Stephen Peterson loses yet another attempt to get his job back

stephenIf you’ve been following the Drew Peterson case, then you’ll recall that his police officer son, Stephen Peterson, was fired from the Oak Brook police department in 2011 after it was revealed that he had accepted guns from his father in order to avoid their being confiscated during the investigation of the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

Ever since that decision, Peterson, 34, has been fighting the loss of his position, appealing first to the Police and Fire Commission, then filing a $10 million Federal law suit which was tossed out. In March of last year another suit was rejected by the circuit court.

Now, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Ann Jorgensen, the Illinois Second Appellate District has upheld the decision of the circuit court.

“No one disputes that Stephen was, at least in some respects, cooperative (with the early investigation),” Jorgensen wrote. “He answered questions when asked, disclosed information about the last-minute will, and testified for the State in the grand jury proceedings. However, no amount of cooperation can overcome the poor judgment Stephen demonstrated in accepting the weapons and money from Drew, in failing to disclose the acceptance of those items until asked, and in continuing to insist that he did nothing wrong.

Maybe it’s time to look for some other form of employment.

Meanwhile, we are still awaiting the appeal of Drew Peterson’s 2012 conviction in the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Back in July, Peterson’s attorneys indicated that an appeal was to be filed within thirty days.


Apparently, Peterson is passing the time by playing life coach and handing out relationship advice to his female pen pals via prison correspondence.

Read more at the Tribune.
Read the Appellate Court’s decision.
Listen to the oral arguments of the appeal (December 2, 20132).

10 thoughts on “Stephen Peterson loses yet another attempt to get his job back

  1. Drew is still getting his pension which is something over $6,000 month. Presumably he hands it over to Stephen to take care of Stacy’s two kids.

    Kathleen Savio’s two boys have the payout from their mom’s million dollar life insurance policy to support them. They are off at college.

  2. JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.
    Justices Hutchinson and Zenoff concurred in the judgment.



    :The Board did not err in denying appellant’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss the administrative complaint (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2010)). The Board’s finding that appellant was guilty of the administrative charge of obstructing justice was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where he accepted weapons and money from the husband of a missing person and failed to disclose his actions to investigators until expressly asked. The violation(s) constituted cause for discharge. Upon administrative review, the trial court did not cause appellant’s due process rights to be violated when it issued a limited remand for the Board to clarify its decision. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion to remand the case for the taking of additional evidence (735ILCS 5/3-111(a)(7) (West 2010)).

  3. Some interesting bits. An excerpt of the 2007 Grand Jury testimony and an email:

    Grand Jury: The state’s attorney then presented Stephen with his own bank statement and proceeded to question him. This was the first time Stephen had spoken to anyone with investigative authority or governmental position about the $200,000-plus money transfer.

    The following exchange took place:

    “Q.: I’m going to show you *** People’s Exhibit 4. []. ***

    A.: This is a checking deposit through my West Suburban Bank account in the sum of $236,800.

    Q.: And whose account is that deposited into?

    A.: My account.

    Q.: And *** what date is on the deposit slip?

    A.: November 1, 2007.

    Q.: Whose writing is on that deposit slip?

    A.: Mine.***

    Q.: What types of conversations did you have with [Drew] about why he’s giving you suddenly [$236,800] on November 1[, 2007]?

    A.: He wanted me to have this money in case something happened to him.

    Q.: Did he say what for?

    A.: Anything. So I could use it for raising the children ***.***

    Q.: I’m going to approach you *** People’s Exhibit 5. [].

    A.: Correct. This is the check that was for $225,000 from my father to me.

    Q.: And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the grand jury, who is on the checking account that that check is written off of?

    A.: Drew Peterson and Stacy Peterson.

    Q.: So that check for $225,000 was written from a joint checking account, correct?

    A.: Correct.”

    Later, the State asked Stephen to read aloud from several e-mails he had written to friends concerning the disappearance of Stacy Peterson:

    “Stephen: I’m supposed to go testify at the grand jury tomorrow. The last time the media was filming me but couldn’t confirm who I was so they didn’t air my picture anywhere, but tomorrow I’m working so I have to go there on duty, in uniform, so no doubt I will be in the papers and on [television] tomorrow night.***I don’t plan on talking, even though they will be putting cameras in my face and following me to my car. It should be fun.”

