So even when they do investigate wrongdoing they still try, and apparently succeed, at sweeping the majority of it under the rug.Spalding and her partner, Daniel Echeverria, were part of a 2012 investigation which led to charges against Sgt. Ronald Watts and police officer Kallatt Mohammed, both of whom were accused of stealing proceeds from drug dealers. In the end, the two were only accused with shaking down a single undercover informant who had been posing as a courier. But Spalding and Echeverria said the investigation was stopped before it snared at least half a dozen more officers.
"At one point, we were actually told the investigation was too big," Spalding said. "There were allegations of other supervisors as well, that we were never allowed to investigate."
I've seen a lot of people claim that cops actually want to get rid of the "few bad apples" so the officers that helped the investigation should be seen as hero's to their fellow officers, right? Yeah, not so much...
How can anyone claim that the rest of the officers, including the supervisors, who are not only harassing the "rats" but quite literally threatening their lives as not being "bad apples"? Please don't say this is an isolated incident, we all know that the blue wall exists. I've got to give the officers that helped the investigation a lot of respect, personally I wouldn't have stayed employed in such a hostile workplace.But it’s what happened next which led to Spalding and Echeverria’s federal lawsuit. They say their role in the undercover investigation was intentionally leaked within the department, leading to years of ostracism and intimidation at the hands of commanders and fellow officers.
"My life, my safety my freedom was threatened," Spalding told NBC 5 Investigates. "I was subjected to daily harassment."
Now a third officer has come forward and has given a sworn affidavit to say she can corroborate the allegations. Former officer Janet Hanna, a 20 year department veteran, says she witnessed the harassment when the two officers were assigned with her in the fugitive apprehension unit.
"They were given dead end jobs that would lead to no arrests," she said. "I couldn’t continue to see that kind of treatment."
Hanna recalled being approached by her commander at the unit’s Homan Square headquarters, warning her that the two were due to arrive the following day.
"He wanted to inform us that there were two people, two officers coming to the unit, they would be there tomorrow, and that they were supposedly IAD (Internal Affairs Division) rats," Hanna said. "I would be in the sergeant’s office and they would throw that term around all the time."
In addition to the dead end assignments, Hanna said she overheard her bosses instructing other officers in the unit that Spalding and Echeverria were not to be given backup if they called for it.
"Nobody wanted to work with her," Hanna said. "If they were to call for backup, nobody should back her up."
On one occasion, she said she overheard a sergeant warning Spalding about her own safety.
"That she’d better wear her bulletproof vest, and she may go home in a casket, and he didn’t want to call her daughter and say, 'She’s gone,'" Hanna recalled.
Indeed, the lawsuit states that in one meeting, one of their supervisors stated, "God help them if they ever need help on the street. It ain’t coming."
Hanna, who recently retired, said the department has no outlet for reporting the type of wrongdoing she allegedly witnessed.
"You’re supposed to go to your immediate supervisor," she said. "But the supervisors were involved in this as well."
Spalding suggested it’s a system which is designed to urge officers to stay quiet.
"I have had many officers approach me and say, 'We know about corruption. Should we come forward?' and I say, 'It will ruin your life,'" she said. "It’s no secret that if you go against the code of silence, and you report corruption, it will ruin your career."
The city's Department of Law, which is representing the commanders named in the lawsuit, declined comment, citing the pending litigation. Police Supt. Garry McCarthy likewise declined a request for an interview. In a statement, he denied the officers’ allegations.
"Superintendent McCarthy and CPD have zero tolerance for retaliation on whistleblowers, and we strongly support the laws that protect whistleblowers," the statement said. "However, the City believes the claims of these particular plaintiffs are without merit. The City will continue to vigorously litigate this case."
To the people that think there are only a few bad apples, I have a question. Do you think an officer that does not report serious abuses or corruption, an officer that actively protects the bad apples, often committing perjury and filing false police reports, etc... even if those officers aren't corrupt or violating peoples rights are they bad apples? IMHO that is a very easy answer, they are undoubtedly bad and when civilians do the same they are charged with serious crimes.
We need independent and civilian organizations that have absolutely zero working relationship with the police to investigate them and at the very least prosecuted in a jurisdiction that they have never had any involvement with whatsoever. It is quite clear that not only do the police not police themselves but if an officer attempts to get rid of the "few bad apples" their careers are ruined and even have their lives threatened.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investiga...cers-Allegations-of-Corruption-291607971.html