Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORAN, District Judge. These consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of the suspension procedures used when Chicago police officers are accused of offenses which make them subject both to criminal charges and to internal department charges which could lead to their termination. Plaintiffs D’Acquisto, Deseno, Vivirito and Filas have filed a putative class action suit on behalf of themselves and other officers who are suspended without pay or benefits while awaiting a formal hearing before the Chicago Police Board on whether or not they will be discharged. Plaintiff Green brings an individual action on the same general grounds. Currently before this court are plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions and defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The parties have generated a small mountain of paper and raised a basketful of legal issues. The problem of what process is due when a public employee is suspended is a frequently recurring one both here and elsewhere. This court therefore thinks it worthwhile to go into these issues in some detail, in the hopes of limiting and focusing both the current and future litigations. We will deny a preliminary injunction and dismiss those claims which are grounded on equal protection, vagueness and ex parte communication theories. However, we find that the suspension procedures may unconstitutionally deprive plaintiffs of property and liberty without due process of law and may unconstitutionally burden their privilege against self-incrimination. We will deny the motion to dismiss as it relates to those claims. FACTS Plaintiffs D’Acquisto, Deseno and Green were indicted on charges of accepting bribes in return for altering the course of investigations of hit and run accidents. Immediately upon their indictment defendant Rice, Chicago’s Superintendent of Police, suspended them from active duty without pay and filed departmental charges seeking their removal from the force. Plaintiffs Vivirito and Filas are accused of taking $20 from a driver in lieu of issuing a traffic citation. They also submit the case of Officer Thomas McGrath, who is similarly accused. When interrogated by the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division, all three declined to give statements until assured by the State’s Attorney’s office that they would not be prosecuted. They were suspended, with departmental charges filed, for disobeying an order to speak and failure to cooperate with an investigation. The Chicago Police Board has promulgated procedures for the suspension or discharge of a police officer pursuant to its authority granted by Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, ¶ 10-1-18.1. These procedures contemplate four distinct situations: suspension, emergency suspension, the filing of departmental charges with the Police Board which could lead to long term suspension or discharge, and emergency suspension plus the filing of departmental charges. It is the procedures applicable to the last of these situations which plaintiffs challenge. In all cases, initiating formal discipline of an officer is within the discretion of the superintendent, who issues an appropriate order. A mere suspension cannot be implemented, however, unless either the officer consents to it or the Police Board has reviewed and approved it. If the superintendent finds “that the public safety, or the good of the Department or both” require it (rule IV-C), he may order an emergency suspension. An emergency suspension can be implemented immediately, but it must receive preliminary review within seven days by the hearing officer or a member of the Police Board, and be reviewed by the full Board within 30 days. If departmental charges are filed, but the officer remains on duty, a hearing before the Board on those charges must be set for within five to 30 days after the charges are served on the officer. An officer cannot be suspended for more than 30 days unless the suspension is accompanied by the filing of charges. However, rule IV-D of the procedures expressly states that none of the above protections apply when an officer is both suspended and charged. The officer is suspended without pay or benefits on the superintendent’s order, effective immediately. The suspension runs for no set time, merely “pending the disposition of charges.” A hearing officer or member of the Board must review the order within seven days, but the suspended officer has no right to either appear at or file a statement for that review. The suspension is not reviewed independently, but rather at the same time the charges are reviewed. Eventually, the officer does receive a full evidentiary hearing before the Board, with the right to be heard, to be represented by counsel, to call witnesses, to cross-examine other witnesses, and to make arguments. However, there is no set time for the hearing, and since both sides have rights of discovery and to request continuances the hearings rarely occur promptly. Defendants argue in their briefs that they can supply evidence showing that the average delay is four to five months; plaintiffs, however, cite individual cases where officers were suspended allegedly for up to two years awaiting hearings. The procedures do not state whether or not an officer facing investigation has a right to remain silent. According to the allegations of plaintiffs Vivirito and Filas, until recently superior officers did not order officers facing possible criminal charges to give statements until the appropriate prosecuting authority had stated in writing that he declined to prosecute. This practice, they allege, has been memorialized in both the policy directives for investigators of the Internal Affairs Division and in part in the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Fraternal Order of Police. However, the current approach apparently is