Peoria Pundit

I visited a certain drinking establishment near my home the other night and was surprised when I noticed that come folks were openly lighting up cigarettes.

A recent court cause ended with a judge’s ruling that the state law banning smoking inside buildings doesn’t empower circuit courts to hear cases stemming from the tickets being issued. I dashed off an email to Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard to see if his officers are doing anything differently. His reply:

Bill, our instructions have not changed. In a case where people are smoking in a licensed premise, we will bring enforcement action upon the business, not the individuals smoking. I have checked with Legal and they advise the recent Court ruling does not impact our approach.

Hmmm … the Journal Star article says that the law is essentially unenforceable. If the tickets that would be issued by police cannot be enforced in court, how are they any kind of deterrent to bars that want that let patrons smoke?

I just now emailed Randy Ray, city attorney for the Peoria, to ask how this could be the case. Just last night, the council voted to rescind its prohibition on handbilling because of a court decision that such laws were unconstitutional. Wouldn’t the city also face some liability if there are police officers out there giving tickets that cannot be enforced?

If I had a liquor license, I would have to ask my patrons to PLEASE take it outside. At least until there’s some clarity on this.

UPDATE: City Attorney Randy Ray replied to my letter. It looks like my commenters are correct, a circuit court decision isn’t binding throughout the state (although I suspect any attorney defending someone so charged would make a similar argument as the one that succeeded in Bureau County, and cite that judge’s decision). But something Ray said troubles me:

Seriously, it remains illegal to smoke in a licensed establishment. Our liquor ordinance provides that a licensee  may not allow illegal activities on the premises. Liquor license actions are not commenced with a ticket. Liquor licensees who allow smoking in their establishments face potential action against their licenses.

I take this to mean that even if they can’t hand out tickets to patrons, the police CAN take steps that might culminate in some bar loosing it’s liquor license.

Yet there are bars — I am assured more than the one I visited the other day — where indoor smoking is openly taking place. Folks, it doesn’t bother me a bit. But all it takes it one morally superior soul to drop a dime. Either some folks don’t mind losing their liquor license, or someone out there knows something I don’t about whether there’s an unofficial policy to not really give a rat’s behind about this.

OK … so let’s set forth the facts.

President Bush was in town at a fundraiser. He was charging well-to-do Republicans $5,000 to have their picture taken with him.

While in town, he had his picture taken with Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard.

Ooooo … what a scandal.

The Journal Star is deeply concerned.

“As is very common for presidential visits, the Secret Service offered the opportunity to local law enforcement to be able to meet the president,” Settingsgaard said in an e-mail to the Journal Star. “I shook his hand, said a kind word and they snapped a picture.”

What we’re not sure about, though, is whether the chief paid the $5,000 asking price for the picture, if he got to keep the photograph for free, or if he even walked off with a photograph. Plus, who was “they?” He declined to answer follow-up questions we had about the picture.

The Journal Star is deeply concerned. Trouble is, I don’t know if they are deeply concerned that Settingsgaard paid $5,000 or if he DIDN’T pay $5,000. If he did pay, then it’s a case of a public employee being overly political, I suppose. If he didn’t, then his posing for a picture may constitute some form of a gratuity from the Bush administration to Settingsgaard.

I believe that I am speaking for a great majority of Peorians when I say: “Oh, get a frigging life.” I’m sorry all to hell that Settingsgaard’s reply wasn’t as specific as you would like, but it seems clear that the chief got his picture taken with the president because politicians like to have their picture taken with police officers. At this point in Bush’s career, posing for a picture with Settingsgaard did more for GW’s reputation than the other way around.

Feh. I’m willing to bet the “concern” being expressed anonymously comes from those who are overly worried about the money the city spent providing security during Bush’s visit.

I came across a Web site than was gathering “signatures” on a petition protesting what someone claimed was the abuse police dogs in Peoria. The petition writer claimed:

The officer in charge of the K9 at the Peoria, IL police department does not seem to have any regard to the safety and well being of his partner, the K9 officer. This poor dog is often left in the hot patrol car all day with no food or water while the officer in charge of him walks around the mall. Police are supposed to ‘Protect and Serve’, so why aren’t they protecting their own officers? Furthermore, if they can’t even protect their own K9 officer, how can we (the citizens) be sure they can protect us?

Police dogs die every year from being left in squad cars or working in sweltering heat, according to the U.S. Police Canine Association. However, no agency tracks the number of heat-related deaths.

We must bring to the attention of the Peoria, IL Police Department, that their K9 officers are very valuable members of the police force and deserve to be treated as such. If someone does not know how to care for a dog, they shouldn’t be allowed to have one, police officers are not immune to this. If they don’t know how to care for the K9 officer, they shouldn’t be in charge of it.

I didn’t want to link to this site without giving the Peoria Police Department a chance to respond. So I sent an email to Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard. His reply:

Peoria Pundit: Were you aware of this petition? 

Chief Steve Settingsgaard: No, but first I would correct the writer in that the K9 is not an officer, it is a dog.  A K9 Officer is the human being that has responsibility for the dog.  Second, no one here has any knowledge of this Department ever losing or harming a dog through any form of neglect, including leaving them in a car.    

PP: Have you received any direct complaints about the public about dogs being left in police cars “all day” w/out food and water in the heat of the summer?

Settingsgaard: No, no complaints, ever.  Clearly if the writer were correct and a dog was left in a sweltering hot car all day, it would not survive.  It is necessary to leave a dog in the car at times but the dogs are properly protected.  See below.   

PP: If so, is there an investigation? 

Settingsgaard: N/A

PP: What is the policy for leaving animals alone in cars? 

Settingsgaard: The K9 policy does not specify how long a K9 may be left in a car because it is not an issue and need not be said.  Just like a parent doesn’t need a policy that says not to leave a child in a hot car.  If a parent were to abuse or neglect a child by leaving them in a hot car, they would suffer consequences.  No conscientious K9 officer would ever leave his dog in a car for an unsafe period but if it were to happen, the officer would face consequences.   

PP: How may police dogs does the city own and for what sorts of duties are they used? 

Settingsgaard: Five K-9s.  One is dedicated to bomb detection.  The others are used in uniform patrol, primarily for tracking and drug detection. 

The PPD has spent a considerable amount of money outfitting K-9 vehicles with a “hot dog” which is an automated system that detects extremes in temperature and automatically will adjust the temperature to keep the K-9 as comfortable and healthy as possible.  The system also has an alarm that notifies the officer whenever the temperature inside the car exceeds reasonable limits. There is also a remote “bail-out” system where the Officers can open the door to their vehicle remotely to let the dog out of the car in case of emergencies. 

All PPD K-9 Officers carry water in their vehicles for the use of the K-9’s. Additionally, all PPD K-9’s receive veterinary (medical) attention on a regular and consistent basis.  This includes boarding if the assigned K-9 Officer will be on leave or unable to provide care for his assigned dog at any time.
 
PPD K-09 Officers and the K-9 Sergeant perform in an exceptional manner in all aspects of care and awareness of the needs for their dogs.  In my experience if there is a problem with how handlers care for their dogs it is that they can be overly protective of the dog.  They are more likely to err in protecting the dog from situations the dog was designed for then they are to neglect the dog.  During my career I have seen several cases where the handler limits the usefulness of the dog and devalues a very expensive police tool by being too emotionally attached and too reluctant to expose the dog to danger when it is absolutely necessary and part of the dog’s purpose.  I have never seen a case of the opposite wherein a handler neglected his dog. 
 
If anyone has direct knowledge of a K9 being mistreated, I would strongly encourage them to document the facts and file a complaint immediately.