Findings and Concerns

JPD’s Response to Sexual Assault is Discriminatory, and Its Response to Domestic Violence Raises Serious Concerns of Gender-based Policing

We have reasonable cause to believe that JPD engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination against women in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Illinois Civil Rights Act. Our review identified evidence that JPD treats survivors^[1] of sexual assault, who are overwhelmingly women, with skepticism and hostility rooted in a false stereotype that women lie about being sexually assaulted. The attitudes displayed by some JPD officers in the field, and by some detectives in interviews with survivors, can re-traumatize survivors. Our review also shows that JPD frequently fails to put sufficient effort into its investigations of sexual assault, declining to collect important evidence and making little attempt to close cases.

Our office also has concerns about JPD’s response to domestic violence incidents.^[2] We observed JPD officers treating women who report domestic violence with condescension and judgment, which can re-traumatize survivors. We learned that JPD detectives rarely investigate domestic violence—they simply rely on whatever actions the patrol officers have taken, regardless of the quality or thoroughness of that work. And although some JPD patrol officers make a serious, thoughtful attempt to address domestic violence incidents, we observed a lack of fundamental skills that are critical to a police department’s domestic violence response—a gap that disproportionately puts women at risk of further harm. There is also evidence JPD has treated some domestic violence survivors as being at fault for the violence they experience. This attitude indicates a bias against women and, when coupled with the other deficiencies we observed, raises a concern that JPD’s conduct in this regard is discriminatory.

Overview of Gender-based Violence

Gender-based violence is violence directed against a person because of their gender or violence that disproportionately harms people of a particular gender. Certain criminal offenses, such as sexual assault and domestic battery, are perpetrated against women to a disproportionate degree.^[3] For example, women are about four times more likely to be victims of rape or attempted rape than men.^[4] In addition, approximately 40.5 million women in the U.S. have experienced severe physical abuse by an intimate partner, as compared to 29 million men.^[5] Women are also six times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men.^[6]

Gender-based violence is also disproportionately perpetrated by men.^[7] The perpetrator’s hostility towards women and gender non-conforming individuals is often evident in the commission of the offense or invoked as a justification.^[8]

According to the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS),^[9] JPD reported 113 rapes total in 2021 and 2022. Approximately 94% of the victims were women, and 93% of reported offenders were men.

Windmill in Channahon State Park

Legal Standards

Like any police department, JPD’s response to gender-based violence must conform to the requirements of state law.

Illinois law prohibits gender discrimination. Under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), a public official may not “[d]eny or refuse to another . . . the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantage[s], facilities or privileges of the official’s office or services . . . because of unlawful discrimination.”^[10] “Unlawful discrimination” includes discrimination on the basis of sex.^[11] JPD officers are public officials within the meaning of the IHRA.^[12] In addition, the Illinois Civil Rights Act (ICRA) provides that no unit of state, county, or local government shall “exclude a person from participation in, deny a person the benefits of, or subject a person to discrimination under any program or activity” or “utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination” on the basis of gender.^[13]

When the actions of law enforcement have a disparate impact on women, those actions violate the IHRA and ICRA.^[14] This is true even when the disparity is not intentional.

Methodology

To investigate whether JPD discriminates against women, we reviewed a sample of case reports of sexual assault and domestic violence investigations from 2020–2023, including related video recordings where available;^[15] a sample of calls for service related to gender-based violence; Internal Affairs files from 2017–2022, including recordings of interviews; JPD policies, training materials, and records; and shift-level counseling files. We also interviewed members of JPD’s Investigations Division, advocates, survivors, and other stakeholders.

Findings and Concerns

JPD discriminates against women in its response to sexual assault

JPD’s response to sexual assault is frequently impacted by officers’ negative stereotypes about women, in particular about their veracity when reporting sexual offenses. Based on the evidence that we reviewed, JPD’s response is characterized by skepticism, hostility, and an overarching discounting of sexual offenses as serious crimes. These attitudes and resulting practices can re-traumatize survivors, who are disproportionately women. We find reasonable cause to conclude JPD’s conduct violates the IHRA and ICRA.

