City attorney Randy Ray recently sent this update to the City Council regarding the noise ordinance violation against Caleb Matheny, president of the Sigma Nu fraternity on Bradley’s campus:
Sonni Williams has looked into this ticket which was issued at the Sigma Nu house. She has spoken with the officers who were present and has determined that we cannot prove a case against Mr. Matheny. There is a report that loud voices could be hear 500 feet away, but we cannot prove whose voices were heard. Accordingly, this ordinance ticket is being dismissed.
Matheny is suing Second District Council Representative Barbara Van Auken over the incident that led to the noise ordinance ticket being issued.
Sigma Nu Fraternity and Caleb Matheny are suing Second District City Council Member Barbara Van Auken, District 4 County Board Representative Andrew Rand, and City Historic Preservation Commissioner Sid Ruckriegel over an incident that happened last fall. Matheny and his lawyers (with the firm of Hall, Owens & Wickenhauser, LLC) held a press conference at 10:30 this morning in front of the fraternity, 1300 W. Fredonia.
The attorneys stated that this isn’t a political issue, but “a justice issue.” They allege that Van Auken abused her power as a City Council member, and that justice must be served to protect their client and other Peoria citizens from such abuse. They said they were taking the case pro bono and that Sigma Nu will donate any monetary damages they receive to their charity, Children’s Hospital of Illinois. They called on Van Auken not to use city legal resources in her defense, but to retain a lawyer at her own expense.
You can read the suit here (PDF file). Attorneys also stated that the City of Peoria has been uncooperative in providing information requested through the Freedom of Information Act, which is why there has been such a delay in filing this suit. However, they did get a copy of the surveillance video of the incident — with audio — which they will be releasing to the press; no timetable was given for its release.
Van Auken, Rand, and Ruckriegel declined to comment on the suit. Van Auken is currently in the middle of a reelection campaign against challenger Curphy Smith. Smith also declined to comment on the suit, saying he wants to “stay focused on the issues that are important to the people of the 2nd district and the city of Peoria.” At-large City Councilman Gary Sandberg didn’t have any comment on the suit itself, but did say that he had also had trouble getting information from the City and police department regarding the incident.
My take: Had this happened anywhere besides a fraternity house, I believe there would have been universal outrage at Van Auken and the others involved. But because Second District residents have had so much difficulty with unruly Bradley students through the years, many residents automatically prejudge the situation and assume that the fraternity must have been in the wrong, and that Bradley police were not doing an adequate job of keeping students quiet. In fact, Van Auken is actually seen by many in a favorable light because of this incident — like a Charles-Bronsonish vigilante hero, who finally gave those Bradley kids what they had coming. This lawsuit will only add to her “martyr” status with those supporters.
Further muddying the waters is the timing. This incident happened over five months ago, yet it’s resurfacing right now — during an election campaign — just a few weeks before residents will choose whether to give Van Auken a second term. That makes the suit look fishy to many observers, despite the plaintiffs’ protestations that it’s “not a political issue.”
And then we have the facts. Police reports and eye-witness accounts agree that Van Auken was acting intoxicated, that she did poke a Bradley police officer and show contempt to all Bradley police officers by saying they weren’t the “real” police, that she did try to intimidate the fraternity and the Bradley police by calling Peoria police to the scene and calling Bradley Vice President Gary Anna to complain about the fraternity, and that she did trespass on private property and refuse to leave when asked. Nevertheless, Van Auken and her friends were not the ones ticketed. The only ticket issued was to Matheny for violating a noise ordinance, even though the officer writing the ticket did so because he was ordered to do so by his superior officer, not because he actually witnessed any violation.
Despite the fishiness of the timing of this suit, I do not think it’s frivolous. In fact, I think it’s a win/win for the citizens of Peoria. If there was indeed an abuse of power, it needs to be dealt with for the protection of all citizens. And if Van Auken, et. al., are found innocent, then it will restore the public’s trust in these officials.
However, it doesn’t look like this is going to see a courtroom until at least August of this year, and in the meantime, things are going to get ugly. Just tonight, I got an anonymous e-mail from an address called “Anti Van Aucken” [sic] pointing me to this website. It has all the police reports and says it will have audio and video soon.
Jermaine D. Mitchell, 21, of 4417 W. Rockwell Drive called police about 9:40 p.m. to report he had been robbed at gunpoint in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park, located in the 200 block of South MacArthur Highway.
Mitchell told officers the robbers stole his money, $48, and the nearly 40 grams of marijuana he just bought, police reports stated.
…Police also arrested Mitchell on a charge of possessing more than 30 grams of marijuana for admitting to having the drug.
Note: If someone steals your illegal drugs, don’t call the police.
