bob]

Key word: wants

Harris wants to ban citizen owned AR-15’s.

Do you think either one of them can unilaterally do this?

[Idaho-Bob]

As attorney general in California in 2012, Harris seized more than 2,000 firearms from individuals legally barred from possessing them, including persons determined to be mentally unstable and those with active restraining orders.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2024/08/01/kamala-harris-touts-freedom-to-live-safe-from-gun-violence-in-presidential-campaign/

[sarcasmic]

I’m not defending Harris at all here, but what she did was enforce existing laws. The type of ban you’re talking about would require new legislation that would be struck down by the courts based upon the current interpretation of the 2A.

Qualified immunity was created by the courts. So there’s little doubt that they’d give a pass to legislation or executive orders that would expand that immunity. Especially since conservative-leaning justices tend to back the blue without question.

[Idaho-Bob]

What is it with you giving a pass to a Democrat for actually violating the constitution; but vilifying a Republican for making a campaign statement?

[sarcasmic]

What is with you vilifying a Democrat for enforcing the law (I’m not making a statement about the law itself) while giving a pass to a Republican who wants to give absolute power to the police?

Why does everything have to be partisan? “You said what about a Republicans? Well whatabout Democrats? Hurr durr.” Stop behaving like a retard. You’re smarter than that, unlike my hate club.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Sarcasmic is right, she was enforcing the law that was passed by the legislature. It is a bad law and it should not have been passed, but it was passed.

Now, many people will argue that "the law's the law" and that even bad laws should be enforced because the principle of the rule of law is more important than the merits or demerits of any specific law. Around here, this argument is very frequently invoked when it comes to illegal immigration.

But, if you agree with me (and I am assuming sarcasmic as well) that this law should not have been enforced, then maybe you can start to see why a position of "the law's the law!" is a fundamentally immoral position and not defensible from a libertarian perspective. And maybe you can see why many libertarians are not in favor of enforcing the bullshit suite of immigration laws (or drug laws, or prostitution laws, etc.).

But, I predict that instead, many people will try to have it both ways: condemn Team Blue for enforcing laws that they think are bad, but praising Team Red for enforcing bad laws justified by "the law's the law!".

[sarcasmic]

But, I predict that instead, many people will try to have it both ways: condemn Team Blue for enforcing laws that they think are bad, but praising Team Red for enforcing bad laws justified by “the law’s the law!”.

It's all about who, not what. Principals, not principles.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Key word: wants

You're right, you can't believe anything Trump says.

Trump also said he wanted to appoint a libertarian to his cabinet and he wanted to free Ross Ulbricht. We can't believe him here either.

[bacchys]

Trump has a much better chance if he gets elected of giving cops absolute immunity than Harris does of banning AR-15s.

SCOTUS isn't going to strike down absolute immunity.

[sarcasmic]

He dropped the mic after saying "Whatabout the Democrat?"

That's how arguments are won in these comments.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

If you can't defund the police then defund the entire city.

[Vernon Depner]

determine ways to reduce...the underlying officer misconduct.

That's easy. Start sending cops to prison when they commit crimes.

[Liberty_Belle]

WTTW's analysis also found that a single officer, Sgt. Jerald Williams, was responsible for a staggering $1.4 million in lawsuit payouts, including $850,000 awarded to a victim whom Williams "slammed…to the pavement" after being stopped for drinking in 2019.

The city should have known that Williams was a liability. According to WTTW, he's had 22 misconduct complaints filed against him throughout his career. Police department officials had recommended his suspension several times for using unnecessary force.

Despite the serious—and expensive—misconduct allegation against Williams, he was promoted and given a raise just a year after the suit that named him was resolved, according to WTTW.

This crap right here. Why is he still employed ?

[sarcasmic]

He's probably getting close to being able to retire with a full pension, and with that kind of temperament that's the only job he can do. So they're going to keep him on. And since pensions are based upon the last year's salary, they'll give him a fat promotion his last year to maximize his cost to the taxpayers.

[Overt]

This is a perfect example of why Reason's obsessive writing over Qualified Immunity over-estimates the impact.