JPD discriminates against women who report sexual assault by treating them with hostility and skepticism rooted in false sexual stereotypes

JPD officers are frequently perceived as not believing women who report sexual assault. We spoke with professionals in the Joliet area whose work involves responding to gender-based violence, including SANE nurses^[16] in multiple hospitals local to Joliet and Title IX coordinators^[17] at college campuses in the region. In the course of their work, these professionals interact with JPD both directly and indirectly, through survivors of sexual assault who are their clients, patients, or who otherwise seek their assistance. Several of the professionals we spoke to expressed the view, based on their experiences, that JPD does not believe women who report sexual assault. This perception was even stronger when the survivor was intoxicated at the time of the assault.

One SANE nurse told us that, in her experience, JPD officers who speak with survivors in the hospital commonly ask health care professionals questions like, “do you think this really happened?” Another SANE nurse stated that while there are exceptions, and some JPD officers are “fantastic,” the attitude of disbelieving survivors is pervasive in the Department. In one instance involving an intoxicated survivor, a JPD officer questioned the survivor repeatedly, making statements along the lines of “are you sure that is how it happened?” This nurse also told us that, on other occasions, JPD officers made comments to hospital staff after speaking with a survivor such as, “this one’s not real,” or other remarks indicating that they do not believe the survivor.

Other sexual assault response professionals shared similar stories. One advocate told us that some of her clients perceive JPD officers to be judgmental and accusatory, and that officer interviews of clients at hospitals (where they are receiving treatment after being assaulted) are more like interrogations. Her clients have also reported that JPD officers have threatened to arrest them for filing a false report if they do not pursue charges. This makes her clients reluctant to report sexual assaults to JPD. Advocates also told us that JPD detectives do not return calls and do not keep their clients updated on the status of their cases. And a JPD officer shared with us his view that detectives do not care much about sexual assault cases.

A survivor of gender-based violence expressed similar sentiments. She told us that she felt the detective handling her case did not believe her account of sexual assault. Based on his questioning, she was left with the impression that he questioned her story because she had not been noticeably physically harmed. Moreover, she was not told that her case had been closed until several months after the fact.

Such skepticism by officers is unwarranted. Research has shown that reports of sexual assault are highly likely to be true.^[18] In addition, unwarranted skepticism by an officer toward a sexual assault survivor can inflict institutional betrayal trauma, a kind of psychological distress caused when an institution such as a law enforcement agency fails to perform its role properly or competently, or blames an individual when they seek its protection and support.^[19] In other words, JPD’s doubt that survivors are telling the truth can re-traumatize survivors, adding to or exacerbating the original harms from the crime.^[20]

This skepticism is also discriminatory. Because of the gender-based nature of sexual assault, the harms caused by JPD’s skepticism fall disproportionately on women. Moreover, this hostility toward sexual assault victims is rooted in false gender-based stereotypes about women, namely, that women lie about sexual assault and/or that they somehow cause the assault to occur. This stereotyping is a form of bias against women.^[21]

JPD detectives’ interviews of sexual assault survivors frequently demonstrate hostility and skepticism that is attributable to gender stereotypes

In our review of JPD’s investigations of sexual assault, we observed the same discriminatory attitude reported by clinicians, advocates, and survivors of sexual assault. Based on the material we reviewed, JPD’s investigative interviews of women who report sexual assault show a pattern of insensitivity, skepticism, and overt hostility. In one case, a detective told a survivor that he needed to know whether she was getting mental health medications, which the responding patrol officer inappropriately told her she needed. In another case, a survivor had to interrupt the investigator to give him relevant information, to which he harshly replied, “this is the first I’m hearing of this.”

During one interview, a survivor described multiple incidents of violence by the suspect, including strangulation and non-consensual anal penetration (a video of which the suspect had forwarded to the survivor’s child). While the survivor was recounting these horrific details, the detective was texting on his phone under the table and not paying attention.

Another detective used inappropriate interrogation techniques with a survivor, interrupting her constantly, telling her to “look at me,” and complaining that he needed her to give him a chronological description of events, because it was “not an easy case for me [i.e., the detective].” Testing the chronological accuracy of a narrative is a technique aimed at confusing an interviewee, not gathering information.^[22] It is inappropriate and ineffective with traumatized individuals, whose trauma may impact their ability to remember events chronologically.^[23] It also conveys that the interviewer doubts the survivor’s honesty.

