‘It’s pretty scary:’ DeKalb County law enforcement officials oppose proposed state police reform bill

Exposing police and cities to ‘crippling’ liability, scaring off recruits and possibly defunding police – those are the concerns holding back local law enforcement officers in DeKalb County from backing new Illinois state legislation meant for police reform moving quickly through Springfield.

Ahead of a vote for what was initially introduced as House Bill 163, now House Bill 3653, DeKalb Acting Police Chief Bob Redel said Monday he agrees with many of his colleagues across the state that the bill as presented should not pass. He said his concerns include the bill eliminating what’s called qualified immunity, which would mean increased civil lawsuit exposure not only for individual officers but for their departments, senior officers and their host cities.

“This is going to affect law enforcement for the negative,” Redel said.

According to a summary of the proposed bill by Capitol News Illinois, law enforcement would have to identify themselves as peace officers and, before they use force, warn that deadly force will be used. Officers also would not be allowed to use force on a fleeing suspect unless that person has just harmed or tried to harm another person or is armed and dangerous.

The bill would also amend the acceptable forms of force, banning chokeholds and any restraints on an individual above their shoulders that can potentially limit their ability to breathe, Capitol News Illinois reported. Lawmakers also propose devising a means of adding anonymous complaints to police personnel files, meaning unverified and/or untruthful accusations could tarnish a cop’s record.

Redel said he would like to think he’s open-minded and he’s all for having discussions when it comes to police reform and concerns from the community at large.

“It just didn’t seem like there was a lot of discussion,” Redel said.

DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott said on Tuesday the sheriff’s office takes citizen complaints seriously and will always follow up with them, though the law currently requires complainants to sign a document saying their complaint is true. He said the proposed bill is trying to make those complaints anonymous and unsubstantiated, which could follow an officer for the rest of their career.

“There’s no way to verify that,” Scott said.

Scott said he’s also is concerned about the bill trying to be pushed through during the current state legislative “lame duck” session. Though there are some good things in the bill, he said, the goal appears to be an ‘attack’ on law enforcement.

“Some of the measures they are proposing is very damaging to the ability to do our job,” Scott said.

Scott said he believes the piece requiring body cameras is a positive thing, and that’s ultimately why the sheriff’s office launched their own body cams program. However, he said, it should be a local decision.

“The fact is that not everybody can afford them and … maintain that system,” Scott said.

Scott said most law enforcement officers are all for better training, but it takes money to send officers to complete extra training. He said funding for training for law enforcement has been cut back at the state level.

“More of the burden for that cost is coming onto local government,” Scott said.

Scott said police officers currently can be sued as individuals but still have limited immunity, meaning they are protected from lawsuits as long as they are acting within the appropriate scope of their jobs.

“As long as you’re doing your job within the law, we have opportunity for limited immunity,” Scott said. “But even then, it has to be approved by a judge.”

Scott said he’s concerned police departments will lose veterans as well, or deter new officers from seeking a law enforcement career for fear of a lawsuit for ‘just doing their job,’ he said.

“We’ll see an exodus of police officers and it’ll be very hard to recruit policemen if that goes through,” Scott said.

Scott said he’s seen police unions opposing the bill, and a number of police administrative groups – including Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police – opposing it as well.

“That usually tells you something, that they’re all on the same side,” Scott said.

Scott said the budget process through the county is already difficult and the proposed bill could easily take away law enforcement agencies from smaller communities. He said he believes this is a serious situation, especially since lawmakers are attempting to vote on the bill just days after introducing it into the legislature.

“It’s pretty scary,” Scott said.

Legal side

DeKalb County State’s Attorney Rick Amato said Tuesday he believes the bill itself is detrimental to community safety and will have ‘chilling effects’ on victims of violent crime. He said it would be the most debilitating for areas with high amounts of crime.

“And running through them at the 11th hour in multiple draft formats of 600+ pages each time it comes out, it is no way to help the citizens of Illinois,” Amato said.

Amato said he believes there are a lot of good things in the bill as proposed, including cashless bonds for certain offenses, duty to intervene for police officers if they witness colleagues doing something questionable and banning chokeholds unless it’s a lethal situation.

However, Amato said he believes those points deserve more discussion within the state legislature than the time frame currently underway.

“And I think that in an open session over the next legislative period would be the time to discuss it and ... to actively write laws that make these changes that will better our communities,” Amato said.

Amato said his biggest concern locally, should the bill pass, is crime victims within the county, especially in domestic violence cases or other violent crimes. He said he fears more of those types of crimes may happen because he believes the bill could limit police’s ability to do their jobs since the fear of liability without legal protection would be too great.

“It’s clear that those who pushed the reforms do not push helping our victims,” Amato said.

Sycamore Police Chief Jim Winters and Sycamore police union president Ofc. Michael Eide were not immediately available for comment on Tuesday.

It is unclear when the proposed bill will be up for a vote.

Illinois State Rep. Jeff Keicher, who on Jan. 10 shared a petition opposing the bill on his official Facebook page, wrote in a Tuesday social media post that Tuesday is the final full day of the Illinois 101st General Assembly and lawmakers elected in 2018 or appointed within the last two years are finishing their work for the session. He wrote Wednesday is inauguration day for new state lawmakers and the last few days are known as a “lame duck session” because several state representatives on both sides of the aisle who will no longer be House members come noon Wednesday.

“Time, therefore, is of the essence to pass any more legislation on this final day of lame duck session,” Keicher wrote. “When the majority party wants to rush through complex legislation in a limited time frame, they do what’s called a ‘gut and replace,’ where they take a bill that has already passed either the House or the Senate, then file an amendment to it that strips the language of the original bill and replaces it with the bill they want to pass on a quick basis.”

Keicher said Tuesday the problem with passing such a sweeping change without proper review from stakeholders is how bad laws are made, despite pure intentions.

“There’s a lot in the bill that has broad support from many in Illinois, including law enforcement,” Keicher said. “Unfortunately, other parts of the bill will have a significant impact on the ability to keep our communities safe.”

Keicher said the initial language for the more than 600 page bill was only just presented to lawmakers Jan. 5 during the state legislature’s current “lame duck” session.

“It’s not fair to the people of Illinois,” Keicher said. “Nor to the people it is intended to help.”

• La Salle County criminal justice reporter Tom Collins contributed to this story.