Chicago mayor Richard Daley told the ABA conference this week that cameras in police cars will reduce the amount the city will have to pay out in damages for police malfeasance. He may be right. But let’s not forget the case of Raymond Bell who was arrested by Chicago police officer Joe D. Baker, a 23 year veteran of the force, for driving under the influence. According to Baker, Parker staggered when he got out of the car and could not stand on one leg for 30 seconds. The problem with this is that a camera mounted in the police car saw Bell walking straight and taking the field sobriety tests without problem. Case dismissed. While the article by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune doesn’t mention it, I would not be surprised if Bell is a little richer at the expense of the Chicago taxpayers.

In a Hollywood, Florida case, Officer Joel Francisco ran into a vehicle driven by a Georgetown University student. According to the officer the woman was under the influence but the case was dismissed after the office was heard discussing on a police car video camera with four other officers how to put the blame on the student for the accident. All five were suspended. The accident, by the way, was Francisco’s seventh accident in a police car since 2000.

By the way, Mayor Daley is wrong when he says that the city should not be charged when the police harass citizens in response to rough language on the part of the citizen. The police need to be able to handle a little rough language. Daley ought to have a discussion and a mug of beer with Henry Louis Gates.

The point is not whether the use of cameras in police car will save the city money or cost the city money. Nor is it whether it will result in more convictions or less convictions. The point is that the use of cameras will result in the truth coming out and then we all win.

Several days ago we discussed Unus v. Kane a case in which a Muslim family sued for an alleged violation of its Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Today we take a look at another case in which the plaintiff claimed an illegal search of her residence. Luckily for the plaintiff in this case, Maira Guzman the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court grant of summary judgment to the defendant, the City of Chicago. Guzman sued the City of Chicago pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 for a violation of her civil rights.

Sergeant Marvin Bonnstetter of the Chicago Police Department was investigating gangs in Chicago. While he was at the jail he was approached by a man who claimed to have information. Together with an FBI officer he met with this man (known as John Doe). The officers asked the man a number of questions. He seemed knowledgeable about Chicago gangs and he was able to identify pictures of gang members.

John Doe told the officers that he had seen a convicted felon, Ruben Estrada coming out of his residence, located at 1536 West Walton in Chicago, with a gun. Doe told the officers that the West Walton address was a single family residence. The officers and Doe drove by the building and it appeared to be a single family residence. There was a real estate sign in the window and the officers thought it was a home run business.

Bonnstetter used the information to write an affidavit and submit it to the court to get a search warrant for the residence. A magistrate signed the search warrant.

Fourteen police officers and FBI agents, including Bonnstetter went to the residence to serve the search warrant. Shortly after arriving they discovered that it was not a single family residence. The real estate office was separate from the rest of the building and their were two residential apartments in the building. Furthermore no one by the name of Ruben Estrada lived in the building. They searched the upstairs apartment where Maira Guzmen, a pregnant woman, her husband, and their nine year old son lived.

The Seventh Circuit found that while Bonnstetter acted appropriately in obtaining the search warrant the police did not properly execute the warrant. The court citing Maryland v. Garrison stated that since the officers realized that it was not a single family residence prior to the search, they were required to withdraw.