The interviews of survivors that we reviewed stood in marked contrast to interviews with suspects (which were rare in the cases we reviewed). For example, in one case from 2022, detectives interviewing a suspect told him that they would keep him informed and wanted him to feel respected by them.

The interviews we reviewed were also at odds with JPD’s policy on sexual assault investigations. JPD has a robust sexual assault policy that appropriately calls for “evidence-based, trauma-informed, victim-centered procedures for responding to and investigating criminal sexual assault . . . cases.” The policy directs both investigators and patrol officers to “[u]tilize evidence-based, trauma-informed, victim-centered interview questions and techniques,” with investigators being directed to allow a survivor “to complete at least 2 full sleep cycles before an in-depth interview, when possible.”

A trauma-informed approach to interviewing would include sensory-based questioning, assurances to the survivor that memory gaps are typical after a traumatic event, and an uninterrupted opportunity for the survivor to relate all relevant offense information they can independently retrieve from memory.^[24] This sequence permits the survivor to access their own memory as much as possible without the risk of taint from an investigator’s questioning, producing better information. Trauma-informed interviewing is critical in an investigation for at least two reasons: 1) it reduces re-traumatization of the survivor, and 2) it produces higher quality information about the assault. A well-conducted interview is time-consuming and can typically take more than an hour or even two, but it is invaluable for understanding the offense and identifying important corroborating evidence.

However, the interviews of survivors that we reviewed show that JPD’s commendable policy is not being followed by detectives. In addition to the skepticism and hostility that JPD detectives exhibited in the cases we reviewed, interviews with survivors are remarkably brief: significantly less than an hour. In one case we reviewed, the entire interview was fifteen and a half minutes long.

Statue at the Joliet Area Historical Museum

JPD’s skeptical approach is also in conflict with established practice. The International Association of Chiefs of Police’s “Sexual Assault Response Policy and Training Content Guidelines” states “[n]o officer or investigator should ever assume that a complaint is false. The determination that a reported sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted, and this determination can be made only after a thorough investigation has been completed.”^[25] Importantly, neither a detective’s inability to develop a case against a suspect or substantiate allegations nor a survivor’s unwillingness to prosecute a case shows that an initial claim of assault is false.^[26]

Like the conduct reported to us by clinicians, advocates, and survivors, the interviews we reviewed and tactics used by officers can re-traumatize sexual assault survivors, who are disproportionately women, based on false stereotypes about women who report sexual offenses. “Reliance on [invalid gender] stereotypes cannot justify” discrimination.^[27] We find reasonable cause to conclude that JPD’s conduct amounts to gender discrimination under state law.

JPD officers discriminate against women by discouraging them from pursuing their cases

Some JPD officers display attitudes that discourage reporting of sexual assault. As one Title IX coordinator described it, reporting such incidents to JPD is “challenging.” The Title IX coordinator explained that an officer taking a report would give a complainant a long list of things that could go wrong, and reasons why the complaint might not go further—such as lack of witnesses. This discourages survivors from making reports. Students shared with the Title IX coordinator that JPD asked them questions along the lines of “did anyone see?” or “were there any witnesses?” in a way that left them feeling they should not bother reporting. Officers would say things like “it’s your word against [the accused’s] word.” Or an officer would explain that they could write up the report, but the state’s attorney might not take the information. All of these comments send a message that the reporting of the crime is a waste of the officer’s time.

Some JPD detectives also act in ways that discourage survivors from pursuing a case. For example, in the sexual assault investigations we reviewed, detectives attempted to call most survivors soon after the crime. But if the detective did not reach the survivor quickly, they often closed the case. In one case, a detective threatened to close the case just three days after the crime was reported if he did not hear from the survivor. Sexual assault survivors often experience a multitude of psychological symptoms in the wake of the assault that may make it difficult to participate in an investigation immediately following their trauma.^[28] JPD’s insistence on prompt cooperation therefore discourages participation, resulting in less police assistance for survivors of sexual assault.

