In Chicago's traffic court, a man named Jeffrey Kriv repeatedly used a unique excuse to contest his traffic tickets. Each time, he claimed that his car had been stolen by his ex-girlfriend after they broke up. Kriv, who was actually a Chicago police officer, would provide police incident reports as evidence of the car thefts, without disclosing that he was a cop himself.
Kriv's excuse worked numerous times, allowing him to avoid paying fines. However, his conduct both on and off duty raised concerns. He had a significant number of complaints filed against him by citizens and fellow officers, alleging rude behavior, physical abuse, offensive language, and other forms of misconduct. One incident involved Kriv punching a handcuffed man in the back of his patrol car.
Despite the multiple complaints, Kriv managed to keep his job due to the shortcomings in Chicago's police discipline system. The system's inadequate accountability resulted in little to no consequences for his misconduct.
It was only when an outside agency received a tip and questioned Kriv's testimony as a private citizen in traffic court that his career started to unravel. An investigation by ProPublica and the Chicago Tribune shed light on his history of misconduct.
Kriv's misconduct extended beyond his job as a police officer. He had a troubled family background, with his father being involved in fraud schemes and ending up in federal prison. Kriv also had a history of traffic violations, including numerous tickets for his personal vehicles.
Other officers also complained about Kriv's behavior. Internal affairs records revealed allegations of dishonesty, false arrests, improper searches, and falsifying records. Some officers accused him of writing false parking citations, while others reported that he had harassed them with unwarranted tickets.
Despite the numerous complaints, Kriv received minimal disciplinary action. He was reprimanded or suspended on several occasions, but the punishments were often reduced or overturned through the department's grievance process. Kriv appealed disciplinary decisions multiple times and managed to have his suspensions reduced.
The Chicago Police Department's accountability system proved ineffective in addressing Kriv's misconduct. Throughout his career, the department had several superintendents and versions of internal affairs divisions, but none took decisive action to remove him from duty. Attempts to implement an early-warning system to identify officers at risk of misconduct were also stalled.
The police union's contract further hindered disciplinary actions by allowing investigators to consider only the most recent five years of an officer's history. This meant that officers like Kriv, with extensive disciplinary records, could appear problem-free when it came to determining appropriate consequences.
In the end, Kriv's misconduct came to light due to a combination of external investigation and questions about his behavior in traffic court. His case highlights the need for a more robust and effective police discipline system in Chicago.
Comments