Tom Clark: Cook County state's attorney has backtracked on felony data transparency
For all of the critiques that are sometimes raised about law enforcement in Chicago, one of the things it has had to be proud of in recent years was its openness to the public. Unfortunately, since coming to office, State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke has taken a significant step backward.
Former State's Attorney Kim Foxx became a leader nationally in transparency among prosecutors in collecting and publishing information about her office's work. The Cook County state's attorney's office began publishing regularly detailed datasets about all of its felony cases on its website. The state's attorney released detailed information about every felony arrest made and referred for prosecution. That information included not just when and where an arrest was made, but for what offense, exactly what charges were filed and demographic information about the defendant. They also included rich information about the outcomes of all of those charges — which charges were dropped, which ones ultimately led to convictions, the judges hearing the cases and what sentences were imposed.
Those datasets allowed the public, policymakers, activists and researchers to study, audit and understand the decisions the state's attorney was making. The data allowed concerned citizens and others to know how prosecutorial power was being used and to conduct cutting-edge research about law enforcement.
Unfortunately, O'Neill Burke removed that data from the website without any explanation, virtually as soon as she came into office. The website that used to host the data and invite the public to contact the state's attorney's office for more information has for the last four months simply lead to an 'access denied' website. We are now nearly six months into O'Neill Burke's term, and the public records remain missing, with no explanation offered for why they have been removed or evidence that her office intends to continue updating those data or publishing new data. Emails I sent to the State's Attorney's office about the data never received a response. Additionally, several Freedom of Information Act requests for additional data, which had been previously released to others, were rejected.
Not only is the Cook County state's attorney's decision unfortunate because we now know less about how her office works, but it also reinforces a problematic reputation that law enforcement agencies, both locally and nationally, are working to overcome.
Here in Chicago, we have an excellent example of transparency in law enforcement. The Civilian Office of Police Accountability, for example, has the authority and responsibility to oversee and investigate police activity, including police shootings. Part of its mission involves transparency — giving the public access to information about how police officers use their power. At the same time, the Chicago Police Department has been subject to a consent decree since 2019. The consent decree has forced changes in how the Police Department operates and shares information with the public. Together, COPA and the consent decree have reinforced each other to open a window into policing in Chicago.
I know from my own research that they are working. In a book that will be published in the coming weeks, 'Deadly Force: Police Shootings in Urban America,' I filed more than 300 FOIA requests at police departments around the country for records about every police shooting this century. We learned a lot about how law enforcement agencies resist transparency and how much work goes into finding out basic facts such as, 'how many people do the police shoot?'
Some police departments are very transparent and happy to share their records, and some departments absolutely refuse. Even among those that are transparent, some have records that are very disorganized, whereas others have very organized and understandable records. CPD was among the most transparent departments in the country, sharing a lot of information with us, in a fast, clean and complete way. That may seem surprising, though it is very likely due to the consent decree. Indeed, CPD's openness to researchers has enabled researchers to do powerful work that helps them understand important problems in law enforcement as well as evaluate programs and train leaders from police departments around the country.
Comparing Chicago with the Cook County state's attorney is alarming. The records that Foxx shared were transparent, complete, coherent and accessible. By contrast, O'Neill Burke has taken the opposite approach. Whereas this time last year, anyone could know exactly how many felony charges of what kind were being filed, where, when, against whom, and what the outcomes were, and so forth, today none of that is public. As CPD has become more transparent and stayed that way, the Cook County state's attorney is moving in the opposite direction, away from transparency.
These decisions — how a prosecutor uses the authority to file criminal charges — are among the most important and powerful that any government official has. Cook County stood out as a model for its transparency in allowing the public to see how that power was being used. We should demand an explanation for why that decision has been reversed and to know when the Cook County state's attorney will allow the public to have access to its own records again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
I'm glad Trump is gutting the EPA. My family's tire-burning business is on fire!