Sometimes, the discouragement is more overt. In a 2022 case, the investigator suggested in various ways that the survivor should not pursue the case. He asked her, “what’s your goal?” He also asked her “what can I do?” as if she should direct him as to how to handle the case. She asked him to do whatever he usually did to investigate cases. He also asked her if she just wanted resources, even though she had just told him she wanted him to investigate. The detective’s interaction with the survivor suggested that nothing could be done on her case, even before he made any effort to investigate. In one shocking account related to us by a JPD officer, another JPD officer expressed pride in the fact that he had shamed a woman who had come into the station to make a report of sexual assault into not doing so.

JPD’s discouragement of reporting and pursuing sexual assault cases denies women “the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantage[s], facilities or privileges” of JPD’s services.^[29] It also constitutes a “criteria or method[] of administration that ha[s] the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination” on the basis of gender.^[30] We therefore have a reasonable basis to conclude that it violates state law. This conduct is also strongly suggestive of a bias toward women, stemming from a belief that sexual assault, especially non-stranger assault,^[31] is not a serious or real crime.

JPD’s response to gender-based violence has other shortcomings that have a disparate impact on women

In addition to the above, we found other significant problems with JPD’s handling of gender-based violence, all of which leads to a less effective response that disproportionately harms women.

JPD detectives make little to no effort to collect evidence

Despite a policy calling for detectives to “fully investigate all reports of sexual assault/abuse in a thorough and timely manner,” some detectives do not make any significant effort to collect or develop evidence. In some of the files we reviewed, the case went no further than the survivor’s statement. One file showed that the detective tried to call the suspect, without success, and did nothing more to locate the suspect. In a case involving an allegation of sexual assault of a minor, the detective’s only documented investigative effort was leaving a voicemail for the survivor’s mother for permission to search the survivor’s phone. In another case, the detective documented no work at all on the case, and the case was declined for prosecution without explanation.

JPD detectives exhibited a pattern of making little effort to carry out searches in sexual assault cases. In the cases we reviewed, not one detective sought approval for a search warrant. Supervisors we spoke to had only a rudimentary ability to articulate what evidence would be needed to support a search warrant in a sexual assault investigation. But more significantly, they displayed a predisposition against search warrants in these cases by insisting that a warrant application could not be based solely on a survivor’s complaint. There are two problems with this attitude. First, it is not the law. The standard to obtain a search warrant is probable cause.^[32] Many times, though not always, a survivor’s account will be sufficient to establish probable cause. Second, the supervisors’ response suggests that usually the survivor’s account is all the evidence available. As the responding law enforcement agency, it is JPD’s responsibility to gather more evidence.

Supervisors also told us that in a sexual assault case with a known suspect, they would try to get phone records as part of a search warrant application, but we saw no evidence of this in practice. Search warrants for a suspect’s social media content do not require sign off from a supervisor, but even so, detectives also did not seek them in the files we reviewed.

Moreover, JPD officers did not routinely document crime scenes. Even when a survivor does not report an assault promptly, a crime scene should be photographed or sketched for a prosecution’s future use. Only a few files contained any crime scene photos at all, and those photos were over-exposed and also uninformed by the victim’s narrative of the crime. In the cases we reviewed, officers rarely assessed or explored prime locations of serology evidence (bodily fluids) as part of crime scene processing.

We also saw little evidence that JPD detectives use other types of evidence collection that are best practices in sexual assault cases. Buccal swabs (samples of DNA from the mouth), post-assault behavior of the survivor or the offender (which can reveal trauma reactions specific to the assault that serve as corroboration of the initial crime report), and follow-up photographs of injuries (the severity of which may not be apparent initially), and pretext calling or texting (a common technique for eliciting incriminating statements from a non-stranger assailant) were all under-explored and under-utilized.

JPD detectives also make inadequate efforts to get statements from suspects. In marked contrast to its treatment of survivors, we saw no interactions with suspects that could be called interrogations, and only one detective carried out a background investigation of a subject.

Foreseeably, JPD’s weak investigative efforts in the cases we reviewed meant that JPD detectives presented their cases to the State’s Attorney without much evidence. This made declination of prosecution much more likely as a result.

