'Interference' can be found in so many interesting forms

You'd have thought I was asking for a copy of the "Pentagon Papers" or Prince Harry's latest military assignment. Nothing that interesting. Just a simple traffic ticket.

Judging by the response from East Dundee Police Chief Terry Mee, you'd have thought I was undermining the latest FBI investigation in Illinois' ignominious history.

He refused to answer the most basic question: "Did you or did you not reinstate a ticket given to Don Rage on Nov. 9?" Rather than answering, he suddenly discovered he was in the midst of a pressing meeting. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request, asking for the original ticket, any reissued ticket and any related memos or paperwork.

A week later, I'd received no response, so I called to ask why. This was not a request requiring research into tons of dusty boxes. An hour later, they called to say my request was denied because it "would interfere with law enforcement proceedings," a rather dramatic term for a traffic ticket. They also noted they had seven "working" days to respond, meaning they thought I was being impatient with their obvious intransigence. They were right.

If it took me a week to respond to a simple request or if I'd found plenty of time to send copies of that rejection to board members days earlier, I wouldn't be advising somebody else how to do their job, but that's just me.

Former Kane County Board member Rage, of Carpentersville, says he did indeed make a right turn on red from southbound Van Buren onto westbound Route 72 on Nov. 9 in defiance of a sign that banned such a turn.

But he argues the village cannot ban a right turn on red without a study and a local ordinance. There is such an ordinance in place for turns from northbound Van Buren onto eastbound Route 72, but not for the turn Rage made.

He called East Dundee Village President Dan O'Leary to tell him there was no ordinance and to complain about the ticketing officer being "sarcastic," something that is probably true, given Rage said he asked outright for a warning in lieu of a ticket. In my experience, police officers don't respond particularly well to such unsolicited suggestions.

O'Leary, reached in Hawaii, said the ordinance and behavior questions were enough for him to ask the chief to take a closer look. When Mee refused, O'Leary said, he took his concerns to village attorneys.

"I had questions, and I thought the officer might have been rude," said O'Leary. "But I told them I'd leave it to their discretion."

The ticket was dropped by local prosecutors in court in December. Sometime thereafter, both Rage and O'Leary say, Mee reinstated it. Rage knows because he was ordered to reappear in court. O'Leary knows because he received a copy of a Mee memo saying so. He didn't have a copy of the memo in Hawaii, but when asked about its gist, he said, "the perception left was that I was trying to fix a ticket and it went well beyond that to suggest maybe legal action should be taken against me." Asked if any legal action had been initiated against him, O'Leary said "no."

Prosecutors are obviously of two minds, having now argued both against and for prosecution, their definition of justice apparently defined by the last guy to call. Can't wait for the next court date in May. Or for resolution, when releasing a copy of a traffic ticket and related documents would no longer "interfere with law enforcement proceedings."

Something plenty of people had already done long before I asked for a few pieces of paper.