Under the Freedom of Information Act, I asked the following of the Illinois State Police:
Andy Zinke, his wife Kim and a son stand before an American flag in this campaign GOP Sheriff’s Primary Election mailing.
Under the FOIA I request documents that show the name of the judge who issued the search warrant to search the Woodstock home of Kane County Deputy Sheriff Kimberly Zinke (maiden name Furst).
I also seek a document that will show the date of that warrant and the date it and an affidavit was filed with the local circuit clerk’s office.
Here is the reply:
Thank you for writing to the Illinois State Police with your request for information pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.
On April 29, 2015, we received your request for the documents pertaining to the Kimberly Zinke Case:
The Illinois State Police Freedom of Information Officer, Lieutenant Steve Lyddon, is denying your request for the reasons outlined below:
- 5 ILCS 140/2.15(c) – The information requested, if disclosed, would interfere with a pending law enforcement proceeding. This case is still pending adjudication.
- 5ILCS 14017(1)(d)(i) – The information requested, if disclosed, would interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceeding conducted by law enforcement or correctional agency.
- 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(iii) – The information requested could create a substantial likelihood that a person will be deprived of a fair trial or an impartial hearing if the information were made public, as this case has not yet been adjudicated.
- 5 ILCS 14017(1)(d)(vii) – The information requested would obstruct a current and ongoing criminal investigation. The case or cases pertaining to your request is currently under review and Illinois State Police is expecting to be required to gather additional information regarding the case up to and until a verdict has been reached. Therefore, the case or cases pertaining to your request is considered an ongoing investigation.
Maybe this is on a larger scale than we first thought.
You were warned Andrew.
I told you and the Mrs. not to play with me!!
“Your time has come!”
Thankfully, their time has come.
So many people, have been hit by the “Regime” members and so much damage has been done to many people in the community.
Several people, remained hopeless for a long time and many believed they were alone in the battle to fight corruption.
Now, we will all have an opportunity to see the dominoes fall and for justice and due process to prevail.
The search warrant was likely impounded due to the pending investigation.
This is common with drug cases.
There will be no publically accessible record of the execution of the warrant until further order of the court.
Seems like a weak denial.
How would fulfilling the FOIA request of that basic information result in any adverse affect as claimed in the denial.
The warrant was executed April 21, 2015 at the residence of Kim Zinke.
4/29 we learn of the search, 4/30 FOIA denial, not big surprise as it’s a active investigation, 5/3 SA know nada not big surprise as it’s a active investigation, 5/5 request for Spec Prosecutor, 5/7 another wasted FOIA.
Relax pal, he lost the election and you got paycheck.
Have some patience, you’ll get your chance to help bury him.
In the mean time seek help on this anger thingy you got.
Just saying.
STILL about the wife-NOT about the garage door salesman
AZsupporter, if items were found in the home, like drugs, Zinke, could loose everything too.
So it is about both of them and their home.
“AZ” If they find evidence in their home, it becomes about both of them.
NOT another good assumption there Dum Dum-COULD be, but the term is “Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”-a very high hill to climb.
COULD, anotherwatcher, yes, but see the above phrase; and I believe that there is a item in the statutes where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other.
Granted, this could get interesting, but none of us KNOW anything, INCLUDING if and what was taken from the house, and IF and HOW it relates to Kane Co. and HER job.
For your information, ‘Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” has nothing to do with a search warrant, that part is determined in court in front of a jury.
Get your facts straight.
No, they can’t be compelled to testify against each other.
However, depending on the evidence, it can be used against both of them.
Now, Quit twisting the law and go tend to your imaginary towels!
Make sure you save those towels with your grown kids initials on them, as they may be used as evidence.
Destroying evidence is a crime…lol…
Alright Dum Dum; let me explain those towels you’re so hung up on.
My sons all have the same last name as I; therefore their initials will be the same, with first and middle name exceptions.
Maybe your kids have different daddy’s-I don’t know.
Have some popcorn and watch “Lets make a Deal” and leave the discussion to the grown-ups.
Of course “Guilty ……” doesn’t apply to the search warrant-but proving who did what with what and to whom in COURT with whatever was found and taken during the search requires that standard.
Your’e just digging another lie, which equates to another big fat hole.
Of course, guilty doesn’t apply to a search warrant, but probable cause does.
You know better than to make such a stupid statement in reference to me watching “Let’s Make a Deal” and eating popcorn.
Turn that finger tight around and look at yourself in the mirror.
You have popcorn crumbs and butter all over your face, from eating at that trough, while watching those famous game shows.
Whatsa matter, Gordy doesn’t have the guts to tell you to come clean?
Well, that figures.
Hey Kim, Melissa and Tamara can’t get you out of this one.
Them girls, they’s in a heap of trouble!
Hmmmmm Did you know that filing a false police report is a felony?
And, what does it mean when a public official knowingly and willingly supports a false claim?
Just asking.
Pity! The Birch’s have lost their Twiggs and their Kimmy. Gosh, what happened to Dean Lisi? That poor sap!
Public officials filing and or encouraging false police reports is a form of corruption.
Just saying.
Those beautiful green bags or errr those ugly old “Bagmen” are no long allowed to operate in McHenry County.
Get a job Boys!
Hey Kimmy, ask the Birch’s, surely they will extend a Twigg.
However, rest assured, they won’t be able to get you out of this one.
Hey, a little birdie that rested on a Twigg told me that they have those famous chocolate donuts with a cherry on top at the local donut store.
Your fav Kimmy!
Or, go ask Dean Lisi from the CLPD, he may have some to spare in his police cruiser’s glove box.
He was last seen departing the local donut store.
Very incriminating evidence!
Can I be there when they slap those handcuffs on?
It would be the highlight of my day.
Are you sure there was a cherry on top?
Oh gee, now people will think you are talking about donuts.
l.o.l.
In time, the legal system will pursue the appropriate defendant.
We know it must advance further because
A) a warrant was issued,
B)the Warrant was served,
C) the search resulted in the obtaining of evidence,
D) the material must have been within the scope of the warrant or in plain view because it was taken.
There will be a case and the likely delay is because of the appointment of a Special Prosecutor and his presentment of the discovered evidence before a Grand Jury.
We know that the charges will not be on information because no charges have been filed yet and it is unusual to get a warrant for a search over misdemeanor type stuff.
Since Lou’s office punted, there is no formalized felony review as it is up to the Special Prosecutor.
Special Prosecutors always advance cases, if we learned anything from Lou’s case.
In Illinois there are only two ways to get charged,
1) an Information and
2) an Indictment.
The later takes time, lots of time.
Generally speaking, a Grand Jury deals with felony counts.
Soon enough we will learn what the claims and defenses are in this case.
If an attorney is hired, he/she wont have politics to blame.
The Defense will have to do something more than blame politics or Lou for the prosecution.
(Again this is Lou avoiding the mud slinging).
What would have happened if Andy had won the Sheriff’s office?
This is where Lou’s foresight in supporting Bill Prim is shown as provincial.
Felony drug charges are very serious and Lou made a wise decision.
You are right in your thoughts on this Concerned.
What if Andy had won as Sheriff?
He would have covered everything up most likely.
I don’t think it will take as long as you think it will but time will tell.
Very glad to know.