Investigation

Basis of Investigative Authority

The Office of the Illinois Attorney General has authority to conduct civil investigations into whether local law enforcement agencies engage in patterns or practices of unconstitutional or unlawful policing. This authority stems from multiple sources, including the Illinois Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act.^[1] The SAFE-T Act grants the Office of the Illinois Attorney General authority to investigate whether Illinois law enforcement agencies, or other governmental authorities, engage in “a pattern or practice of conduct by officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of Illinois.”^[2] If the Office determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that such a pattern or practice exists, it may file a civil lawsuit to require the law enforcement agency to take specific actions to eliminate the pattern or practice.^[3] These provisions of the SAFE-T Act took effect on July 1, 2021.

Joliet Calls for the Illinois Attorney General to Open an Investigation

On January 29, 2020, Eric Lurry, a 37-year-old Black man, died approximately eleven hours after JPD officers arrested him and took him into custody during a narcotics surveillance operation. Squad car video showed a handcuffed Lurry in the rear of the squad car chewing on something and appearing to lose consciousness. Upon arriving at the JPD station, a JPD sergeant opened a rear squad door, slapped Lurry in the face, and said “Wake up, bitch.” The sergeant then placed his hands on Lurry’s neck and jaw and pinched Lurry’s nose shut for nearly 90 seconds. While still pinching his nose shut, the sergeant pulled on Lurry’s jaw and opened his mouth, and another JPD officer inserted a baton in his mouth and removed multiple clear bags. Lurry was unresponsive, and officers began rubbing Lurry’s sternum with a closed fist. Lurry did not respond to the sternum-rub, and officers pulled Lurry out of the squad car and began CPR. Paramedics arrived shortly thereafter and transported him to an area hospital, where he died ten hours later.

Five months later, JPD Sergeant Javier Esqueda released squad car video depicting Lurry’s arrest, transport, and arrival at the station.^[4] In June 2020, just days after viewing the video, Joliet’s then-mayor and several city council members sent a letter to the Illinois Attorney General requesting that the Attorney General investigate Lurry’s death and JPD’s handling of the incident.^[5]

 Joliet was founded in 1852

On July 2, 2020, after receiving findings of an investigation conducted by the Will-Grundy Major Crimes Task Force, the Will County State’s Attorney announced it would not file charges against the officers involved, concluding that “Eric Lurry’s death was caused by the ingestion of fatal amounts of heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, and did not result directly from any action or inaction by an officer of the Joliet Police Department.”^[6] Less than a week later, after public outcry,^[7] JPD’s then-Chief issued a public statement condemning the narrative that “there was not an outside investigation done, video evidence was withheld and that the Joliet Police Department was covering up evidence.”^[8] On July 14, 2020, under mounting public pressure, JPD released videos related to Lurry’s arrest and transport.^[9]

In August 2020, Lurry’s widow filed a federal lawsuit against the City and four JPD officers involved in Lurry’s arrest and in-custody death.^[10] In addition, Esqueda was charged with official misconduct related to his unauthorized access and release of the squad car video.^[11] As of this writing, both the Lurry civil wrongful death lawsuit and the criminal proceedings against Esqueda are ongoing. Because our Office does not have authority to investigate the individual officers involved or the merits of any civil or criminal proceedings connected to these actions, we do not make findings on these issues. Our Office does, however, have the power to investigate whether underlying, systemic issues affect the Department’s ability to deliver police services in a constitutional manner that protects the lives and dignity of all community members.

In September 2020, after reviewing these and other publicly available materials, our Office responded to Joliet’s request to investigate Lurry’s death.^[12] We explained that while our Office does not have jurisdiction to investigate specific incidents in isolation, we do have authority to investigate patterns or practices of unconstitutional or unlawful conduct. We then requested additional information, which Joliet timely provided, to assess whether JPD’s policies, trainings, and practices indicate a broader pattern or practice warranting investigation in accordance with our jurisdiction.

Following an in-depth review of the materials provided, our office announced on September 8, 2021 that it was formally opening a pattern or practice investigation into the Joliet Police Department.^[13] The original scope of the investigation centered on JPD’s uses of force; pedestrian and vehicle stops; arrests; administrative investigations of officer misconduct; and imposition of discipline or other corrective action. We also examined evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in JPD’s enforcement actions. During the course of our review, we uncovered additional evidence that prompted us to broaden the investigation to include a review of JPD’s language access system, early intervention system, foot pursuit practices, and responses to allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence.

