Illinois Lawyers Armed to Defend Your Rights in Personal Injury and Criminal Defense Cases

CPD candidate P.L. was disqualified from the applicant list after it was discovered that he had been arrested for an alleged felony hate crime. At the hearing we were able to show that the City failed to properly investigate the arrest and erroneously concluded that the arrest was a proper disqualification per the standards. The Board also noted the impeccable character and work ethic of the applicant in furtherance of its’ decision. P.L. was immediately placed back on the eligibility list.

Chicago Police Applicant R.R. was disqualified from the application process of the Chicago Police Department for reasons of: criminal conduct, criminal conduct involving drugs, as well as for false statements and omissions. R.R. was disqualified for admitting during his polygraph examination that he stole a chap stick, and a pair of gloves when he was in high school; and for failing state in his personal history questionnaire that he ingested edible marijuana at a party. A hearing was held, and the Hearing Officer concluded that the City failed to prove that R.R. violated Background Standards. R.R. was truthful and credible at his hearing as he testified that he was unaware he ingested edible THC until after he ate it. The Hearing Officer concluded that the two incidents in R.R.’s background were not substantial enough to bar him from the application process . R.R., a college graduate with an excellent work history and no criminal background, was recommended to return to the eligibility list. 15 HRB 133 (2016)

Chicago Police Applicant J.M. was disqualified from the eligibility list for the position of probationary police officer for violating the prior criminal acts section and propensity for dishonesty sections of the Department’s background standards. A hearing was held and it was determined that the alleged criminal acts cited for reasons of disqualification were not in violation as they occurred over 10 years ago, that using a fake I.D. over 10 years ago did not prove J.M. had a propensity for dishonesty, and that J.M. did not falsify or omit information of a family member’s involvement in a fraud case. J.M., a college graduate, and police officer of a local suburban police department, was immediately returned to the application process. 15HRB043 (2016)