The glorious news that the Trump administration is basically disavowing the very idea of climate change (HOAX!) rattled all the eco-losers out there. Every morning I wake up, open the doors to my family tire-burning and tainted-meat-sales business and thank God for President Donald J. Trump. We have learned that the Environmental Protection Agency is going to do away with its woke and anti-tire-fire-business belief that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to human health. According to USA TODAY – which I don't read – EPA head Lee Zeldin said getting rid of the 'endangerment finding' of 2009 will 'save Americans money and unravel two decades of regulation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from cars, power plants, oil production and other sources.' It's about freakin' time. I've been in the outdoor tire-burning business for more than two decades, and I know firsthand my burn pit's emissions don't present any health risks. My remaining half-lung is healthier than ever (only weak soy boys need two lungs) thanks to the strength it built up through years of asthma. Trump knows EPA has no business protecting the environment And don't get me started on climate change. The higher the temperatures, the easier it is to stand next to a pile of burning radial tires for hours a day without noticing a temperature difference. Heck, we're even saving money on matches and kerosene because the summers are so hot the tires just spontaneously combust. Opinion: Trump's mental decline is on vivid display as he rages about Epstein, windmills The glorious news that the Trump administration is basically disavowing the very idea of climate change (HOAX!) rattled all the eco-losers out there, including Scott Saleska, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, who told The Associated Press: 'To repeal the endangerment finding now would be like a driver who is speeding towards a cliff taking his foot off the brake and instead pressing the accelerator.' Damn right, Prof. Scaredy Cat. Everyone knows you hit the accelerator when approaching a cliff. You don't want to hit the kick-ass canyon-jumping ramp going slow. That's a little thing called 'fun' – maybe look it up in one of those books you claim contain 'facts.' Deregulating food safety is a win for tainted-meat sellers and customers Anyway, thanks to President Trump, the tire-burning arm of my family's business is about to boom, just like our tainted-meat sales spiked earlier this year after MY president issued an executive order doing away with the Department of Agriculture's National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection and the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. Previously: Musk, RFK Jr. drive off FDA inspectors, preserving my right to eat tainted meat | Opinion We here at the Huppke Flaming Tire and Cheap Meat Emporium say the more deregulation, the better – especially when it comes to food. Since that executive order, our unrefrigerated, fresh-from-Interstate-57, week-old cuts of venison and 'mystery protein' have been selling like unregulated lead-based hotcakes. Government can't stop me from selling tire fire-smoked jerky We used to have to hide the fact that we smoke our delicious precooked meats over the artisanal tire fires, but not anymore. And the money we're saving on fly control … it's a real boon to businesses like mine that believe meat in any condition is suitable for human consumption as long as you tell the customers to cook it a good long time so they don't get the trots. Opinion: Trump is unpopular, polls show, and he's building an America most Americans hate With the extra money we're making, we'll now be able to hire another tire fire tender, since the last one died of a rare combination of heat exhaustion and mystery-jerky poisoning. God bless you, President Trump! And thank you for not caring about the cancer cluster in the town downwind of our business. Only a lib would think there's some kind of connection! Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Wealthy Americans Buy Up London Mansions Amid Price Slump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Wealthy Americans are taking advantage of the ongoing slump in London's luxury home market to snap up properties in the city for a significantly lower price than these mansions would have fetched a few years ago. According to data from Beauchamp Estates, a luxury real-estate agent in the U.K. capital, U.S. nationals accounted for 25 percent of prime purchases in the city last year, up from 18 percent in 2023. In the first six months of the year, American and Middle Eastern buyers together were behind 50 percent of all high-value transactions in London, up from 45 percent in 2024, which include deals totaling more than £15 million ($20 million). Swimming Against the Tide American buyers are flocking to the London luxury home market at the same time as many so-called non-doms—U.K. residents whose permanent home, for tax purposes, is outside the U.K.—are leaving the capital. The Labour government, which has led the U.K. since last year's general elections, has announced plans to abolish the non-dom tax status. Under current laws, non-doms pay taxes in the U.K. only on the money they earn in the country. They do not pay taxes made anywhere else in the world. This offers an incredible advantage to wealthy individuals who can choose to pay duties in states with lower taxes than the U.K. while effectively still living in the U.K. According to the latest data by the country's HM Revenue & Customs, some 74,000 people claimed non-dom status in 2022-2023. A general view of large residential town houses in Green Street, Mayfair, in London on January 9. A general view of large residential town houses in Green Street, Mayfair, in London on January changes announced by the British government, the non-dom status would be abolished and replaced with a residence-based regime. Non-doms living in the U.K. have been given a three-year period of transition to bring their foreign wealth onshore. Non-doms' recent exodus from the U.K. has caused London's luxury home market to wobble, with sales and prices falling in recent months. According to Beauchamp Estates, there has been a 13 percent drop in the number of deals for the sale of $20 million-plus homes in the capital between January and June compared to a year earlier. The company said 70 percent of the