Sen. Dick Durbin has indicated that he thinks former Gov. George Ryan has been punished enough, and will ask President Bush to commute Ryan’s sentence:
“Let’s look at the price he’s paid,” Durbin told reporters. “His family name has been damaged… . He has lost the economic security, which most people count on at his age. And he is separate from his wife at a time when she is in frail health. To say that he has paid a price for his wrongdoing – he certainly has. The question is whether continued imprisonment is appropriate at this point.”
Yes, Sen. Durbin, it is appropriate. Because he gave out licenses to unqualified drivers for bribes, people died. A judge and jury convicted him and sentenced him according to the law. It doesn’t matter that he used to be governor; he’s subject to the same laws and penalties as any other citizen. Commuting his sentence will only reinforce for everyone that there are two sets of laws — one for ordinary people and one for the politically connected.
Incidentally, the same article is on the Peoria Journal Star’s and the State Journal-Register’s respective websites, but the headlines are different. The State Journal-Register says, “Durbin may ask Bush to commute George Ryan prison sentence,” but the Journal Star says, “Sen. Durbin considers asking for Ryan pardon.” The Springfield paper got it right; the Journal Star headline writers apparently don’t know the difference between pardoning and commuting a sentence.
So, as a public service, allow me to explain: When you commute a sentence, you change the penalty, but the conviction stands. You still have a felony conviction on your record. When you pardon someone, you forgive the crime as well as the punishment; your felony conviction is expunged from your record. Big difference.
They gave it the old college try, but holding the National Night Out Against Crime in September this year apparently didn’t go over too well. In an online survey, over half the respondents requested that the event go back to its original date of the first Tuesday in August:
Those in favor of the traditional August date most often wrote that the September date conflicted with after school events, sports, and student homework assignments. Several of those respondents added that the September date brought an early nightfall which caused a premature end to their events. Those in favor of the September date cited favorable weather and more participation by elderly citizens. (NOTE: The National Association of Town Watch (NATW), which sponsors this event, also conducted a pilot date change in Texas this year. NATW has announced that NNO will continue to be held on the first Tuesday in August.) As a result of the majority date preference, City staff is recommending the NNO for the City of Peoria be set for the first Tuesday in August.
There were 94 respondents to the survey, and 53 of them voted for the August date. Since this is a national event, as the name implies, it makes sense to me to hold it on the same date as everyone else. The council will make the final decision at its next meeting on Monday, Nov. 10, at 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Ardis, along with several council members, is demanding answers from the State’s Attorney’s office. I wasn’t able to attend the press conference today due to other commitments, but I received this summary from the City’s Communications Manager:
The Mayor and Council Members discussed the issue surrounding the shooting of Demetric Mobley. They discussed their concerns regarding his release from jail in addition to 4 other individuals. The individuals had guns and a large amount of drugs in their home yet they were released from jail. The individuals harassed and threatened neighbors. Mayor is asking for answers to why there is a lack of communication between the City and the states attorneys office.
Lyons, today, said the city council press conference could interfere with the prosecution of the case. Lyons went on to say this smells of last minute politics.
“Politics has an ugly side to it. Sometimes it shows itself on Sunday,” Lyons said.
In response to demands for more communication, Lyons “said Manning had been given an explanation on Friday afternoon.” Apparently, that explanation wasn’t good enough.
Also pointed out in the article is the fact that those in attendance — Ardis, Councilmen Manning, Turner, Spain, Montelongo, and Nichting, all support Lyons’ challenger Darin LaHood for State’s Attorney in the upcoming election. Ardis denies that politics has anything to do with the press conference that was held today.
Other than claiming to be the victim of “politics,” it doesn’t appear that Lyons gave the press any answers to the questions raised at today’s press conference. Whether it’s politics or not, those questions deserve answers. Neighbors aren’t being threatened by council members supporting Lyons’ opponent — they’re being threatened by thugs let back out on the street by the State’s Attorney’s office. What’s the explanation for that?
UPDATE: DeWayne says that Lyons did in fact give an answer to Ardis’s questions, but he hasn’t had a chance to finish writing his story yet. However, the Journal Star has one answer Lyons gave:
Ardis said his office has received hundreds of calls since 22-year-old Justin Rodgers was released from jail on Wednesday. Rodgers was arrested at an East Bluff home and booked on charges of felony possession of weapons, possession of a controlled substance and possession and delivery of marijuana. […]
In response to Ardis’ questions, Lyons said Rodgers was released from jail because he planned to use Rodgers’ arrest this week against him at his Dec. 4 hearing to revoke his probation for previous Tazewell County drug charges. Lyons said his decision is Rodgers’ “quickest and most direct way to the prison door.”
The quickest way to the prison door is to let the guy out of jail for over a month without posting bond? Really? Perhaps this makes sense to a prosecutor, but to people like the neighbors of this guy who was arrested, it makes absolutely no sense at all. Maybe he explained more and the full story just hasn’t been written yet.