Qualified Immunity should be removed, just on principle. However, if it were removed, police would be liable for civil rights abuses, and Unions would negotiate the cities and states indemnifying the officers. If you sued a police officer for civil rights abuses and won, it would be covered by the city and state.

And as this article shows you, cities and states would give zero shits if an officer was a risk for civil rights lawsuits, just as they give zero shits about the officers making them liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in other lawsuts.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I agree that simply removing Qualified Immunity is not enough. Personally I would support requiring police officers to have malpractice insurance, just like doctors and lawyers have.

[bacchys]

Police are generally indemnified. They aren't going to be liable. The rare cases where cops aren't indemnified the abuse is so egregious the agency/government can plausibly claim it was far outside the scope of authority that no reasonable officer could think it was justified. Even most of those get indemnified (like Chauvin murdering Floyd).

Qualified immunity protects governments from having to pay for the injuries caused by their agents. It doesn't protect those agents.

[Uncle Jay]

How much has criminal misconduct cost Chicago taxpayers (if there are any left) after five years?

[AT]

I guess that's why they embraced this new plan of "No policing, just let them all murder each other."

[bacchys]

Why does an authoritarian MAGAt even read a libertarian publication?

[AT]

Why are you asking me?? I'm neither MAGA nor progressive/marxist (what you call "authoritarian"). Why would you think I have the answer to that question?

[TJJ2000]

Well duh... They're Democrats after all. Not like the party mentality tries to hide their 'theft' intentions.

[Jerry B.]

“Let’s hear it for unions”, say Democrats.

[TJJ2000]

I don't mind Unions so long as they're entirely private of politics.
A Gov-Gun packing 'Union' is better defined as a [WE] mob of criminals.

[TheChef]

Removing Qualified Immunity or making cops carry insurance are good policies but not really necessary. Having police departments pay their insurance policies out of their budget, or if they've had so many lawsuits (like the Chicago PD or Maricopa County Sheriff's office) they can't be insured, then the suits are paid directly from their budgets. If there are too many lawsuit payouts then they have to cut back elsewhere. They might have to make cops walk or ride bicycles around the city rather than drive. Or they might even have to layoff some of the police force. I absolutely guarantee you that will cause the Good ol Boys to howl at the top of their lungs.

[TheChef]

Forcing the Good ol Boy clubs to sell their “Tacticool” gear to pay for their own misconduct would be both humorous & satisfying.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here was what my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote about Chicago.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/chicago-three-big-reasons-why-murder-city-usa-is-so-unsafe/#comment-2836333

’ll give you three reasons, having lived there until I joined the Army:
1. The city “government” is as corrupt as any you’ll find in the third world. Members of the city council are in bed with the major gangs.
2. The police department is as corrupt as the “government”, considering itself wholly outside the law. Until relatively recently, there was a home invasion, burglary and kidnapping ring operating INSIDE the most “elite” unit in the department.
3. The population obviously LIKES these things, since they’ve been voting for them since before my grandmother moved there from Nashville… BEFORE WWI.

Black Chicagoans elected and reelected Richard M. Daley for something like twenty+ years, DESPITE the fact that he profited politically from an organized torture ring operating INSIDE the Chicago PD. Most of the known victims of said ring were NOT Norwegian…

Chicago is what it is because the Chicagoans WANT it that way. Sucks to be them.

[jimc5499]

Emma,
You didn't address the real problem here. It's was stated that these complaints need to be investigated and those responsible be fired. Never going to happen. You left out the most important part. Chicago is governed by Democrats. The Unions support the Democrats. The Democrats don't want to fire those responsible because they want the Union's support.
This isn't just Chicago. Almost anyplace where this is a problem is governed by Democrats.
You and your brethren at Reason make a big deal about Republicans having a fetish for the Police. Is that to hide the fact that you favor Democrats?

[Get To Da Chippah]

The problem is that Chicago believes 'police misconduct' is even a thing. Any actions the police take are always justifiable.

sin,
AT

[AT]

I've never said anything remotely to that effect, and I defy you to prove otherwise.