Leaked Emails Show Chicago PD Bought, Deployed Drones Using Off-The-Books Forfeiture Funds
from the forced-transparency-still-more-effective-than-voluntary-transparency dept
Thanks to the efforts of transparency activists Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), residents of Chicago are learning more about the activities of their sworn protectors, the Chicago Police Department. Stuff the PD never wanted the public to see is now in the public’s hands. The Chicago Sun Times has started digging into the stash provided by DDoS and has revealed the PD’s secret drone program, paid for with off-the-books funds.
Details of the police department’s drone program were included in an email sent last summer by Karen Conway, director of police research and development. In the email, Conway told other high-ranking police officials that the department’s counter-terrorism bureau “utilized 1505 funds for a pilot Drone program that operates within the parameters of current laws.”
1505 funds are funds the city doesn’t control or track. The funds belong solely to the Police Department — something that happens shortly after the PD takes the funds from the people they used to belong to.
The department’s “1505” fund is made up of forfeiture proceeds — money and other assets seized in connection to criminal investigations. The money isn’t included in the department’s official budget and has reportedly been used in the past to purchase other controversial technology, like Stingrays, which mimic cell towers and send out signals to trick phones into transmitting their locations and other information.
Asset forfeiture is a great way to get cops the things they want without having to worry about oversight from either the city or its residents. Purchases are almost always “controversial” when they’re made with funds that are all but invisible to outsiders.
And there’s quite a bit of cash to be spent. The Chicago PD has taken in nearly $26 million in forfeiture funds in the last two years alone. It managed to spend nearly $8 million over that same period, some of it on “operating expenses,” witness protection, and controlled drug buys. Some of that also went towards training programs and conferences, as well as their attendant expenses (travel, meals, lodging).
But some of it went towards new tech not specifically approved by the city. Emails included in the leaked documents suggest the PD wants its drones to participate in vehicle pursuits. One email references “Starchase” and “engine stop technology.” This would allow pursuit vehicles to launch GPS trackers at pursued vehicles, allowing officers to stop chasing and start tracking. Drones would presumably be used to track vehicles from the air and put airborne eyes on suspects if and when the tracked vehicle is abandoned.
The only hang up appears to be the city’s drone policies, which restrict how they can be used. The PD has obtained some waivers and relaxation of drone guidelines, but it appears this part of the program is still in the exploratory phase rather than in actual use at this time. However, other emails in the same stash claim the drones will be (or are being) used to search for missing persons, take crime scene photos, or assist in “terrorist-related issues.”
But this isn’t the only time the Chicago PD has expressed interest in airborne surveillance. While this email references vehicle pursuits (something the PD doesn’t handle particularly well), there’s no reason to believe the PD won’t find other uses for the new eyes in the sky.
In 2018, the ACLU accused former Mayor Rahm Emanuel of being the heavy hand behind legislation in Springfield that would have allowed police officers to use drones equipped with facial recognition technology to monitor protests. Versions of the legislation passed both the state house and senate but a final bill was never signed into law.
“Given that the city not so long ago sought legislation to permit using drones to surveil public gatherings, including those engaged in First Amendment activity, it is worth questioning its motivations,” [ACLU spokesman Ed] Yohnka said of the new revelation.
The CPD may be looking at pursuit options but state law enforcement has its own drones and sent them skyward during protests last year sparked by the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin. The Illinois State Police said the drones were launched to capture footage of “potential uses of force and arrests,” but the same recordings could easily have been used to identify and track people engaged in protected First Amendment activity.
This is just one of many problems with asset forfeiture programs. Not only does the government take control of citizens’ property with almost no justification, but the direct beneficiaries of these programs are often allowed to spend the funds however they want with almost no oversight. That’s how the Chicago PD gets into the drone business without ruffling feathers downtown or feeling any obligation to inform the public about their latest surveillance plans.
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, chicago, chicago police department, drones, emails, leaks, surveillance
Comments on “Leaked Emails Show Chicago PD Bought, Deployed Drones Using Off-The-Books Forfeiture Funds”
What could go wrong?
The department’s “1505” fund is made up of forfeiture proceeds — money and other assets seized in connection to criminal investigations. The money isn’t included in the department’s official budget and has reportedly been used in the past to purchase other controversial technology, like Stingrays, which mimic cell towers and send out signals to trick phones into transmitting their locations and other information
Well it’s good thing that police are paragons of virtue and would never unjustly rob someone, otherwise I can think of just a few conflicts of interest in giving the police a way to fund anything they don’t want on the books…
Re: What could go wrong?
I suspect another problem with the 1505 fund is simply that they are money (and goods) that haven’t gone through the full forfeiture process… that is, they’ve been seized, but they’re still in that "being held pending judicial review/citizen appeal" stage.
… assuming they have been (fully) reported, that is.
And while you’re at it, look into Illinois "Cost Bonds", where even if you do get your property back, the state will still dun you for 10% of the value.
Re: What could go wrong?
So basically the US police are using – routinely – methods only so far seen in rogue states where the citizen rightly fears the thug in uniform who might covet their new car or flatscreen?
The fact that not 100% of american voters are outraged about this doesn’t speak well of american voters. This shit should be making headlines. Twenty years ago american journalists were awarded Pulitzers for uncovering news like that – in other countries.
Is someone selling programs??
I can;t tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Re: Re:
"Who can keep track of all this shit?!" – Lewis Black
Re: Re:
It can be a little tricky at times but a good rule of thumb is that the bad guys don’t have badges, and the worse guys do.
Or in other words...
…money and other assets stolen under the pretense of criminal investigations.
If'
You ever see these over the Rich white sections of town, what are the odds someone gets Fired or the drone shot down?
What are all those Mexicans doing at the Governors mansion?? Whats the Filipino doing inside washing dishes.
Thieves are thieves
I’m sure the Chicago PD feels like Robin Hood. Too bad they are anything but.
Re: Thieves are thieves
" Too bad they are anything but."
Well, you could argue that they are taking from those who have (a car, money, a PS5, a margarita machine or a zamboni) and give to those who have not those things (themselves). Obviously people who had the money to buy a new car must be Bad Guys, right?
“ “Asset forfeiture is a great way to get cops the things they want without having to worry about oversight from either the city or its residents. Purchases are almost always "controversial" when they’re made with funds that are all but invisible to outsiders.”
Or:
When funding is denied or cut to appease protestors and rioters.
“Starchase" and "engine stop technology”
Such technology allows police to protect the wellbeing of innocents by halting pursuits without giving up the suspect.
Not only that but it also protects the suspect. No clashes with heightened emotions. No risk of high speed crash due to fleeing. And less likelihood of damage to the car or property.
“but the same recordings could easily have been used to identify and track people engaged in protected First Amendment activity.”
Or, those who are rioters, looters, and vandals.
“ “take control of citizens’ property with almost no justification”
Asset forfeiture is codified in law. And therefore justified.