police board terminating stephen peterson we are appealing said decision as well as the circuit court's decision affirming that decision on the before i get to the ministry decision that i say decision because there were two i first want to address what i think were essentially the testimony in the affidavit of the deputy chief who had after the case terminated was terminated after the chief had resigned after the deputy chief had retired this volition came forward with evidence that he thought i demonstrated first by justice towards mr peterson but secondly potentially improper conduct by one of the defendants the concealed in those who were with the state police yet paralegal tennis from the department had interviewed certain state police members yes right but now how is this new because your client knew the illinois state police officers and who determining more specifics about that evidence because we were not allowed by the court to to proceed with an interview with depositions it was not to determine more information about those witnesses so didn't do and apparently there's the purpose of the chief's interview of the state police officers there is the purpose of the chiefs hiring a private investigator just pacifically inquire about steve's conduct and again these are witnesses anyone else if they had given statements to anyone else that doesn't seem like a difficult burden we could have yes but remember this all came from the tenants of the police department and we're talking about triple position is that both broke interviewed the state police officers you also interviewed the state police officers some of them yes yes and any time could you not have asked them would you when you knew by anyone else sure and performance of one known to be a police officer peace officer shall not interfere with cases being handled those in state troopers have come to talk to him during the period of time so you know i guess i would look at this and saying did did my client do anything to impede jury investigation cran i guess what you're going to say were why we are to  of infer is the answer would be no he was pretty cooperate right when and if that could i suppose i felt you know you were disposition here but i guess i would go down the list of allegations and say did we ever do this day that he was cooperative and not obstruct if so really to go beyond him was unnecessary in our opinion which goes to my argument about the masses where the evidence and whether or not the either decision should be upheld was inconsistent off the big impeachment nothing about his demeanor so here we have a board that did not see or hear the evidence was used to except for one and it had nothing to substantiate the credibility didn't substantiate their credibility findings and even if we are assume that the the remaining board member discussed this with them behind closed doors we don't know specifically how they discussed the matter before they rendered a second decision even if there's this this is the one remaining board member didn't discuss this with the the new board we still have the problem of the infection board this is not the chief met with the board a board member in the first case the last says that infects the entire board so the only remaining board board member who was part of the first apparently infected proceedings what part if any did the newly constituted board have on the trial court's decision not to allow more evidence was that ever mentioned  to the motion to open for more evidence came first and that was denied and then we brief the matter we argued the matter and then the judge issued this decision saying basically evidence of obstruction in the obstruction finding is what was the basis of every rule violation there was no testimony or evidence that anything steve did or didn't do in those four days interfered with the wording that it was a word used or the state for goodness sake against his father twice so there's no evidence of obstruction even assuming every single fact to be as the defendant's statements and finally cause for discharge it has been well defined as some substantial short coming which renders an employee's continued employment detrimental to the efficiency of the discipline of the service the bottom line is this happened in two thousand and seven and november over a period a few days and is in fact something that c pearson did in two thousand and seven or did you in two thousand and ten seven somehow constitute a substantial shortcoming how was it that he was able to continue for another three years as a police officer this case was not brought forth by the chief for three decision made the following comment that i think is particularly appropriate represents the position of the appleby's officer peterson's ashleigh's in regards to the guns of the money as described above board of law enforcement efforts to locate stac know the nature of the investigation and the state police at the time it was is to take the guns and at the time his father gave him the money so if he didn't know what was going on  guns over to your house all right and and the record is very clear here steve peterson the admitted in the record that his father gave him three guns because he did not want police to find them that's in the was very clear his father did not want the police to look to locate those guns to find those guns and so on that tuesday he received the guns into two hundred thirty six thousand eight hundred dollars in checks and then remember what was going on at that point in time and peterson said that that devlin was having by wednesday and thursday the state police are searching the home and the record shows that drew peterson called this son and said yeah police are here they're searching the home go ahead and cash the checks and then during the search the police located and munition for a gun that was not there was the air fifteen they asked peterson where is the gun and that's when drew peterson admitted the hit was the gun to his son's house and then the state police contacted steve peterson who said we understand that you have some guns and the precision peterson admitted that he had the weapons pointed you're making here is not to see peterson wasn't cooperative with the state police after the contacted him it was the fact that steve peterson knew that he was hiding guns at the request of his it's the peterson had no idea why his father was giving him guns and money i think that the record clearly shows that he had a real good idea of what was going on and he may not know what happened to stacy peterson but clearly there was a problem there was a missing woman and nobody knew where she was and it's the end his father was concerned that he was going to be arrested so i think that i think it is would be a stretch to say that's the peterson a law enforcement officer was not keenly aware that there was a serious problem here with stacy's disappearance when the officers came for the guns asked if they could meet later and he would deliver the guns to them and sergeant lawson said that he was ok with that given this the peterson was a fellow on force an officer he trusted that he would do with them when they got to the station and both groups later that day steve peterson turned over the gun as he was questioned the state police did a report on what was what with the discussion on it and he clearly was asked at the end of the discussion or the question in his regular information that you have that might be relevant or helpful to us and that's wh peterson did not disclose this particular bit in the two hundred thirty six thousand eight hundred dollars in checks which we learn in the record from steve peterson's testimony his father given him in case he needed to take care of the children in some way it peterson in stacy peterson was it a blank check or was it actually i don't know the answer to that question we never actually got copies of the documents from the investigation from the state's attorney's office so i've actually never