  4. Drew Peterson’s son is expected to drop his fight to get his police badge back now that a state appellate court has ruled he demonstrated poor judgment after the 2007 disappearance of his father’s fourth wife.

    Stephen Peterson has 35 days to appeal the decision, but his attorney said it was unlikely that the Illinois Supreme Court would accept the case. The state’s highest court historically has refused to hear appeals involving police officer terminations.

    “We’re disappointed,” attorney Tamara Cummings said. “We’re going to discuss our options, but at this point, there aren’t that many left.”,0,5585595.story

  5. From Facebook:

    Sue Savio
    Merry Christmas to all my friend on face book! Its been a year of thankfulness to you all! We are doing good. We are in peace that justice has prevailed ! Kathleen Savio our sister will and always each day be with us. She ( Kathleen Savio) has taught us, and has giving so much to our family! She has answered our prayers, even when I get lossed driving. I thank god each day for a wonderful sister. Since then there is in honor of Domestic violence victims and there family in Kathleen SYD scr fund. PLS Consider helping thru this org.

    Kathleen Savio
    c/o ZONTA CLUB OF Kankakee ILL

    PO BOX 1998

  6. Peterson appeal should see movement in 2014
    Lawyers expected to file challenge to conviction next month

    By Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune reporter
    5:48 p.m. CST, December 25, 2013

    Drew Peterson is expected to formally challenge his conviction next month — and his attorneys apparently have plenty to say about it.

    Peterson’s lawyers recently submitted their third request for permission to exceed the 50-page limit imposed on appeal briefs in Illinois — only to be swiftly denied by the 3rd District Appellate Court for the third time.

    In a motion filed this month, Peterson’s attorneys said his case has generated more than 11,000 pages of court records, including 3,000 pages stemming from the landmark hearsay hearing held two years before his murder trial. The trial transcript contains more than 5,000 pages, according to the filing.

    The 3rd District also prohibits defendants from using more than 15 pages to outline the facts of the case, a limit that Peterson’s lawyers say is unfair given the history of the headline-grabbing legal drama.

    “Even if he were only to summarize the trial proceedings in his statement of facts, (Peterson) still could only write one page for every 300-plus pages of transcript,” the motion stated.

    Peterson’s lawyers asked that the appellate court allow them to submit 50 pages outlining the facts of the case and an additional 125 pages to argue why his conviction should be reversed.

    Will County prosecutors did not object to the request, but Peterson’s attorneys received a written communication from the court over the weekend telling them that their request was again denied…

    …Peterson must submit his appeal by Jan. 14. His attorneys expect appellate arguments to be held in late 2014.

    “This was a targeted prosecution based on distorted legal procedures,” Peterson attorney Steven Greenberg said. “They prosecuted the case that way because they didn’t have the facts.”

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow repeatedly has said the conviction will withstand any challenges.

    “We feel confident in the case, and we’re confident about the issues we’ll present on appeal,” Glasgow spokesman Charles Pelkie said….,0,3541332.story

  7. Facs, as always, thank you for keepig the site current. When I read Stephen’s responses, I don’t know how you look into the faces of your younger siblings each morning, knowing what you know. It’s a huge burden to cart around everyday of your life; one that will surely take its toll at some point. The truth has a way of eventually coming forth in the most unusual of circumstances.

  8. I wonder about his pension ? I don’t know why he or his son Steven should be getting it we all need to write to the BOOLINGBROOK PENSION BOARD there address is 375 WEST BAIRCILFF ROAD BOLLINGBROOK, IL. 60440. I think more letters the better!

  9. I can’t help feeling torn about the pension. I know it’s being used to raise Stacy’s kids so it’s troubling to think of it being taken away. At the same time, I believe that Drew used his position as a cop to carry out both murders (yes, I know nothing about Stacy has been proven yet) so IMO he’s really not entitled to it.

    Next year it’s possible that Stacy could legally be declared dead, and then her kids could start receiving social security so Drew’s pension wouldn’t be their only means of support, but AFAIK it’s a long a difficult process.

    There’s no win/win in this situation.

Comments are closed.