Disciplinary hearings in the most egregious cases of police misconduct could be pushed behind closed doors if an appellate court sides with Chicago’s largest police union this week.
Most officers accused in these cases are already opting to skip the Chicago Police Board, which holds public hearings, and instead go to arbitration, a process that has historically been favorable to the police. As it stands, officers accused of lesser misconduct already can make their case out of public view.
The appellate court ruling is expected Friday, but could be quickly appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The yearslong battle over police discipline previously stretched from the union bargaining table to the City Council floor and the courtroom of Cook County Judge Michael Mullen, who ruled in March that officers could elect to have their cases heard by an arbitrator instead of the Chicago Police Board.
Mullen also ruled that the arbitration cases shouldn’t be held in private, prompting the appeal from Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police.
Since then, the police board’s operations have ground to a near halt as 19 of the 23 officers with charges pending have chosen to take their cases to arbitration.
That includes Eric Stillman, the officer who fatally shot 13-year-old Adam Toledo during a foot chase into an alley in Little Village in March 2021. Stillman fired a single shot into Toledo’s chest, a split-second after the teen dropped a handgun and raised his hands.
Stillman is accused of using unnecessary deadly force, failing to notify dispatchers before the pursuit and failing to turn on his body camera quickly enough.
He’s among the six cops facing dismissal in connection to shootings who have opted for arbitration, records show. Two other officers accused of using excessive force have similarly moved to transfer their cases from the police board. They’re joined by cops facing charges of domestic violence, failing drug tests and flouting the city’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, among others.
At last month’s board meeting, president Kyle Cooper warned that the legal fight could wind its way to the state Supreme Court and urged officers to have their cases heard by the board, “rather than wait an indefinite amount of time to proceed in a currently undefined arbitration process.”
He insisted that the board “takes seriously its responsibility to impartially assess each case on its own merits and ensure due process is afforded,” highlighting the outcomes of the 45 cases the board has heard since 2021.
Cooper said 35% of those hearings led to officers being fired and another 35% resulted in lesser discipline recommended by the city’s top cop. In the remaining cases, the accused officers were exonerated.
“These outcomes reflect a board that takes seriously its responsibility to impartially assess each case on its own merits and ensure due process is afforded,” Cooper said. “I can assure you that, for as long as I serve as president, the board will remain committed to that responsibility. The members of the board are not ideologically driven and do not prejudge cases.”
Max Caproni, the board’s executive director, declined to comment, pointing to Cooper’s statement. Union lawyer Tim Grace didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
If appellate judges rule that arbitration hearings can be held in private, only a written ruling would be made available to the public, similar to the way less serious disciplinary cases are handled, according to lawyers for the Fraternal Order of Police. Lawyers for the city have argued the public has a right to monitor these cases, and that access is crucial to enhancing the “legitimacy” of the police department.
Public disciplinary hearings for serious misconduct cases has been common practice in the city for the last 60 years. But the issue became a sticking point in the union’s most recent contract negotiations.
An independent arbitrator tapped to break the gridlock found that state labor law granted union members the right to bypass the police board and seek “final and binding arbitration.”
The City Council voted to reject the ruling twice, leading to dueling motions for summary judgment from the union and city. In March 2024, Mullen found the arbitrator’s decision ran contrary to “a dominant and well-defined public policy” and would violate a federal order demanding extensive police reforms, specifically a requirement to increase transparency.
The ruling allowed for public arbitration and also rolled back the arbitrator’s finding that cops should remain on the payroll while their cases are pending. Neither party was pleased, and the police union filed an appeal about a month later.
Both parties appeared before the appellate court panel in June and spent most of the time battling over public access to the hearings, although they also argued over whether embattled cops should be allowed to keep earning a paycheck.
Union lawyers claimed it was the “status quo” to pay officers while their cases were pending, but city lawyers contended it was “a poor use of public resources” to pay cops who aren’t working.