Despite being a serious crime and a traumatic event for a survivor, JPD shows a pattern of putting little effort into investigations of sexual assault, a practice that disproportionately harms women, in violation of the IHRA and ICRA.

The Rialto Square Theatre

JPD detectives close cases with arrest warrants but no arrest

In a number of cases we reviewed, JPD detectives obtained an arrest warrant for a suspect, but no particular effort to arrest was made. We learned from speaking with JPD detectives and their supervisors that it is common practice for JPD to secure a warrant, then simply notify the rest of the Department and the county for execution later.^[33] At the same time, a patrol supervisor told us that patrol prioritizes calls for service, not serving warrants. At best, a patrol officer might make an attempt if they know the suspect and where to find them. The result of JPD’s practice is that no one in particular has the responsibility to make the arrest, and nothing guarantees the suspect will be arrested at all. JPD detectives made clear to us that for certain types of crimes, such as homicides, they seek assistance from the tactical unit to execute an arrest warrant or execute it themselves. They characterized these as “special” or “severe” crimes. But they acknowledged this did not often happen for sexual assaults. This practice underscores our finding that JPD does not regard sexual assault as a serious crime.

JPD’s response to domestic violence also raises concerns that JPD is discriminating against women

Domestic violence-related calls are one of the largest categories of calls for police service.^[34] JPD receives multiple domestic violence calls for service on every shift. Despite the pervasiveness of this crime, JPD’s response to criminal conduct involving intimate partners is often harmful to women, in ways that raise concerns that JPD is discriminating on the basis of sex, in violation of state law.

JPD patrol officers do not adequately respond to domestic violence

JPD patrol officers shoulder almost the entire burden of responding to domestic violence incidents and investigating an offender, but, based on our review, their response efforts are inadequate.

First, patrol officers often interacted with survivors in ways that are harmful. Too many officers’ interactions with survivors are scattershot and lacking in coherence. Officers asked about irrelevant topics and made comments about how survivors should resolve life crises, for example, advising a survivor to save some money and get the right people in her life. This same officer referred to the survivor as cognitively disabled in front of her. In a particularly egregious case, an officer asked a survivor to fill out a complaint form even though her eye was injured, partially obscuring her vision. He then offered to read it to her in the middle of a hospital lobby in front of other patients and their families. In response to her anger over this, he said, “we can keep arguing about it, I’m going to leave.” Officers made harmful statements directly to survivors questioning their credibility. For example, a field training officer told a survivor, “you have to see it from my eyes too, I have to make sure someone’s not making up a lie.” This officer not only felt entitled to challenge a crime report outright; he did so in the presence of a trainee officer, conveying to that new officer that doubting survivors is an accepted practice in the Department. One of our investigators observed an officer responding to a call involving a woman who reported physical violence by her boyfriend. Without any apparent basis, the responding officer told the woman “it sounds like it was mutual.” The officer then asked if the survivor was more concerned about the violence or her loss of a phone in the incident. Statements like these can inflict betrayal trauma on survivors. Although we came across JPD officers who showed kindness and courtesy to women reporting domestic violence, kindness is not a substitute for a trained, trauma-informed, and victim-centered response.

Patrol officers also frequently fail to gather important information from survivors. For example, officers generally did not ask survivors to describe all the places they were touched by the assailant. Because they are being interviewed after a trauma, survivors may not spontaneously mention all impacts. But failure to solicit this information can result in a more limited charge.

Further, just as we heard stories of hostility, skepticism, and disrespect toward survivors of sexual assault, so too did we hear such stories about survivors of domestic violence. One advocate told us that her clients who have experienced domestic violence have encountered an accusatory attitude from JPD, with officers asking questions like “why didn’t you leave?” or suggesting that the incident is the victim’s fault. The notion that domestic violence is the victim’s fault is incorrect and very harmful to survivors. But it is also reflective of a negative and false stereotype that women bring on the domestic violence problems themselves.

