Chicago needs police accountability that travels up the chain of command — not just downward.
Officers should be held accountable when they violate the law, department policy or the rights of the public. But accountability shouldn’t necessarily end with the officer who breaks the rules or abuses his or her power.
Police departments are hierarchical organizations. Policies, priorities and expectations flow downward through command, supervisors and ultimately to officers.
Recent reports about Joseph Vecchio, who racked up more complaints than any other Chicago police officer in recent years and was part of a unit with a pattern of conducting improper traffic stops, illustrate why responsibility and oversight should flow to the top.
Complaints, lawsuits and disciplinary matters tied to traffic stops raise legitimate questions about supervision, training and performance expectations.
So what responsibility do those in the higher ranks bear when their subordinate is formally found to have engaged in misconduct?
When patterns of complaints or litigation emerge, were appropriate supervisors and commanders monitoring those patterns? Were officers receiving clear guidance about lawful and constitutional policing? Were performance expectations communicated in a way that encouraged sound police practices rather than simply producing numbers?
During my last position on the now defunct Community Safety Team, I raised concerns and filed complaints through appropriate channels about what I understood to be inappropriate and unethical mandated activity expectations involving questionable traffic stops.
Specifically, as reported by WBEZ’s Tom Schuba in 2025, I took issue with pressuring officers under my command to make at least 10 traffic stops each shift — an order I believed was an unlawful quota.
What followed was harassment and intimidation, including being dumped from the unit and sent to a midnight shift. Then retroactively, I was falsely accused of violating a police rule in an attempt to terminate me after I filed a formal complaint. Ultimately, I was forced to sue. The city settled shortly before trial, and I was subsequently cleared of wrongdoing.
I do not bring up this experience here to revisit the allegations, identify individual employees or disclose matters that may be confidential. Nor do I suggest that my experience establishes wrongdoing by anyone who was not found responsible through the appropriate process.
Rather, my experience reinforced a broader concern.
Officers are expected to exercise independent judgment, follow the law and comply with department policy. Those responsibilities are fundamental.
But officers also work within a command structure. They receive assignments, guidance, priorities and expectations from supervisors and commanders.
When significant expectations are communicated to officers, leadership should be able to explain what was expected, why it was expected and what safeguards were in place to ensure that the expectation was consistent with constitutional policing, department policy and sound police practices.
That is not an accusation. It is basic organizational accountability.
Chicago has invested heavily in police reform, oversight and accountability. Those efforts are important.
But meaningful accountability should not consist solely of identifying an individual officer after a complaint, lawsuit or disciplinary investigation occurs.
It should also examine the circumstances surrounding the conduct.
Were training and policy requirements being followed?
Were concerns raised by officers or members of the public appropriately evaluated?
And when oversight agencies identified potential problems, were those concerns taken seriously and addressed?
Badge, rank doesn’t excuse misconduct
The answers should be based on evidence — not rank, reputation or politics.
I am not suggesting supervisors should be blamed whenever an officer makes a mistake. Police work involves difficult decisions, and individual officers remain responsible for their own conduct.
But leadership also carries responsibility for establishing clear expectations, providing appropriate supervision and correcting problems when warning signs become apparent.
If one officer makes a mistake, investigate that officer.
If multiple officers operating within the same organizational environment encounter similar problems, there should be an examination of whether there are broader issues involving policy, training, supervision or management.
Accountability should not be a system in which rank-and-file officers bear the consequences of organizational decisions while the decisions and expectations that influenced their work receive little examination.
The badge does not excuse misconduct. Neither should rank.
Every member of a police organization has responsibilities. Those responsibilities may be different, but accountability should exist at every level.
Next time Chicagoans read about unlawful traffic stops, they should demand more than the name of the officer who made the stop.
They should also ask: What expectations surrounded that stop, where did those expectations originate and what oversight existed to ensure they were lawful, constitutional and consistent with department policy?
Those inquiries should be answered through evidence, transparency and a fair examination of the entire chain of command.
Because when accountability travels only downward, the system is incomplete.
Responsibility must travel both ways.
Lt. Franklin Paz Jr. is a former supervisor of the Chicago Police Department’s now defunct Community Safety Team.