vendors of these high-end homes were non-doms moving overseas to places such as Miami, Dubai, Milan and Monaco. "The top of the market has lost momentum—and much of that comes down to the government's stance on non-doms," Becky Fatemi, the executive partner at Sotheby's International Realty U.K., told Newsweek. "The message couldn't be clearer: International wealth isn't as welcome as it once was. Predictably, some of the biggest global buyers have backed off, pulling out of deals or funneling their money into more tax-friendly markets like Italy, Monaco, and Dubai," she added. That's left a noticeable hole in the high-end home market. "Trophy homes that once sparked bidding wars are now sitting—not because the appetite has vanished completely, but because buyers are more selective, price-sensitive, and wary," Fatemi said. "Deals are still happening, but they're slower, tougher, and take serious effort to get over the line. Behind every sale, there's a lot heavier lifting." But as the superrich leave London and slash prices on the properties they are leaving behind to attract new buyers, wealthy individuals who previously could not have afforded these luxury homes are finally swooping in—including many Americans. Why Are Wealthy Americans Seeking Properties in London? "Americans were never eligible for non-dom perks—the IRS taxes them globally, wherever they live—so the U.K.'s reforms are largely irrelevant," Fatemi said. "While other international buyers reassess, Americans are charging in. With Trump back in the White House, we're seeing a spike in U.S. clients who want out—not just for political reasons, but for lifestyle ones, too," she added. "London offers everything they want: relative stability, culture, top schools, and prime property that still looks like a bargain thanks to the strong dollar. These aren't speculative purchases; they're buying real homes, with real intent," Fatemi said. The London properties that wealthy Americans are buying are concentrated in some of the most expensive and exclusive neighborhoods in the city—such as Chelsea, Mayfair, Kensington, Notting Hill, Belgravia, St. John's Wood and Hampstead—according to data from Beauchamp Estates. They include homes averaging 9,230 square feet and apartments spreading over an average 5,397 square feet—notably bigger properties than those purchased in 2024. For Beauchamp Estates, this means that buyers are looking at these homes as primary residences "with lateral space and long-term livability." Rising living costs and growing crime rates in the U.S., combined with political uncertainty and tax-driven wealth increases, are behind the surge in interest for London's luxury homes among American buyers, according to Beauchamp Estates. Even with a softer dollar, "the pound is still weak compared to pre-Brexit days, and prime prices haven't rebounded to 2014 levels, so there's value on the table" for American homebuyers, Fatemi said. "But the bigger driver is mindset. When someone's ready to leave the U.S.—for politics, lifestyle, or a sense of security—they're not waiting for the perfect exchange rate. They want somewhere livable, stable, and globally connected. London ticks every box," she said. "Currency helps, but it's not the full story. What we're seeing is a deeper, more personal shift, and it's not going anywhere."
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
A delicious irony: Why Trump prefers Mexican Cola-Cola
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Why are Mexican Cokes sweetened with sugar and US Cokes sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup? Because in the United States, high-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar thanks to a long history of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. In my home state of Illinois, I live surrounded by fields growing corn not for eating but for processing — into ethanol, animal feed, and high-fructose corn syrup. Advertisement Outside this country, however, cane sugar is the default sweetener. That's why Mexican Coke tastes different — some say it's more authentically sweet. The soft drink has become a cult favorite, a symbol of nostalgia and purity in a market saturated with manufactured sweetness. It's also a reminder of how deeply our food systems are shaped by policy decisions, not just taste. Advertisement This isn't the first time Coca-Cola has been the subject of national discussion. In the early 20th century, the US government took Coca-Cola to court under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 for 'misbranding' and 'adulteration.' At the time, the drink contained negligible amounts of both coca and kola (with their implied medicinal claims as stimulants) but significant amounts of caffeine. The case went all the way to the Fast forward to today and we're in a very different moment. The Trump administration is working to gut and undermine many of the very institutions that protect our health. The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and yes, the FDA, have all faced budget cuts, staff reductions, and political interference. The American Public Health Association has warned that these rollbacks threaten the health and safety of all Americans. Advertisement At this moment we may want to import something else from Mexico: leadership in public health. There, health advocates and regulators have developed education campaigns and public policy about sugar-sweetened beverages, including those Mexican Cokes, the products of a business model exported from the US, and their links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. They've As a historian, I won't weigh in on whether cane sugar is healthier than corn syrup. That's a question for nutritionists and scientists. But I do know this: a president's personal preferences are no substitute for robust public institutions. You can't regulate a food system by tweet. You can't protect consumers with nostalgia. You can't set policy by piecemeal targeting of products based on particularistic agendas and transactional politics. And you certainly can't build a healthier nation by dismantling the very agencies tasked with safeguarding it. If we're serious about health, we might take a page from Mexico. Because in the end, it's not about which Coke tastes better. It's about which country is doing more to protect its people from the consequences of unchecked sweetness and power.