According to the advocates we spoke to, JPD officers have sometimes threatened domestic violence survivors with removal of their children if they continue to report violence to JPD. JPD officers also have declined to write reports of domestic violence, telling survivors to spend the night somewhere else to lower the temperature. One advocate told us that her clients are afraid to report domestic violence to JPD, including one woman who was assaulted by a JPD officer and, out of fear, used a fake name when she went to the hospital. In one incident related to us by a SANE nurse, a patient came in as a domestic violence victim but had also been sexually assaulted. Both the nurse and the patient believed the patient was being tracked by her assailant. The nurse encouraged the patient to turn off her cell phone in case the abuser was tracking the patient via her phone. The nurse called JPD multiple times and explained that the situation was active. No one from JPD ever showed up. The nurse waited for JPD with the patient for more than three hours, until the patient just left. The nurse told us “I don’t know if [the] patient is dead or alive.”

Further, we saw little evidence that patrol officers made meaningful efforts to confront or apprehend suspects in domestic violence cases. In some of the cases we reviewed, domestic violence survivors called 911 within minutes of the suspect’s departure. Yet JPD officers rarely located a suspect at the scene or nearby. This problem appears to stem from two factors. First, JPD has no pre-established roles or policies dictating the process for officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, necessitating ad-hoc, on-scene coordination for each incident. On-scene officers must therefore make a rapid and accurate assessment of each scene, something that officers do not appear to do based on the body-worn camera footage we reviewed. Second, JPD officers’ frequent reluctance to credit a survivor’s account causes delay. Early reliance on a survivor’s statement would likely allow patrol officers to more quickly apprehend a suspect, if only to question them about their version of events. The lack of reliance implies that JPD officers do not trust survivors of domestic violence to tell the truth, another form of bias against women.

Finally, JPD officers responding to domestic violence calls routinely fail to establish crime scenes or to document such scenes. Pictures of disheveled crime scenes resulting from physical struggles as part of intimate partner violence are key evidence that JPD officers have not consistently documented or considered.^[35]

JPD detectives do not vigorously investigate domestic violence

In the domestic violence cases we reviewed, JPD detectives rarely did anything more than the most basic investigations. They generally did not conduct follow-up interviews with survivors or take formal statements from them. This means they relied on a statement given to a responding officer in the midst of a trauma, a time when the survivor may not have been able to recount significant details. They did not speak to witnesses. They did not interrogate suspects. They did not gather further evidence, such as follow-up photographs of bruising injuries. They frequently failed to include even the audio of the initial 911 call (despite its evidentiary value) in the materials they submitted to the State’s Attorney’s Office, forcing prosecutors to ask for it. Even in cases where there are obvious open avenues of investigation, a detective’s role in domestic violence cases appears limited to seeking arrest warrants based on evidence collected by patrol officers. In several cases we looked at, the total investigative effort amounted to making a phone call or leaving a voicemail. And only one domestic violence investigation we reviewed resulted in a detective making an arrest. The case involved a death threat with a gun—underscoring the severe violence that women endure before getting a fulsome response from JPD.

We observed this lack of activity even in cases involving serious violence. In a case where the survivor had been threatened with a gun, the detective submitted the case to the prosecutor for a warrant just four days after the incident (not enough time to do a thorough investigation); the prosecutor declined, and the case file does not give a reason for the declination. Another woman reported an incident of domestic violence that included a sexual assault, but there was no investigation at all of the sexual assault. In one especially troubling incident, the survivor suffered a head injury that resulted in reduced consciousness. After five months of almost no activity, the detective finally sought a misdemeanor warrant and a subpoena for the survivor’s medical records. The case file contains no explanation of the delay. A child and her mother were hit with a crowbar in one incident, and the investigator did no more than seek an arrest warrant five days later, without gathering any additional evidence or developing the case.

It is important to underscore again that seeking an arrest warrant does not mean an arrest will be made. As discussed above, JPD has not tasked anyone or any unit with executing arrest warrants. As a result, the existence of a warrant may or may not result in an arrest—no one at JPD is following up on those arrest warrants.

The minimal response to domestic violence cases generally contrasts with JPD’s response when it perceives a crime to be serious. In a case where the survivor was beaten to the point of a penetrating injury to the brain, JPD officers canvassed the neighbors, photographed the crime scene, took fingerprints, and sought medical records. JPD detectives put effort into crimes they prioritized, but women should not have to experience life-threatening violence to merit a robust police response.

As with sexual assault cases, JPD’s observed lack of investigation of domestic violence disproportionately harms women.