that the Department, once it has assured the officer that it will not seek criminal prosecution, expects cooperation with internal investigations, whether or not the prosecuting authority has reached a decision. Officers who do not cooperate are suspended at once. These plaintiffs further allege that Superintendent Rice is attempting to persuade the Police Board of the correctness of this approach through what they describe as ex parte communications. Officer McGrath’s case has an additional twist. He passed the Illinois bar examination in February 1986. Others who passed on that date have been sworn in as attorneys, but he has not; the Committee on Character and Fitness of the Illinois Supreme Court has so far declined to approve his application. McGrath knows of no other blot on his character and believes that the suspension is keeping him from becoming a licensed attorney. DISCUSSION The plaintiffs in both of these cases bring their actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Taken together, these plaintiffs argue that the existing Chicago Police Department practices and procedures when officers are suspended with departmental charges filed against them infringe upon the officer’s rights under the United States Constitution in some five different ways, and also violate Illinois law. I. Nature of the Claims A. The Arguments Specifically, the class action plaintiffs assert that: (1) a suspension for more than 30 days under rule IV-D without a meaningful opportunity for a hearing deprives the suspended officer of property without due process; (2) since the suspension goes into the officer’s personnel records, the stigma which attaches also deprives the officer of a liberty interest; (3) requiring officers to give statements to internal investigators while criminal charges are still possible infringes their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. They also claim that under Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, ¶ 10-1-18.1 an officer cannot be suspended for more than 30 days without a hearing. They seek: (1) a declaratory judgment that rule IV-D of the Police Board procedures violates both the federal Constitution and the state statute; (2) backpay and benefits retroactive to the dates of their suspensions; and (3) both preliminary and permanent injunctions which would (a) reinstate them either to duty or to the status of suspension with full pay and benefits, pending their hearings, (b) prohibit any suspensions over 30 days in the future without a full evidentiary hearing, (c) prohibit any attempt to evade the above restriction by using consecutive 30-day suspensions, and (d) prohibit any ex parte communications between Superintendent Rice and the Police Board. Plaintiff Green complains that suspensions under rule IV-C “for the good of the Department” are suspensions on an unconstitutionally vague standard, and that the arbitrary and capricious way in which the suspensions are meted out deprives suspended officers of the equal protection of the law. He seeks immediate reinstatement, backpay and benefits, a declaratory judgment that rule IV-C is unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and $500,000 in damages for injury to his reputation and emotional distress from defendant Fred Rice. Defendants offer up a virtual laundry list of reasons why the complaint should be dismissed. They contend that the Constitution is not implicated in any way by the Police Board procedures: that the suspensions raise no due process question since the Constitution protects only the employment relationship of a public employee, not his interest in wages and benefits, and the police officers will receive a full hearing before the employment relationship is terminated; that the filing of charges infringes no liberty interest since suspensions are not stigmatizing and are not circulated to the general public; that in any case, if the Police Board fails to uphold the charges, the officer has a state law action for backpay, so no officer is wrongfully deprived; that even if there is a deprivation, the Board’s steps clearly comply with the process which is due a public employee; that the Department is not asking the officers to give up their rights against self-incrimination when it orders them to cooperate with an internal investigation since use immunity implicitly attaches; and that the suspensions involve neither unconstitutionally vague standards nor a denial of equal protection. Defendants further oppose any preliminary injunction, asserting that plaintiffs are not suffering irreparable harm, and have an adequate remedy at law in the backpay action. Although the parties have submitted some affidavits and documents, neither party has asked for summary judgment. Further, this court thinks any effort toward it on this record would be premature. We therefore will disregard those materials for purposes of the motion to dismiss and will focus on the legal issues raised by the pleadings. Since a narrowing of the issues will be helpful to our consideration of whether injunctive relief can or should be granted, we turn first to the motion to dismiss and postpone discussion of the motions for preliminary injunctions to section V. Since the due process theories present the most complexities, the remainder of this section as well as sections II and III are devoted to them. Analysis of the other constitutional theories appears in section IV. B. Procedural Due Process Analysis The class action plaintiffs complain that the superintendent’s and Police Board’s procedures deprive them of property and liberty without due process of law, and so infringe their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. That claim must be characterized as a claim under procedural rather than substantive due process. The Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the state a “duty to provide fair procedures [which give] the citizen the opportunity to try to prevent the deprivation from happening---- In a procedural due process claim, it is not the deprivation of properly or liberty that is unconstitutional; it is the deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law — without adequate procedures.