Residency Decision?

We get emails every so often:

• I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I came across something recently that I thought that you and the troops may be interested in regarding residency.

  There is an interesting police board ruling from August 2025 where the Superintendent requested that an officer be terminated for living in the suburbs. BIA spent " 180 hours and 63 covert surveillance sorties of six to eight officers in covert vehicles" to prove that the officer was living in the suburbs and not residing in his Chicago residence. The police board found the officer not guilty due to the legal definition of residency. The board stated, " All officers and employees of the city shall be actual residents of the city.” “Residency” is not defined by any rule or statute. Residency is a nuanced determination set out in case law. It is important to note that establishing residency and abandoning residency are two different propositions having differing requirements of proof."

  The board goes ahead to site Maksym et al. v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago et al as the case law:

  First, to establish residency, two elements are required: (1) physical presence, and (2) an intent to remain in that place as a permanent home [citations omitted]. Second, once residency is established, the test is no longer physical presence but rather abandonment. Indeed, once a person has established residence, he or she can be physically absent from that residence for months or even years without having abandoned it[.] Maksym et al. v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago et al, 242 Ill.2d 303 at 319 (2011), quoting Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141, 195 (1888). (All emphasis in the original.) (Maksym’s continued reference to short absences is irrelevant to Respondent’s case.)

  (This case is actually Rahm Emmanuel's case to remain on the ballot after he was accused of not actually residing in Chicago.)

  We were all told when we joined the department that we must actually have to continually reside in a Chicago residence or be terminated. With this Supreme Court definition, if you initially establish your residence in Chicago, it would appear that you could then leave your residence for an extended period of time without having "abandoned" it. If you continue to pay a mortgage/rent, utilities, upkeep, etc on your Chicago residence while not physically being there, it would appear that you are in compliance as a resident.

  I am curious how this can play our for future incidences of officers spending extended amounts of time away from their Chicago residence or for those who have already been terminated.

Read the decision at this link here.

Anyone who has been around a few years can name at least three exempts who lived outside city limits, but no investigation was ever undertaken because of political clout. We can name at least as many aldercreatures who maintain residences in multiple jurisdictions and split time among them all. Not to mention someone who (if rumors are to be believed) currently lives in Lombard where his son and namesake plays basketball for a suburban high school. 

But hey, these are all rumors.