A Chicago police officer who was fired for getting involved in a plan to plant drugs and a gun in a suburban woman’s vehicle has been reinstated after the city’s police board reviewed the case this month.
The Chicago Police Board ruled Oct. 16 that Slawomir Plewa should be “reprimanded” for officer misconduct, not fired, like the board decided last year, the Chicago Sun-Times reports via CBS Chicago.
Plewa will get his job back and back pay, according to a police source.
Cook County Judge Diane Larsen, citing a lack of evidence, ruled earlier this year that the board went too far when it voted 8-1 to fire Plewa in July 2013.
In 2008, the officer was charged in relation to a plan to place drugs and a gun in a suburban woman’s car. Plewa was found not guilty in that case, but a judge criticized him for allegedly perjuring himself on the witness stand in a related criminal case.
This wasn’t the first incident involving the officer as he has a history of making false accusations.
In 2008, a 26-year-old man accused Plewa and other officers of falsely claiming to have discovered drugs in his home, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. The city paid a $100,000 settlement in that case, according to a spokesman.
The city settled for $50,000 in another case involving a man who claimed he was also wrongly accused of having drugs when Plewa and another officer arrested him in 2008.
Plewa also allegedly lied on his original police application form, which he later denied.
He appealed and Larsen said in April that there was little evidence from Plewa’s criminal trial to support the board’s decision. The alleged lie on the application does not justify Plewa’s termination, Larsen wrote in April of this year.
Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy’s attorney’s then asked Larsen to change her decision, and in August, she did just that by saying, “The police board may issue its decision on discipline without any restraint from this court.”
But this time the penalty the board chose was less severe.
“Because the misconduct took place more than eleven years prior to the filing of the charges, and based on the respondent’s extensive complimentary history during those eleven years … and his lack of prior disciplinary history, the Board determines that a reprimand is the appropriate penalty …,” the board wrote in a ruling on Oct. 16.