UPDATE 2: Okay, here’s some more explanation from Mr. Lyons, as reported in today’s paper:
About two pounds of marijuana, 45 grams of cocaine, eight rocks of crack cocaine, body armor and five guns were seized from 1123 E. Elmhurst Ave. Rodgers had previously posted $30,000 bond in Tazewell County, and Lyons said he feared he would do the same in this case.
“If we had charged Rodgers with an offense, he would have posted bond again,” Lyons said. “We’d have to charge this case first and that would trump the petition to revoke his probation on Dec. 4.”
I have a dumb question: couldn’t the fact that he violated his probation in Tazewell County have been used as justification for having him held without bond in Peoria County?
Also, what kind of a stupid statement is this: “Ardis and Manning went to Spalding High School with LaHood, Lyons said, so it’s no surprise the two were promoting his agenda.” Uh-huh. Because it couldn’t have anything to do with Lyons releasing felons into the neighborhood without posting bond, or blowing off and insulting the mayor’s crime task force, or anything like that. It must be because they all went to high school together.
Steve Settingsgaard. The police union gave him a vote of no confidence. Residents and some in the press criticized him for posting mug shots of prostitution and drug arrestees. Yet local government officials and many citizens defend him and even sing his praises. Why?
In 2007, there were a total of 74 shootings and 16 homicides; 104 shootings and 18 homicides were logged in 2006. So far this year, there have been four homicides.
No doubt some will try to attribute these results to everything under the sun other than the police chief; and to be sure, the credit absolutely needs to be spread around. These outcomes aren’t the result of a one-man show. But you can bet if the trend were the other way, the fingers of blame would all be pointing directly at Settingsgaard.
So I say, let’s give credit where credit is due. Nobody’s perfect. We’re never going to agree on every tactic used by the chief. But let’s acknowledge and be thankful that our city has gotten safer under his watch.
A number of commenters on an earlier post argued that the police should not publish photos of those arrested in drug raids because people are innocent until proven guilty. In fact, some went so far as to say putting arrestees’ photos on the web would be unconstitutional. Other bloggers have weighed in as well.
But on the web right now is this information:
Robbery
Shawn L. Burch, 28, of 404 E. Republic St. was arrested about 8 p.m. Sunday in the 700 block of Northeast Adams Street and booked on charges of robbery and mob action with injury. He allegedly attacked and stole jackets from two women Sunday afternoon on Madison Avenue.
Mary J. Schertz, 23, of 2610 W. Humboldt Ave. was arrested about 6 p.m. Sunday at the Peoria Police Department, 600 SW Adams St., and booked on charges of robbery, aggravated battery and mob action. She attacked two women last week in South Peoria, striking them with a softball and stealing one of their purses, police said.
Weapons
Bryant K. Carter, 43, of 914 W. Hampshire Road was arrested about 7:40 p.m. Monday in the 900 block of West Hampshire Road and booked on charges of unlawful use of weapons, having an expired firearm owner’s identification card and disorderly conduct.
Where is this information, you may ask? The police department’s website, perhaps? No. It’s the Journal Star’s site. And it’s under the category “Arrests.” And it appeared in print on September 9, to boot.
So, the question is, should this information be suppressed until there is a conviction? Is it wrong to publish this public information? It gives names, addresses, and the reason each person was arrested — and if they’re not convicted, there’s nothing published to clear their name after the fact. What’s the difference between this journalistic practice and the police doing the same thing for drug arrests on their website (with one difference: adding a picture of the arrestees)?
Frankly, I think what the police department is suggesting is actually less invasive. You might run across these names in the paper while you’re looking at the local news. You’d have to deliberately visit the police department’s website to see the pictures. Compare the number of hits to the Peoria Police Department site with the Journal Star’s — then add in the paper’s circulation numbers.
Should there be outrage against the paper’s publishing of these innocent (until proven guilty) people’s names and addresses? Should arrests be suppressed in the media, and only convictions reported?
They say a picture’s worth a thousand words, so I’ll let this chart do the talking. It compares crime stats this year to crime stats from the same time last year. The bars that go to the left (i.e., all of them) indicate a drop in crime:
Karen McCarron is 39 years old. She’ll have to serve 100% of her sentence according to news reports. And the sentence is 36 years. The would mean she will get out of jail when she’s 75, assuming she lives that long.
Here’s what I want to know. How do they come up with these sentences? She could have gotten as much as 110 years; the prosecutor asked for 50. The judge gave her 36.
Why 36? It’s so arbitrary. And what’s she going to do when she gets out at 75? She’ll have no family, no home, no pension, no job, and probably not very good health. She’ll end up being a ward of the state anyway. Why not just keep her in prison for life?
