Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

According to the Fox News report: 

Chicago - The reward for information in the case of Officer Michael Bailey’s murder was increased to $129,450 on Wednesday. Twelve law firms that represent Chicago Police Officers and others pledged a total of $28,450 in combined funds. The pledge group was organized by the law office of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. This follows the Park Manor Neighbors’ Community Council pledge of $1,000 on Monday.

Bailey, 62, was a Chicago police veteran of 20 years and was only a few weeks away from retirement at the time of his death. He was shot and killed when someone attempted to rob him in front of his Park Manor home the morning of July 18. Bailey was still in full uniform from working overnight guarding the Mayor’s home.

The following law firms and individuals contributed in the latest reward effort:

$5,000
Andrew M. Hale & Associates
Dykema
Daley Mohan Groble, P.C.

$2,500
James G. Sotos & Associates
Rock Fusco LLC
Querrey & Harrow
Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt, P.C.

$1,000
Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada
Greene & Letts
Borkan & Scahill, Ltd.

$250
Hartigan & O'Connor

$100
Richard A. Devine
Battle Law Office

Chicago Tribune, WLS 890 AM, and ABC7Chicago also reported the increase.  

Anyone with information related to the murder of Officer Bailey can contact Area 2 Detectives at (312) 747-8272.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a letter sent today to Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis, Andrew M. Hale & Associates announced it had raised over $23,000 to add to the reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the people who killed Officer Michael Bailey.

As stated in the letter:

We are all saddened by the recent shooting death of Officer Michael Bailey. It is unfortunate that it takes an incident like this to remind us of the sacrifice officers make every day to keep us safe. We wanted to extend our condolences to Officer Bailey’s family and to the entire Chicago Police Department.

For the last few days we have been discussing how we can help the effort to catch the killers. We obviously cannot go out to canvas neighborhoods or talk to potential witnesses, however we could help with money. We are excited to join the other organizations that have pledged money as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the people that are responsible for Officer Bailey’s tragic death.

To see the firms participating in the latest reward - here is the letter.

We hope they catch these killers and bring them to justice. Officer Bailey's family deserves it. CPD deserves it. We all deserve it!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Andrew Hale & Associates has released the following press release which has been picked up by the Chicago Tribune , ABC7 News Chicago , WBBM780 , and the Newswire

Chicago, IL - August 17, 2009 -- A federal district court judge has ruled in favor of three retired Chicago police officers who were sued by Jerry Miller in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Miller was convicted in 1982 of raping a woman at a parking garage in the Gold Coast section of Chicago.

Miller was identified by two employees who worked at the parking garage and stopped a man - later identified as Miller - as he was attempting to drive his rape victim's car out of the parking garage, with the victim locked in the trunk.

After spending 26 years in prison, Miller was released after DNA testing from the crime scene proved that Miller was not the rapist. Shortly thereafter, Miller filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that several now retired Chicago police officers had framed him for the crime by conducting a suggestive lineup and failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence.

Judge Suzanne B. Conlon rejected all of Miller's claims against the officers and granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirety finding as a matter of law that the officers did not engage in any misconduct.

The retired police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski, Ebone Liggins, and Christina Liu from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC.

About Andrew M. Hale & Associates

Andrew M. Hale & Associates specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and police officers. The firm's principal attorneys are Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski. The firm maintains a blog dedicated to the defense of police officers in wrongful conviction cases: www.wrongfulconvictionlawsuitdefense.com or www.dontblamethecops.com.

For more information contact: Andrew M. Hale, 312-341-9646, ahale@ahalelaw.com, www.ahalelaw.com

*Source Andrew M. Hale & Associates - Federal Court Case no. 08 C 773

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Warfield v. City 2008 WL 2764862 (July 16, 2008) Judge Castillo granted in part summary judgment in Warfield v. City 05 C 3712. The Court ruled that plaintiffs, like an innocent bystanders, cannot recover for be shot by police, under a Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment theory. Under the Fourth, since plaintiff were "not the intended targets of the officers' bullets. In Bublitz v. Cottey, for example, a family was killed after their vehicle collided with the car of a fleeing felon when police officers used a tire-deflation device to stop the felon's car. 327 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir.2003). In that case, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that just because the officer intended to stop the felon's car, it does not follow that he therefore intended to stop any other car that could potentially become involved in a subsequent collision. Id. The Court held that the family's suffering was an "accidental and wholly unintended consequence;" because the family "was simply not the intended object" of the defendant officers' attempts to seize the fleeing criminal. Id. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not implicated and could not provide the basis for a Section 1983 claim. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, Plaintiffs were not the intended object of the officers' attempts to seize Smith, and so the Fourth Amendment is not implicated here." Under the Fourteenth: The Court explained that "[O]nly the most egregious official conduct can be said to be 'arbitrary in the constitutional sense...." Bublitz, 327 F.3d at 490. When officers are faced with a "dangerous, fluid situation, in which they were forced to make decisions in haste, under pressure," their conduct does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment unless it "shocks the conscience." Schaefer, 153 F.3d at 797-98 (citing Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846-47). In these cases, "even precipitate recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the shock that implicates the concerns of substantive due process." Id. "The sine qua non of liability" in these cases is "a purpose to cause harm." Id. In Schaefer, the defendant officers fired their weapons at a husband who was holding his wife hostage, and accidentally fatally shot the wife. Id. at 798-99. The Seventh Circuit held that the officers' conduct did not "shock the conscience" because the officers did not intend to shoot the wife. Id." The Court applied that same standard in this case where the officers "were in the type of "dangerous, fluid situation" to which the shocks the conscience standard applies. Smith had just pointed a gun at Officers Chatman and Collier, and the officers were giving chase. To "shock the conscience," the officers must have intended to cause harm to Plaintiffs. Schaefer, 153 F.3d at 798-99. Although the parties dispute whether the officers knew Plaintiffs were in the vestibule when the officers fired their guns, there is no evidence of any intention or purpose on the part of the officers to cause harm to Plaintiffs." After finding that no 4th or 14th amendment violation occurred from the shooting, Judge Castillo granted summary judgment on plaintiff's IIED claim explaining: "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that they suffered sever emotional distress...the innocent bystander shot during Officers Chatman's and Collier's pursuit of Smith, is not a plaintiff in this case. In essence, all that remains are Plaintiffs' complaints of "fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, [and] worry," which are not sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." However, Judge Castillo denied summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful detention claim and explained that a question of fact existed as to whether plaintiffs who were brought to the police station for questioning were free to leave. Trial will be set on the remaining unlawful detention and false imprisonment claims of the multiple plaintiffs. Eileen Rosen of Rock Fusco and Andrew M. Hale of Andrew M. Hale & Associates represent the CIty of Chicago and the police officers. Jon Loevy of Loevy and Loevy represent the plaintiffs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link