JPD patrol officers and detectives do not demonstrate the basic skills necessary to respond adequately to domestic violence

Our Office’s review of JPD’s domestic violence response (including both case files and calls for service) shows that too many JPD patrol officers and detectives lack basic skills necessary to respond to domestic violence.

Other than asking about prior incidents and police involvement, inquiries that are required by state law,^[36] officers showed no ability to make risk or lethality assessments.^[37] In fact, one senior JPD officer we spoke to did not know what a lethality assessment was. This is particularly concerning given the additional absence of any strangulation assessments in the cases we reviewed. Strangulation is a predictor of future increased lethality, but more urgently, it is dangerous because it can have lethal effects several hours or even days after it occurs due to swelling of internal tissue. At the same time, many survivors are not aware of having been strangled (due to blackouts) and thus are unable to report it. It is therefore critical that an officer responding to an incident of domestic violence attempt to determine whether strangulation has occurred by, for example, noting breathing difficulties, a hoarse voice, or petechiae (red dots) in the eye or skin of the face and neck. The importance of lethality and strangulation assessments is widely recognized in policing.^[38] JPD’s deviation from these norms increases the risk of future harm to women.^[39]

Gazebo at Dellwood Park

JPD policy on domestic violence is inadequate

JPD’s policy on domestic violence is out of date, does not provide a solid starting point for officers and supervisors, and does not serve survivors. The policy calls for officers to “immediately respond to every call for assistance to a domestic incident.” However, it does not call for further investigation. The policy does not require lethality or strangulation assessments, says nothing about primary aggressor determinations (determining who is a victim when both parties claim to have been attacked or exhibit injuries), and prescribes no role for detectives.

The lack of guidance on primary aggressor determination, in particular, appears to have serious consequences. A supervisor told us that he often does not assign domestic violence cases that involve cross-complaints. He related that the State’s Attorney’s Office had provided JPD with a card several years ago that said, in effect, “counter complaints equals counter dismissals.” The supervisor gave us a copy of the card. What the supervisor failed to mention, or to appreciate, is that the card actually lists several steps an investigator can take to determine who the primary aggressor is in a case of dual complaints—such as looking at prior history, the relative size and strength of the parties, and signs of self-defense—and thereby avoid dual dismissals. The State’s Attorney’s admonition was not an instruction not to bother investigating, but rather to investigate more.

What we observed of JPD’s response to domestic violence raises concerns that JPD is discriminating against women, who are disproportionately the victims of domestic violence, by re-traumatizing them, failing to provide them with appropriate police services, failing to investigate domestic violence, and leaving them at increased risk of future violence. These harms disparately affect women, and therefore may violate the IHRA and ICRA.

JPD must improve training and supervision related to gender-based violence

JPD officers need foundational training and skills in responding to gender-based violence, but advanced training is also necessary. Response to gender-based violence requires specialized knowledge.

This is why, to take one example, JPD’s current lack of a dedicated domestic violence investigator or investigators is deeply concerning. JPD used to have a dedicated domestic violence detective, but in January 2022, the Department started assigning such cases to all detectives without regard to experience or training. Lack of a dedicated domestic violence unit or at least a detective who has proper training, especially in light of the large volume of domestic violence cases at JPD, may itself be a form of discrimination under the ICRA.^[40] We understand that JPD has been asked by the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office to designate a domestic violence investigator. We strongly urge JPD to do so. Given the volume of JPD’s domestic violence cases, more than one dedicated and trained investigator is likely needed. But one or more dedicated and trained investigators alone will not solve the problem. From patrol up the chain of command, JPD officers do not get sufficient, specialized, up-to-date training in addressing sexual assault and domestic violence.

Once JPD ensures that its officers and detectives have the necessary training, the Department needs to ensure that training and experience are integrated into the assignment process for detectives. During our period of review, JPD did not consider training or experience in assigning cases, even cases involving sexual assault and domestic violence. Instead, cases were assigned based primarily on workload—a legitimate consideration, but one that can lead to mismatches between appropriate training, skills, and assignments.

