Joliet, Ill. — In 2015, Illinois adopted a broad police reform package in response to national protests over police killings, including the high-profile case of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri. This legislation, spanning 174 pages, aimed at increasing police accountability and included several key provisions, such as the requirement for public reporting on police-related deaths where no charges are filed against officers.
Despite these reforms, the effectiveness of the law’s implementation varies significantly across the state, leaving some counties opaque and unaccountable. This law mandates that investigative findings in cases where police officers are involved in deaths and aren’t charged should be publicly released to ensure transparency and maintain public trust.
However, inconsistencies abound in how these mandates are executed, particularly in Will County. Here, transparency seems to be at the discretion of local authorities, which often results in a lack of public reporting. For instance, Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow, in office since 1992, has been criticized for not releasing detailed reports consistently, shifting this responsibility to the Will/Grundy Major Crimes Task Force — a body that releases information only upon request.
This approach has drawn sharp criticism from community activists and legal experts who argue that it contravenes the spirit of the law designed to foster trust and accountability in law enforcement. Trista Graves Brown, a Joliet activist, raised concerns regarding the protracted secrecy surrounding ongoing investigations, highlighting how it leaves families in the dark about the circumstances leading to their loved ones’ deaths.
Moreover, the general process of information release lacks uniformity across the state. While Cook and Winnebago counties provide comprehensive explanations when no charges are filed, Will County’s piecemeal disclosures contribute to a perception of intermittent accountability, potentially eroding public trust.
The murky language in the law itself complicates these issues. The statute requires investigators to publicly release a report if no charges are filed, but it doesn’t specify the contents or timing of the report, nor does it ascertain the responsible party clearly. This ambiguity allows for varied interpretations, which some jurisdictions may exploit to withhold information.
Proposed solutions from legal experts include clarifying the law to define explicit reporting requirements and timelines. Eileen Prescott, a law professor and director of the Accountable Prosecutor Project, suggests that reports should comprehensively detail the decision-making process, consolidating facts, and evidence to justify the conclusions reached by the prosecutors.
Despite these challenges, some community leaders and legal advocates remain hopeful that legislative refinement can address these shortcomings. They argue for better-defined statutes that could standardize transparency practices across all counties, fostering a more uniform approach to handling police-involved deaths.
Elsewhere in Illinois, similar issues persist. In Madison and St. Clair counties, adjacent to the Missouri border, reporting on police-involved deaths remains inconsistent and opaque. The need for more stringent legislation is echoed by citizens and officials alike who seek closure and accountability following traumatic events.
As community members like Brown emphasize, true accountability comes from transparency. When law enforcement acts justly, she argues, there should be no reluctance to provide detailed, accessible reports to the public. The path forward, then, requires not only legal adjustments but a cultural shift towards openness and rigorous public oversight of those tasked with enforcing the law.