Hanover Park, Illinois, reinstated police Officer Radule Bojovic on Tuesday after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested him earlier this week on an allegation that he remained in the United States beyond the authorized period of a tourist visa, village officials said.
The case has prompted sharp criticism from federal officials and commentators and raises questions about municipal hiring checks, firearm possession rules for noncitizens and the fiscal implications for the suburb. The episode sits at the intersection of local policing and federal immigration enforcement, an area we track in our Border Coverage.
Background
ICE and Border Patrol agents arrested Bojovic during an enforcement operation in the Chicago area, according to a Fox News report. Federal authorities allege Bojovic entered the United States on a tourist visa that expired in 2015. Hanover Park officials have described him as a Montenegrin national who serves on the village police force.
Hanover Park said Bojovic returned to full duty after providing what the village described as valid federal work authorization and passing routine hiring checks. Police statements say he posted a $2,500 bond in the immigration matter and his return to duty followed that action. Hanover Park said it has not changed his employment status pending the outcome of immigration proceedings.
Details from officials and records
- Officer: Radule Bojovic, identified by Hanover Park officials as a Montenegrin national on the village police force.
- Allegation: Federal authorities say an earlier tourist visa expired in 2015 and that Bojovic was encountered during an enforcement operation.
- Employment status: The village said Bojovic provided a valid work authorization card and completed routine hiring checks before being returned to duty.
- Bond and duty: Police statements say Bojovic posted a $2,500 bond in the immigration case and resumed full-duty patrol work.
- Criminal record: Officials reported no criminal history in Illinois databases tied to Bojovic.
- Estimated cost: The federal agency cited a figure of $205,707 as an estimated taxpayer cost related to the officer’s employment.
Legal and policy context
Federal law restricts firearm possession by certain noncitizens. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5), an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States is generally prohibited from possessing a firearm. A different provision applies to nonimmigrant visa holders unless they fall under a statutory exception or obtain authorization to possess firearms.
Employment eligibility verification for civilian jobs is governed by Form I-9 procedures, which require employers to examine documents showing identity and work authorization. Some municipalities also use E-Verify, a federal electronic system that checks employment eligibility, but use varies by jurisdiction. Police departments typically add background investigations, fingerprint checks and state or federal database queries as part of hiring. How a municipality documents and evaluates work authorization can affect both legal risk and public confidence.
Immigration arrests are civil enforcement actions and are handled through immigration courts and Department of Homeland Security processes. Detention and bond decisions are administrative. Those proceedings are separate from any criminal prosecution that a state or local jurisdiction might pursue.
Reactions and next steps
A Department of Homeland Security official, Tricia McLaughlin, criticized the rehiring and said the arrest raised legal and fiscal questions, noting federal prohibitions on firearm possession by noncitizens without lawful status. DHS provided the cost estimate that it said was tied to the officer’s employment.
Hanover Park leaders defended their actions, saying the officer met federal work-authorization requirements at hiring and again when he returned to duty. Local officials said routine checks were completed and that village policy guided the personnel decision.
Commentators and some conservative voices criticized the decision to reinstate the officer and questioned whether back pay or benefits should be provided while immigration matters proceed. Supporters of the village’s decision argued that improper removal from duty before a resolution of administrative claims could raise employment-law issues and undermine department staffing.
Officials at the village and federal levels said the immigration case remains pending. Homeland Security and ICE handle immigration removal proceedings, while local law enforcement retains authority over departmental discipline and employment decisions unless a criminal charge is filed in state court.
Analysis
The episode highlights competing responsibilities for municipal governments and federal immigration authorities. For local leaders, ensuring officers meet hiring and qualification standards is essential to maintaining public trust and department legitimacy. That requires clear documentation of work authorization and a consistent, transparent process for vetting candidates and responding to post-hire developments.
From a federal enforcement perspective, the case underscores statutory limits on firearm possession and the civil nature of immigration enforcement. When local police officers are the subject of immigration action, it can create friction between local staffing needs and federal priorities. That friction increases scrutiny from oversight officials and from taxpayers concerned about public safety and fiscal prudence.
Fiscal stakes may include payroll and benefits, liability for wrongful-termination claims or litigation costs if employment actions are contested. Political pressure can prompt municipalities to review hiring policies, adopt stricter verification systems or clarify whether certain positions require U.S. citizenship or documented lawful presence.
Ultimately, the situation is a test of local governance and accountability. Elected officials and police chiefs must balance personnel management, adherence to the rule of law and public safety needs while coordinating with federal agencies that have their own enforcement mandates. Clear policies, consistent recordkeeping and transparent communication with the public can reduce confusion and build trust as any administrative immigration proceedings move forward.