Supervisors, especially in the Investigations Division, must be provided with sufficient training and expertise to oversee and direct investigations and implement policy involving gender-based violence. Many, but not all, supervisors of detectives have experience as detectives. Supervisors who have not served as detectives prior to their promotion receive the same investigator training that detectives receive, but no more. The skills necessary to investigate gender-based violence are not intuitive; they must be taught. Supervisors in the Investigations Division are responsible for making the first cut in deciding whether a case gets assigned to a detective at all. The supervisors we spoke to shared that about a third of domestic violence cases do not get assigned to a detective. In many instances this is because the supervisor does not consider the case “solvable.” But the supervisors do not always have the skills to make this assessment. The example above of the supervisor who did not assign cases with cross-complaints illustrates this problem.

Moreover, supervisors do not generally oversee the progress of cases or review them before they are sent to the State’s Attorney’s Office. This means that detectives do not receive guidance that might help them get past obstacles in investigations. It also means that no one is looking at cases to ensure that they have advanced as much as possible before being presented to the prosecutor.

Responding adequately to gender-based violence is hard work. It requires a strong commitment at all levels of an organization. JPD does not demonstrate such a commitment, and without one, the findings and concerns discussed above cannot be properly addressed.

JPD’s internal climate reflects a bias against women, aggravating concerns about discrimination

JPD’s response to gender-based violence—both sexual assault and domestic violence— reflects a bias against women, most notably in the form of false stereotypes about women who report such crimes. Our concerns about this bias—and the possibility of remedying it—are worsened by evidence we have collected about the internal climate at JPD. Our investigation found a climate in the Department that tolerates hostility toward women, including (perhaps especially) in regard to JPD’s handling of accusations of gender-based violence against JPD’s own members.

Some examples illustrate the internal hostility toward women that exists at JPD. In one instance, unknown officers wrote “Dyke” on the bicycle of a female officer. In another, a senior male officer repeatedly referred to a female officer on authorized maternity leave as “AWOL.” We were also told of a recent in-service training in which officers were presented with a scenario in which a woman and a man are both at a bar and very drunk. The man proceeds to have sex with the woman, who later asserts that she was too drunk to consent. The training asked whether this was sexual assault, and the correct answer under Illinois law was yes. Male officers, we were told, were “up in arms” at the concept that sex with an intoxicated person unable to give consent was sexual assault. At another training on sexual assault, an officer stood up and said words to the effect of “you know they [women who allege sexual assault] are all lying because they know the guy.” Officers have also been heard joking about domestic violence survivors, making remarks like “why’d she get her ass beat?” or wondering aloud what a woman did to get beat up.

Another troubling incident involves an allegation that officers, including several officers in senior leadership positions, illegally or improperly obtained private sexual videos and other images from a female officer’s cell phone and circulated them within the Department. The lawsuit filed by the female officer remains pending, but we have been told that there is a belief among at least some officers that the videos and images were in fact improperly circulated within the Department in violation of JPD policy. No one was punished for this policy  violation and humiliation of a fellow officer.

We also uncovered evidence that male Department members, including supervisors, sexually harass female officers. Female officers are hesitant to report the conduct, because they perceive JPD to be a place where a complaint of that nature would result in retaliation and no meaningful corrective action.

The internal biases at JPD are especially evident when JPD investigates allegations of improper sexual conduct, including sexual assault and domestic violence, by its own officers. JPD's investigations (both criminal and administrative) of officers accused of gender-based violence involved inadequately trained investigators without relevant experience, and reflected a lack of understanding of the effects of gender-based violence on survivors' behavior, bias toward believing accused officers even in the face of obviously false statements, and a lack of appropriate discipline. 

In a series of incidents that occurred in 2019 and were widely reported in the Joliet community, one officer was accused of domestic violence and other gender-based offenses (harassment, violation of no contact order) against multiple survivors five times in a single year. A complaint was made against him for other violence as well. Other than administrative leave and desk duty, the Department imposed no discipline for months. Although the officer eventually left JPD by agreement, the Department’s lack of urgency in response to this officer’s conduct sent a message to the Department and the community that JPD does not take investigations of domestic violence and harassment seriously.

These examples of hostility toward women within JPD heighten our concern about discrimination against women in JPD’s response to gender-based violence.