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. -, ---; 106 S.Ct. 662, 678-679, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). See also Toney-El v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1224, 1227 (7th Cir. 1985). The defendants do not dispute that they were acting under color of state law in establishing the procedures and making the suspensions. The plaintiffs' challenge is not to the propriety of the suspensions as such, nor the power of the superintendent to suspend as such, nor the right of the Board to hear and rule on suspensions as such. Rather, they claim that the existing procedures do not give officers enough of an opportunity to try to prevent long-term suspensions from happening. Analysis of a procedural due process claim requires a three-stage inquiry, as the Supreme Court has recently made clear. See Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. -, -, 106 S.Ct. 668, 673, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (preferring former two-stage analysis). This court must first determine whether the interests of which the plaintiffs were allegedly deprived “are encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘life, liberty or property’.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1413, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). If they are, then we must ask whether the state’s conduct amounted to a deprivation in the constitutional sense of that word. Daniels, 474 U.S. at ---, 106 S.Ct. at 664-665. If the plaintiffs had protected interests, and the state deprived them of those interests, then the plaintiffs had a constitutional right to fair procedure accompanying the deprivation. The inquiry therefore then turns to the question of what process was due in the particular situation. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Section II will determine whether plaintiffs state claims for deprivation of protected interests; section III will explore the issue of what process was due them. II. Deprivation of Protected Interests A. Do Officers Have Protected Property or Liberty Interests? 1. Property Interest in Employment Plaintiffs claim that the suspensions deprived them of a property interest. Defendants do not appear to dispute that Chicago police officers who have passed their probationary period have a property interest in their employment which is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. One looks to sources outside the Constitution, e.g., state law, to determine whether a state employee has a protected interest in his job. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 24, 1110-1-18.1 provides in pertinent part: In any municipality of more than 500,000 population, no officer or employee of the police department in the classified civil service of the municipality whose appointment has become complete may be removed or discharged, or suspended for more than 30 days except for cause upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense by the police board____ Upon the filing of charges for which removal or discharge, or suspension of more than 30 days is recommended a hearing before the police board shall be held____ Nothing in this section limits the power of the superintendent to suspend the subordinate for a reasonable period, not exceeding 30 days. Since an officer cannot be discharged or put on long-term suspension except for cause, he has a protected property interest in continued employment. Confederation of Police v. City of Chicago, 547 F.2d 375, 376 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 915, 97 S.Ct. 2175, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977). Cf. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2699, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Olshock v. Village of Skokie, 541 F.2d 1254, 1258 (7th Cir.1976) (finding property interest for policemen created by similar Illinois statute for smaller towns); Muscare v. Quinn, 520 F.2d 1212, 1215 (7th Cir.1975), cert. dismissed 425 U.S. 560, 96 S.Ct. 1752, 48 L.Ed.2d 165 (1976) (finding property interest for Chicago firemen). Thus if the state’s conduct amounts to a deprivation of that interest, they have due process rights. 2. Liberty Interest in Opportunity to Pursue Occupation Plaintiffs also argue that the filing of charges has defamed them in a way which injures their ability to pursue their chosen occupation, thus depriving them of a liberty interest. The Supreme Court has expressly held that an individual’s interest in his reputation is neither a property interest nor a liberty interest entitled to protection under the due process clause. Thus defamation by the state, standing alone, is not the kind of state action which triggers due process protections. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711-712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165-1166, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). See also Larry v. Lawler, 605 F.2d 954, 958 (7th Cir. 1978). The inquiry, however, does not end there. Defamation by persons acting under color of state law, like any other state action, could have the consequence of depriving an individual of a protected interest. Bone v. City of Lafayette, 763 F.2d 295, 298 (7th Cir.1985). If state action distinctly extinguishes, alters or impairs an individual’s ability to take advantage of a right, status or interest previously recognized and protected by law, that action invokes the constitutional protections of fair procedure. Paul, 424 U.S. at 693, 96 S.Ct. at 1157. It follows that if defamation by the state so affects an individual’s ability to take advantage of a protected property or liberty interest, he has due process rights — in this context, a right to an opportunity to try to prevent the deprivation by clearing his name. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573, 92 S.Ct. at 2707; Mosrie v. Barry, 718 F.2d 1151, 1160-1161 (D.C.Cir.1983). Such a result is particularly likely to occur in an employment context. If, for example, someone acting under color of state law defamed a tenured public employee, and the defamation led to the firing of that employee, then the defamation would have deprived the employee of a protected property interest, triggering his due process protections. See, e.g., Bone, 763 F.2d at 298; Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 214-215 (6th Cir.1985). More commonly, however, a defamation-based claim comes from non-tenured public employees. They cannot rely on a theory of deprivation of property since they have no protected property interest. However, the freedom “to engage in any of the common occupations of life” is among the liberties which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626-627, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). See also Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 102, 96 S.Ct. 1895, 1905, 48 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976). A government action cannot foreclose employment opportunities in an individual’s chosen occupation absent due process. Roth, 408 U.S. at 574, 92 S.Ct. at 2707-2708; Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 898, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1750, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). So, such persons typically argue that the charges made when they were fired were so defamatory that their ability to pursue their chosen occupation has been impaired, depriving them of a liberty interest. See, e.g., Stachura, 763 F.2d at 215; Larry, 605 F.2d at 958. The liberty interest in pursuing an occupation is defined narrowly. Most obviously, it is not a right to be hired for or to keep a particular government job. Roth, 408 U.S. at 575, 92 S.Ct. at 2708; Perry v. F.B.I., 759 F.2d 1271, 1276 (7th Cir.1985), reh’g en banc 781 F.2d 1294, 1300 (7th Cir.1986). For failure to be hired or loss of a job alone to be actionable, one’s entitlement to the job must rise to the level of a protected property interest. Sindermann, 408 U.S. at 601, 92 S.Ct. at 2699. See also Stana v. School District of Pittsburgh, 775 F.2d 122, 126 (3d Cir.1985) (eligibility list created property interest in rank on the list). And, at least under ordinary circumstances, it is not a right to be promoted. Bigby v. City of Chicago, 766 F.2d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, Thoele v. City of Chicago, 474 U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 793, 88 L.Ed.2d 771 (1986). But see Click v. Board of Police Commissioners, 609 F.Supp. 1199, 1205 (W.D.Mo.1985). Plaintiffs’ allegations that the charges accompanying their suspensions will affect their chances for promotion thus fail to state a claim because they do not implicate a protected liberty interest. The liberty interest does, however, include the general freedom to take advantage of such opportunities as may arise in one’s chosen occupation. A state cannot significantly impair that freedom without using fair procedure. Bone, 763 F.2d at 298; Lawson v. Sheriff of Tippecanoe County, 725 F.2d 1136, 1138 (7th Cir. 1984). If the state so defames an individual that the consequence is a stigma which makes him virtually unemployable in his chosen profession, the effect can be an impairment of that liberty interest. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573, 92 S.Ct. at 2707. See also Stachura, 763 F.2d at 215; Perry, 759 F.2d at 1279; Lawson, 725 F.2d at 1139; Larry, 605 F.2d at 959. The officers here allege that the circumstances of their suspensions not only cost them their Chicago jobs for the period of the suspension, but also make them unemployable as policemen anywhere else during that time. These allegations implicate a constitutionally protected liberty interest. If defendants’ acts actually deprived them of the interest, they are entitled to due process. B. Do Suspensions Accompanied by Charges Deprive Officers of Those Interests? The City’s first line of defense against the due process claims amounts to an argument that its conduct has not deprived the officers of either their property or liberty interests in the constitutional sense of the word “deprived.” For example, only deliberate state actions are deprivations in the constitutional sense. Daniels, 474 U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 665. The City does not attempt to argue that the suspensions and filing of charges were not deliberate, and indeed it could not, since the acts came pursuant to established procedure. But it does contend that its conduct does not rise to the level of a deprivation. As to the property interests, the City takes the position that a suspension without pay is not a deprivation of the interest. The protected interest, it argues, is only the employment relationship, not the wages and fringe benefits which ordinarily accompany it. It follows, then, says the City, that an officer is not deprived of that interest until he is formally terminated, and he is formally terminated only after a full hearing. As to the liberty interests, the City argues that there has been no deprivation because there has been no defamation. 1. The Suspensions Deprived the Officers of Property The argument that a suspension from employment is not a deprivation of the property interest in employment cannot be squared with applicable law. The Supreme Court has described the kind of property interest which the Fourteenth Amendment protects expressly as an interest which secures benefits and supports a claim of entitlement to those benefits. Sindermann, 408 U.S. at 601, 92 S.Ct. at 2699; Roth, 408 U.S. at 576-577, 92 S.Ct. at 2708-2709. The court has also consistently characterized the essential feature of the entitlement as the right to continued benefits, and any interruption in the flow of benefits as a deprivation of the interest. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, - and n. 31, 105 S.Ct. 2520, 2529 and n. 31, 86 L.Ed.2d 81 (1985); O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773, 786-787, 100 S.Ct. 2467, 2475-2476, 65 L.Ed.2d 506 (1980); Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 20, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1566, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 266, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). Thus, for example, when a New York City civil servant lost her title of chief investigator and was relieved of her supervisory duties but continued to receive the same salary and fringe benefits, there was no deprivation of her property interest in employment. The deprivation came roughly ten months later when the city stopped paying her. Morciglio v. New York City Fire Department, 628 F.Supp. 134, 135-136 (E.D.N.Y.1986). Suspending officers without pay therefore deprives them of their property interest in the constitutional sense of the term. Indeed, a suspension need not be long-term or indefinite, as the suspensions here are, to trigger the right to fair procedure. A deprivation of constitutional dimensions occurs when the state stops the flow of benefits associated with a protected interest for any appreciable length of time. Memphis Light, 436 U.S. at 20, 98 S.Ct. at 1566; Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 576, 95 S.Ct. 729, 737, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). The duration of a suspension, since it directly relates to the severity of the deprivation, may be a factor to be weighed when the analysis moves to the third stage of determining what process is due. But the fact that benefits have merely been suspended briefly, rather than terminated, has never kept the state’s action from being characterized as a deprivation. See Goss, 419 U.S. at 576, 584, 95 S.Ct. at 741 (student suspended for ten days from public school); Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979) (horse trainer’s license suspended for 15 days); Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979) (90-day suspension of driver’s license). When, as here, a police officer has a property interest in his employment thanks to state law, any suspension without pay is a deprivation. Confederation of Police, 547 F.2d at 376 (suspension as well as discharge implicates due process). See also Bailey v. Kirk, 777 F.2d 567, 574-575 (10th Cir.1985) (chief of police suspended for four days); Muscare, 520 F.2d at 1215 (Chicago fireman suspended for 29 days); Click, 609 F.Supp at 1204 (police officer suspended for three days); Hopkins v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington, 600 F.Supp. 542, 547 (D.Del. 1984), further proceeding 615 F.Supp. 1455 (D.Del.1985) (officer suspended for 25 days before hearing). Plaintiffs were deprived of property, and so had a right to fair procedure. 2. The Charges May Have Deprived the Officers of Liberty The City also argues that the filing of charges which accompanied the suspensions did not deprive the officers of their liberty interest in pursuing their occupations because no defamation occurred. The charges involved no stigma, it contends, and, further, the charges were not published. Whether the officers actually suffered a deprivation through foreclosure of job opportunities as policemen depends ultimately on facts which of course we cannot determine on a motion to dismiss. The question now is rather whether they have reasonably stated a claim for such a deprivation. The case law in this area sets out requirements for such a claim. First, obviously, if the injury rests on defamation, the state action must be defamatory. At a minimum, then, the charges must be false, Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627, 97 S.Ct. 882, 884, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977), and must have been communicated to someone, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2079, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976). Secondly, if the alleged injury is to the individual’s liberty interest in pursuit of his occupation, then the defamation must come in the context of an unfavorable employment decision, Colaizzi v. Walker, 542 F.2d 969 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 1610, 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977); must carry the kind of stigma which could substantially curtail the individual’s employment possibilities, Munson v. Friske, 754 F.2d 683 (7th Cir.1985); and must have been communicated, or have the potential for being communicated, to possible employers. Perry, 759 F.2d at 1279; Larry, 605 F.2d at 958. Plaintiffs’ complaints meet those requirements. They allege that the charges are false, as required by Codd, 429 U.S. at 627, 97 S.Ct. at 884. The charges accompanied an unfavorable employment decision, namely their suspension pending a hearing on discharge. While it is true that the usual case involves a discharge, in fact the Supreme Court has commented that the defamation need not cause a discharge for the individual to state a claim. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 633-634 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1406-1407 n. 13, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). A severe demotion will suffice, Lawson, 725 F.2d at 1139, or some other action which would “raise the likelihood that the defamation would be viewed by prospective employers as being something sufficiently serious as to affect his employability.” Bone, 763 F.2d at 298 n. 1. We think that an emergency suspension with the threat of discharge pending raises a sufficient degree of seriousness. Defendants maintain that the charges do not carry a sufficiently defamatory stigma since the officers (or at least Vivirito and Filas) are formally charged only with infraction of departmental rules. However, the events at the core of each officer’s dispute with the Department (including Vivirito and Filas) involve allegations of bribery. Dishonesty is a charge which nearly always carries a stigma that affects employability. See Perry, 781 F.2d at 1302, 759 F.2d at 1279; Munson, 754 F.2d at 693. This court has no difficulty believing that a bribe-taking charge could substantially curtail job opportunities for a policeman. Finally, defendants argue that there can be no injury because the charges have not been made public. Widespread publicity is one of the ways a defamatory charge can deprive an individual of his liberty to pursue his occupation, see Owen, 445 U.S. at 633-634 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. at 1406-1407 n. 13, and Bishop, 426 U.S. at 348, 96 S.Ct. at 2079, but it is not the only way. Several courts have held that placing the information in files to which other employers might have access at least creates a fact question on the likelihood of impact on employment opportunities. See Perry, 759 F.2d at 1278; Burris v. Willis Independent School District, 713 F.2d 1087, 1092 (5th Cir.1983); Velger v. Cawley, 525 F.2d 334, 336 (2d Cir.1975), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 692 (1977); Click, 609 F.Supp. at 1205; Doe v. United States Civil Service Commission, 483 F.Supp. 539, 570-571 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Plaintiffs allege that the reasons for a suspension go into their departmental personnel files and indeed remain there for five years regardless of the outcome of their hearings. They further allege that other law enforcement agencies have access to these files. Another example of injury without widespread publicity may appear in the case of Officer McGrath. The liberty interest encompasses not just one occupation per person, but the freedom “to engage in any of the common occupations of life.” Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399, 43 S.Ct. at 626 (emphasis added). If the allegations are true, information about McGrath’s suspension has reached the Committee on Character and Fitness and so is keeping him from joining the Illinois bar. Defamation by state action thus could be doubly affecting his liberty interest in occupation, not only preventing him from pursuing his current occupation of policeman but also blocking his entry into a new profession for which he is otherwise qualified. Plaintiffs have stated a claim for deprivation of liberty sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. III. What Process Was Due The Officers? Since the officers at least state claims for deprivation of protected interests, our analysis now turns to what process was due them. The analysis is the same whether a property or liberty interest is implicated, since the same procedural protections apply to both kinds of interests. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975-2976, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Patterson v. Coughlin, 761 F.2d 886, 890 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 879, 88 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986). Whether existing procedures provide due process depends on both the procedures and the particular situation. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 481, 92 S.Ct. at 2600. The court must balance at least three factors: the importance of the private interest at stake, the strength of the government’s interest, and the quality of the existing procedures in light of the relative strength of the interests. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-543, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1494, 1496, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902-903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). In testing the quality of the existing procedures the court considers: (1) how likely it is that they will prevent an erroneous deprivation, (2) whether additional or other procedures would be more likely to prevent error, (3) the burden on the government if more procedural protections were added, and (4) the extent to which procedures following the deprivation will not only correct error but function to make an erroneously deprived party whole again. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at ---, 105 S.Ct. at 1494-1496; Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903; Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 610, 617-618, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 1901, 1905, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974). A. Some Kind of a Hearing One essential principle of due process is that an individual facing a deprivation be given “some kind of a hearing.” Loudermill, 470 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1493. The chance to be heard, to present one’s own side of the story, is a fundamental requirement of any fair procedural system. Id., 470 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. The Chicago Police Board procedures, of course, do not altogether lack a hearing for the officers. But any assessment of the quality of the procedures must consider not only the fact of their existence but also their timing. The point of the procedural protection of a hearing is, in the words of Justice Stevens worth quoting again here, to provide the individual with “the opportunity to try to prevent the deprivation from happening.” Daniels, 474 U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 678 (Stevens, J., concurring). Obviously the most effective time for such an opportunity is before the deprivation happens. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1994, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). Thus our evaluation of the quality of the procedures will turn not only on what kind of chance to be heard the procedures include but also whether they guarantee that any deprivation will be accompanied by a timely chance to be heard. 1. Requirement of a Pre-deprivation or Prompt Post-deprivation Hearing Any analysis of the timing of a hearing begins with the presumption that the hearing should be offered before the state has reached its decision on whether or not to deprive the individual of his interest. See, e.g., Loudermill, 470 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1493; Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786-787, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656-657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). That expectation, however, is only a presumption, not an inflexible rule. Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 115, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 1729, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977); Hatteras v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 774 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir.1985). Cf. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 481, 92 S.Ct. at 2600. The quality of procedures is judged in the light of the strength of the private and governmental interests at stake. If the individual's interest is significantly weaker than the government's, either from its own lack of weight or because the government’s interest in quick action is particularly strong, a hearing which comes only after the deprivation has occurred is constitutionally adequate. See Goss, 419 U.S. at 582, 95 S.Ct. at 740 (school may suspend dangerous or disruptive student without prior hearing); W.T. Grant, 416 U.S. at 618-619, 94 S.Ct. at 1905-1906 (due process satisfied for defaulting debtor by post-deprivation hearing); Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 90-92, 92 S.Ct. at 1999-2000; Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 1289 (1931) (post-deprivation procedures for tax disputes justified by government need for revenue). For example, in Mackey, the state law provided for suspension of a driver’s license prior to any hearing when the driver had refused to take a breath analysis test after arrest for driving under the influence. The Supreme Court held that the procedure was adequate in light of the government’s strong interest in providing safe public highways. 443 U.S. at 18, 99 S.Ct. at 2621. See also Dixon, 431 U.S. at 113-115, 97 S.Ct. at 1728-1729. In the case at bar, the government’s interest in ridding itself of ineffective or untrustworthy public employees is very strong. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 543, 105 S.Ct. at 1494. However, the private interest also carries great weight. A suspension deprives the suspended officer of the means of making a living. An interest in the means of livelihood is a very strong interest. Id. The Supreme Court balanced those interests in Loudermill and concluded that the government interest did not so outweigh the employee’s interest that the government could dispense with a pre-deprivation hearing. The due process clause obligated the government to give the public employee plaintiffs there notice of the reasons why it intended to fire them and an opportunity to present their side of the matter before it decided to deprive them of their jobs. 470 U.S. at 543-546, 105 S.Ct. at 1494-1495. See also Muscare, 520 F.2d at 1216 (Chicago fireman charged with dress code violation had a right to a presuspension hearing). Here the officers allege that they had no opportunity to be heard whatsoever before they were suspended. The analysis, however, does not end there. Even the individual’s interest in his livelihood is not so great that it cannot be overridden by a particularly strong government need for quick action. In Barry, the state’s interest in preserving the integrity of horseracing justified suspending a trainer’s license on a showing of probable cause that his horse had been drugged, without first giving him a chance to be heard. 443 U.S. at 65, 99 S.Ct. at 2649. We do not read Loudermill as establishing a blanket rule that every public employee has a right to a pre-deprivation hearing in all circumstances. See Click, 609 F.Supp. at 1206. Here, the individuals concerned are not just public employees, but police officers. The government interest in effective law enforcement includes at least as much need for immediacy as the interest in highway safety or the integrity of horseracing. Hughes v. Whitmer, 714 F.2d 1407, 1419 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1023, 104 S.Ct. 1275, 79 L.Ed.2d 680 (1984); Click, 609 F.Supp. at 1206; Hopkins, 600 F.Supp. at 547-548. The absence of a pre-suspension hearing is not necessarily fatal to the Police Board procedures. Cf. Muscare, 520 F.2d at 1216 (recognizing emergency exceptions to presuspension hearing for firemen). The timing of the hearing for the officers nevertheless raises a serious constitutional question. The cases which have upheld deprivation before the opportunity to be heard on the ground of a powerful government interest in quick action have nevertheless emphasized that the states must offer a hearing promptly after the deprivation. Even when the state may justifiably act first and consider more deliberately later, so that the individual cannot stop the deprivation before it happens, he remains entitled to as much of an opportunity to minimize his injury as is practical in the situation. If the chance to be heard does not come promptly enough, the procedure is inadequate. Barry, 443 U.S. at 66, 99 S.Ct. at 2650; Mackey, 443 U.S. at 19, 99 S.Ct. at 2621; Goss, 419 U.S. at 582-583, 95 S.Ct. at 740-741; W.T. Grant, 416 U.S. at 611, 94 S.Ct. at 1902. Here the procedures do not guarantee that the officer’s formal hearing before the Board will come within any set time after the deprivation, and the officers allege long delays between suspension and hearing. If the first chance for a hearing comes only after the deprivation, “prompt” means exactly what one would think. A delay of even a few days has sometimes been enough for a constitutional violation. In Mackey, the driver had a right to a hearing before the registrar of motor vehicles immediately upon surrender of his license. 