What the Record Establishes
- The lead detective told the prosecutor in writing that the toxicology had no amounts and that proving DUI drugs would be hard. The case was charged anyway.
What They Have Not Produced
- Whether the substance of the August 2022 assessment was disclosed to the defense before the September 2025 plea.
- The complete Lincolnshire investigative file and its transmittal record to the State’s Attorney.
- The local hit, service, and unit-activity records sought in the July 29 targeted FOIA.
The Power This Office Actually Holds
A police detective builds the case file that a prosecutor charges from. The detective decides what is collected, what is documented, and what is passed to felony review. Under Brady and Giglio, the detective is part of the prosecution team — favorable evidence in the investigating agency’s hands is imputed to the State whether or not it ever reaches the prosecutor’s physical file.
- Assembles and controls the investigative file the charging decision rests on
- Communicates directly with felony review about evidentiary strength
- Is part of the prosecution team for constitutional disclosure purposes
- Authors reports that become the factual basis for sworn charging instruments
The most damaging document in a criminal case is often the one the investigator wrote before anyone was worried about a lawsuit. On August 11, 2022, Detective Paul Petrick told Assistant State’s Attorney Benjamin Dillon that the medical record listed amphetamine and benzodiazepines but gave no amounts, and that he believed proving DUI drugs would be difficult. That is not a defense theory. That is the case investigator, unprompted, in the ordinary course.
Why a candid detective email is legally powerful
Quantity matters in a DUI-drug prosecution because impairment is the element and presence is not impairment. A lab report listing substances without concentrations does not establish the former. The detective saw that immediately and said so to the prosecutor. Under Brady v. Maryland, favorable evidence known to the prosecution team — which includes the investigating agency — must be disclosed to the defense.
What this profile does not claim
It does not claim Detective Petrick did anything improper. His email is the opposite of concealment: he documented a weakness and sent it to the people who needed to know. The accountability question created by this document runs to what the receiving office did with it, not to the officer who wrote it.
The one document that closes the loop
The discovery production log. Either the substance of this assessment went to the defense before the plea, or it did not.
The Documented Chronology
- May 23, 2022
The Route 22 collision.
- August 11, 2022
He emails felony review that the lab listed substances without amounts and DUI-drug proof would be hard.
- June 14, 2023
The indictment is returned.
- September 2025
The plea is entered.
- July 29, 2026
His email surfaces in the county’s FOIA production.
Still Not Produced
Each of these records exists inside a government system. Each has been requested. None has been supplied.
- Whether the substance of the August 2022 assessment was disclosed to the defense before the September 2025 plea.
- The complete Lincolnshire investigative file and its transmittal record to the State’s Attorney.
- The local hit, service, and unit-activity records sought in the July 29 targeted FOIA.
If any of it is produced, or if Paul J. Petrick disputes a documented fact on this page, the response will be published here in full, with its date. Read the correction standard.
Follow the same record into the next office
Every named official → · The investigation behind this dossier → · Add context or rate this profile →