The Chicagoist will be launching later but in the meantime please enjoy our archives.

Police Review Board Can't Fire Cop Because It Blew Its Deadline

By Stephen Gossett in News on Jun 15, 2016 4:37PM

Thanks to a blown deadline by the Independent Police Review Authority, Chicago Police Commander Glen Evans, a high-ranking officer with at least 50 complaints and few disciplinary actions faced, cannot be fired for an April 2011 incident in which he broke a suspect’s nose. The IPRA failed to act within a five-year statue of limitations.

"This one just fell through,” IPRA spokeswoman Mia Spissac told the Tribune. It’s the latest black mark on the beleaguered review board, often criticized for slow responses and ineffectuality. Mayor Emanuel in May announced plans to eventually abolish the board in favor of a civilian agency, per recommendations from the Police Accountability Task Force.

In April 2011, Evans allegedly broke the nose of suspect Rita King after she refused to be fingerprinted during on arrest for a domestic disturbance.

The IPRA originally recommended a 15-day suspension for Evans. Shortly after, then-incoming CPD Superintendent Eddie Johnson proposed 30 days. The IPRA then ultimately recommended Evans be fired.

That can no longer happen, at least for this incident, although the board can still impose a some length of suspension.

Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement:

"The Department was informed that the statute of limitations in IPRA's case against Glenn Evans expired, and we look forward to working with IPRA on any future investigations involving Evans, as well as other investigations involving any misconduct among officers."

Evans also remains under investigation for other misconduct allegations. And he, along with the city, still faces a pending lawsuit from King. Evans already stood trial once in an excessive-force case: he was charged with aggravated battery and official misconduct for allegedly shoving his gun into the mouth of an unarmed man. Evans was acquitted, with the judge citing inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The alleged victim’s defense attorney was sharply critical of the verdict, calling IPRA testimony "inept, corrupt, and at times, comically laughable."