seen the checks all we ha this money came from an account of both stacey and drew and stacy being on the campus is a problem did he know that stacy had anything to do with this money or did he just believe it was coming from his father will put it here of his younger sibling the record the record is not clear on that and all we have in the record is what steve peterson admitted and he committed that he believed it was from his father to take care of the children and so sergeant lawson if you look at the record carefully sergeant lawson you have a problem with that explanation he said that the issue he was concerned about is that drew peterson would be giving them money and then later come back and say i want my money back for whatever reason so it was a way of to sound scratching the trial court whether to reopen the record or not and that's a pretty high standard in terms of abuse of discretion but there really is no factual basis to suggest that any sort of document or evidence was hidden in any way they had all the reports they had the grand jury testimony the record shows that that was disclosed i'm september thirtieth two thousand and ten months before the hearing and then we had was this really important we are last minute discovery request from the from the attorney saying this is the wednesday before thanksgiving of twenty ten and better occurred with with this and tell me you know whatever documents you have which is very typical that happens in these police board hearings you want to cover your bases and say hey i want to make sure it leaks and papers to make sure make sure everything that i've supposed to have now this hearing supposed to start on tuesday so this is when is it before thanksgiving and the record shows that i not only had bone conversations with mr cummins but also sent her a written response both on wednesday to end on monday in closing all documents that we had at the hearing started on tuesday well the issue i think that she's raising is that there be some personnel from the oprah police actually spoke with some sort of report that was hidden destroyed or anything like that and i do think that that just as an off makes the point is that what is that information actually material because the whole theory that the cheapass in prosecuting this ma cooperating with the state police sure he was cooperative with the state police after they call them and said by the way we know you have the guns your father confessor that we want to get them and so see peterson cooperating with them the point that i here that i mean we're looking at this from one police officer giving it to another police officer and then the r e s p officer saying hey you know if there were a police officer bring him down to the station will honor your request what about the fact that this is a father and does that mean anything here we shouldn't mean anything here you know what i think that they actually to the board's decision the commission's decision acknowledges that fact they get that his father had placed him in a very difficult position and i think that the board was going to say ok we get the fact that you took these guns but once you took them and realized what was going not as the evidence comes rolling in about his father's concern to be arrested the media was camping out the spot it was clearly a suspect in the disappearance of stacy peterson at some point he's got the gun to his father doesn't want him to find he's got this cash you have to come forward and say wait a minute something's not right here because you're a police officer yes because you're a police officer and that really that big point is magnified at the hearing when i asked the peterson whether after he had a chance to look back if you do things differently and he said no he said i did nothing wrong and so he even even with the monday morning quarterbacking looking back he was unwilling to admit that that was unwise that it was foolish or that it was on lawful in any way and that was one of the issues that the board in the court actually pointed out below that that was problematic with the peterson and one of the geishas that justifies the terminations i do want to cover very briefly the discipline issue steve peterson has been a officer for six years and in essex years he had four suspensions and five reprimands is higher than exemplary record and one of the issues that occurred was a very serious issue that occurred after the issue that we're talking about the two thousand and seven business with respect to his motorcycle his wife a family friend and if you were the deputy chief in the village managed sure in checking them out as well and this was this was a clear violation it was a serious violation and in other contexts people have been terminated for that sort of a violation and so it really the way the board said that it was terminated him because the seriousness of the violation of what he had done the continuing inability to admit the say this is this person is not fit to continue as an oprah police officer in light of the concerns about the deputy chief and the deputy chief coming forward after his retirement or whatever the case may be was there any explanation from  you before it occurred couple years earlier that that in the two thousand and ten hearing word with the deputy chief so so that it is you with the receive the guns occurred in two thousand and seven and the leads issue occurred after that point in time body year or so after that point i'm trying to remember precisely but the record would show that in the discipline i just don't recall i was the attorney that was involved in back in that investigation based upon this general record and some of the allegations chief in any case is looking for the terminations of a police officer there is a feeling of animosity between the two and this is not any different at all every police chief that seeks the term a nation of an officer that the fore that prior to october of two thousand and seven where there are any issues between them that should have raised a red flag to look at the chief or maybe some of his some of his positions concerning steve this that the record is clear that when steve peterson was having trouble with the media and everything that the department took steps to accommodate him and he acknowledged that in his testimony he agreed that the apartment the department did try to accommodate him with respect to scheduling and dealing with the problems of the media and his circumstance so they didn't they didn't show sympathy to him in that way  findings regarding steve running his own personal vehicles that were those are the only use of leads the court agreed were inappropriate his wife is in the process of selling his cars something along those lines and that's serious as suggested the bottom line is we're to we know a lot more today and we will have more twenty ten that steve peterson knew of those those first four days  was told by his father he was going to be arrested that's a crucial point it was never in any of the documents steve denied it oh but then the second board put in their report this fact that the peterson knew that under the circumstances and considering the fact this is father and those three to four days there is nothing that one of trickery of steve's mind the notion that his father had committed a crime or a lie has crime on as soon as he was money or checks from drew peterson to take care of the kids in case something happened to me you know that gets true corrected a string happens to be yes what's going to happen to him under this umbrella that we're talking  this father was overly cautious this was no love for the most of this money was in the form of a line of credit it wasn't a bag of cash or a big check you know we're not under stacy's name he gave his son access to his home and take care of them it was that simple not their mother well the mother was gone that's the point exactly right but again this is only this is two or three days into it she may or may not be coming