We did not pursue an investigation of certain matters that were brought to our attention that fell outside of our jurisdiction (which is limited to addressing patterns or practices of unlawful or unconstitutional conduct). In the past six years, media reports and lawsuits have alleged internal misconduct, political infighting, retaliation, discrimination, and unethical and illegal actions by JPD officers, a former police chief, and other city officials, including the former mayor. Current and former City and JPD employees frequently brought these and related events to the attention of the investigative team. Although certain allegations were pertinent to our investigation, some of these events—particularly those involving political infighting—fell outside the scope of our investigation and were not separately investigated.

Community members also shared their experiences, and we carefully considered their input to inform our findings throughout the investigation. In some instances, however, community members raised issues that were outside the scope of our authority. For example, we received requests to criminally charge and prosecute officers alleged to have committed misconduct. We were unable to comply with these requests because our investigation in this matter is civil rather than criminal, and our office’s limited criminal authority does not apply under these circumstances.^[13] Many community members also asked us to look into incidents and concerns related to entities other than JPD. However, our investigation was limited to JPD and the various Joliet officials and entities that directly affect JPD’s operations (e.g., the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners). In addition, community members sought our review and intervention in criminal and civil cases. As noted above, however, our investigative authority does not extend to intervening in individual cases.

Investigation Methodology

Throughout our investigation, we received the cooperation and support of City and JPD leadership. We met with city officials, including the former mayor, former city manager, and the former chair of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. We interviewed current and former members of JPD, both civilian and sworn officers of all ranks, and met with representatives of JPD’s officers’ union, supervisors’ union, and the Black Police Officer Association. Members of our investigative team participated in more than a dozen ride-alongs—during both day and night shifts—in each of the three patrol districts. We also attended roll calls, shadowed school liaison officers and neighborhood policing officers, and observed call-takers and dispatchers in the 911 Communications Center. All told, we gathered information, conducted interviews, and spoke to more than 100 current and former JPD members. By and large, the city officials and JPD members we interacted with were thoughtful, candid, committed to public safety, and open-minded toward reforms designed to improve the quality of policing and protect community members and officers from harm.

We also heard directly from the Joliet community. We conducted interviews and met with residents, advocates, and other stakeholders—including the Will and Kendall County State's Attorney’s Offices, plaintiffs’ counsel, and criminal defense counsel. The investigative team met with community and non-profit organizations, leaders of the faith community, and community organizers, among others. We hosted both virtual and in-person community meetings with key stakeholders, a virtual townhall open to the public, and three listening sessions, including a session hosted in partnership with the Joliet Branch of the NAACP. Members of the investigative team also attended neighborhood association meetings, rallies, and other community, city, school, and JPD-sponsored events. In addition to these outreach efforts, we received and responded to more than 150 phone calls and emails from members of the community.

We reviewed hundreds of incidents and several years of data documenting JPD’s activities. The investigation involved a thorough review of JPD’s policies, procedures, and training materials, including in-person and recorded observations of recruit and in-service training. The investigative team reviewed thousands of pages of documents, including Department orders and memos, use of force reports, case reports, sexual assault and domestic violence investigation files, officer misconduct complaints and investigation files, supervisor counseling files, and officer background checks. As part of this review, we also examined photographic and video evidence, including body-worn and squad car camera footage. Throughout this process, the City and JPD dedicated considerable time and resources toward complying with our requests for information.

At the outset of our investigation, we committed to informing JPD of serious but discrete issues that required immediate attention. During the course of our investigation, we sent JPD three letters that offered technical assistance on JPD’s foot pursuit practices, language access services, and early intervention system. The actions JPD took in response to these letters, and our assessment of these actions, are addressed in the Technical Assistance section.

The investigative team consisted of career attorneys and staff from several divisions and bureaus within the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, as well as nationally recognized subject matter experts. The experts included former law enforcement officials and civil rights attorneys, many of whom have conducted police pattern or practice investigations in other jurisdictions. Their expertise included use of force, accountability, training, supervision, community policing, sexual assault, domestic violence, discriminatory policing, and more. We also partnered with a research organization at the University of Chicago to assist with data review, data sampling, and statistical analysis. We wish to thank the hundreds of individuals who shared their experiences and insights with us, the City and JPD for their cooperation, and the investigative team and experts for their dedicated work on this investigation.