Lt. Jeremy Harrison Takes Joliet Police And Fire Board To Will County Court With Emergency Lawsuit Filing

JOLIET, IL — Four months after Joliet Mayor Terry D'Arcy's five-person politically appointed police and fire board held its closed door hearings to consider firing Joliet police Lt. Jeremy Harrison over allegations of repeated Flock camera license plate reader technology misuse against a much younger female officer, Harrison and his Palos Heights lawyers Michael Ettinger and Oliver Soleiman are now on the offensive.

On Monday, they filed a lawsuit at Will County's Courthouse and they expect to get an emergency hearing on their filing on Thursday before Will County Judge Jennifer Lynch.

"She's great. Hopefully, she will hear it," Ettinger told Joliet Patch on Tuesday morning. "I don't know what the attorney for the police chief is going to do. And what they did with the transcripts is brutal. It's not comprehensible. This transcript helps nobody and a tape recorder malfunctioned."

Ettinger also explained that when Harrison was first brought up on termination proceedings by now-retired police chief Bill Evans last December, there was hardly any negative publicity toward Flock cameras.

"Now you got all this Flock publicity and when we started out with this, none of this was there," Ettinger explained. "So that's our problem. But we trust the police and fire board, they're fair, it's the attorney ..."

According to Ettinger's filing:

"This case does not ask the Court to decide whether Lieutenant Jeremy Harrison should prevail in the disciplinary proceeding presently pending before the Joliet Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. It asks a substantially narrower question:

"May the Board compel Harrison to make his final merits submission and thereafter deliberate upon his disciplinary case using a transcript containing material portions designated "unintelligible," while simultaneously denying Harrison reasonable access to the source audio recording selected by the Board itself to preserve the evidentiary proceeding?

"The Board's own Rules provide the starting point. They require that all disciplinary proceedings be recorded by a court reporter or "recorded by some other means as the Board may specify so long as rights of appeal are preserved under law.”

According to Ettinger's lawsuit:

No court reporter attended Harrison's May 13 City Hall hearing. The Board instead elected to record the hearing electronically and subsequently transcribe the recording. At the outset of the hearing, the hearing officer expressly advised the parties of that procedure. The recording thus became the means selected by the Board to preserve the evidentiary proceeding, Harrison's lawsuit pointed out.

What followed is undisputed in its essential chronology, according to Ettinger and his client Harrison.

• The hearing occurred May 13, 2026.

• The recordings were not promptly sent for transcription.

• During the delay, the Hearing Officer acknowledged in writing that City personnel responsible for sending the audio files for transcription had failed to do so.

• The certificates accompanying the eventual transcripts establish that City of Joliet Human Resources did not submit the recordings to the transcription provider until August 10 and August 12, 2026-approximately three months after the hearing.

• When the transcripts were finally produced, they contained numerous portions designated "unintelligible," including portions involving questions and statements made during the evidentiary hearing.

• Harrison requested an opportunity to listen to or obtain the underlying recording so that counsel could determine whether those omissions reflect actual deficiencies in the recording or instead resulted from the transcription process.
• The request was denied.

The Hearing Officer nevertheless established September 21, as the deadline for Harrison's final written closing argument. Thereafter, the transcript, evidence, and closing arguments will be submitted to the Board for deliberation.

As part of his legal filing, Ettinger, the plaintiff's lawyer, included the following message for Judge Lynch: "Harrison seeks no adjudication of the disciplinary merits. He seeks only preservation of the status quo long enough to determine whether the record upon which he must make his final presentation--and upon which the Board will deliberate-accurately reflects the recorded proceeding.

"Illinois law permits that narrow relief."

Related Joliet Patch coverage from Aug. 20:

Flock Camera Firing At Joliet PD: Jeremy Harrison's Lawyer 'There Is Something Wrong With The Tapes'