I’ve posted in the past about so-called "DUI Super Cops", who get promotions, awards and lots of money by racking up huge numbers of drunk driving arrests — legitimate or not. See, for example, DUI SuperCops and SuperCops…and SuperCons. I’ve also written about some of them who’ve been caught. See How To Be a "Top Cop", Another DUI "SuperCop" and SuperCops: The Smoking Gun, One of the more recent was a Chicago cop, decorated by MADD and recently indicted for making false arrests with falsified evidence. See The Latest DUI SuperCop.
Yesterday, that dirty cop got the kind of justice typical in the DUI field: He went free but the hundreds of innocent people he framed stand convicted.
Judge Drops Case Against Cop Honored for Hundreds of DUI Arrests
Police, prosecutors mishandled evidence, jurist says
Chicago, IL. Nov. 5 – The criminal case against Chicago’s most prolific officer on DUI arrests fell apart in court Wednesday when a Cook County judge ruled that police and prosecutors mishandled evidence…
Haleas made 718 arrests in 2005 and 2006 and was the primary witness in hundreds of DUI cases, garnering a "Top Cop" honor from the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists for having the most DUI arrests in the state…
Judge James Obbish dismissed the indictment against Officer John Haleas, siding with the defense that forbidden evidence from the Chicago Police Department’s internal probe had made its way into the criminal case.
Despite a former prosecutor’s testimony that he carefully excluded any information from a statement given by Haleas to department investigators, Obbish said he believed the statement had been improperly considered in the decision to press charges against the officer. Obbish said he based his decision on an internal affairs sergeant’s testimony that he briefed the prosecutor on the forbidden evidence.
A U.S. Supreme Court case prohibits statements by officers in administrative disciplinary proceedings from being used against them in criminal cases.
It was unclear why the internal affairs investigator would not have steered clear of bringing up the statement in his dealings with prosecutors.
Unclear? I don’t think so….