443 U.S. at 7, 12, 99 S.Ct. at 2615, 2618. See also W.T. Grant, 416 U.S. at 606, 610, 94 S.Ct. at 1899, 1901 (debtor could seek hearing immediately after writ of sequestration was served). In Barry, the court held the license suspension procedures unconstitutional because they could not guarantee a hearing within fifteen days of imposing the suspension. 443 U.S. at 55, 66, 99 S.Ct. at 2644, 2650. And the Louder-mill court made its feelings about delay crystal clear when it mentioned that if the first stage hearing cannot come before the deprivation, the government should suspend the employee with pay. 470 U.S. at 544-545, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. Defendants, presumably putting their best foot forward, maintain that the average delay between suspension and review by the Police Board is four to five months. This court cannot characterize a hearing held several months after the deprivation as “prompt.” See Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 388-389, 95 S.Ct. 533, 539-540, 42 L.Ed.2d 521 (1975) (average four-month delay in review of denials of unemployment benefits raised constitutional question); Hopkins, 600 F.Supp. at 549 (failure to give police officer a hearing until 25 days after suspending him violates due process). If that hearing is the officer’s first chance to be heard, it comes too late. 2. A Later Evidentiary Hearing Does Not Excuse the Requirement Defendants raise a battery of arguments against the above conclusion. Some rest on the quality of the Board’s procedures. Defendants emphasize the trial-like procedures of the Board hearings. They also point out that if the Board determines that the officer has been wrongfully suspended, he will be fully restored to rank and salary, and may also be paid retroactively for the time he was suspended. See, e.g., Hoban v. Rochford, 73 Ill.App.3d 671, 29 Ill.Dec. 531, 392 N.E.2d 88 (1st Dist.1979). In essence, defendants maintain that the hearing an officer eventually gets, with its full panoply of procedures, is so likely to correct error and has so much capacity to provide a remedy to the wrongfully deprived officer that the delay is justified. In support, they cite Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 547, 105 S.Ct. at 1496, where, they contend, the Supreme Court found that if a hearing is sufficiently thorough, even a nine-month delay is not necessarily unconstitutional. That stance misreads Louder-mill’s holding. The thoroughness of the post-deprivation procedures and the availability of retroactive relief are indeed considerations in the evaluation of the overall quality of the procedures. But only the most powerful and compelling government needs — wartime emergencies, tax collection, misidentified drugs or contaminated food, bank failures — can allow that consideration to so tip the balance as to eliminate the pre-deprivation or prompt post-deprivation hearing entirely. See Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 92, 92 S.Ct. at 2000; Commissioner v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614, 630 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 1062, 1072 n. 12, 47 L.Ed.2d 278 (1976). Rather, the existence of an eventual full evidentiary hearing and a retroactive remedy affects only how thorough the state must be at the pre-deprivation or prompt post-deprivation stage. Roughly, the more complete the process at the later stage, the more informal the earlier stage process can be. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 545, 105 S.Ct. at 1495; Mathews, 424 U.S. at 340, 345, 349, 96 S.Ct. at 905, 907-910; Roth, 408 U.S. at 570 n. 8, 92 S.Ct. at 2705-2706 n. 8. For example, plaintiffs here argue that their first stage hearing ought to be a full evidentiary hearing. This court does not agree. In light of how the balance has been struck in the past, the existence of a later hearing replete with procedural protection means that the first stage procedures can be far less thorough. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 345, 96 S.Ct. at 907-908; Hopkins, 600 F.Supp. at 547. Cf. McClelland v. Massinga, 786 F.2d 1205, 1213 (4th Cir. 1986). But the officers are entitled to some kind of pre-deprivation or prompt post-deprivation hearing. The principle does not extend to making the first hearing so informal that it disappears. The Court’s comments in Loudermill, to which defendants refer, exemplify that principle. They came in the context of a separate constitutional claim to the effect that even had plaintiff received a pre-deprivation hearing, the nine months between deprivation and the Civil Service Commission’s review decision was an unconstitutional delay. 470 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1496. The court weighed the thoroughness of Commission review and its ability to offer backpay and did not agree. Assuming notice and opportunity to respond before the deprivation, said the court, a delay in the process of final review could be justified by the quality of that review. Id. Further, given the existence of a full evidentiary hearing within a reasonable time, the first stage hearing need not be particularly elaborate. 470 U.S. at-, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. But nowhere did the Court say that the availability of a full hearing and retroactive relief meant that the first stage hearing could simply be omitted. Indeed, the Court expressly held that a procedure without a first stage hearing was unconstitutional. A full evidentiary hearing later, even when it can award backpay, is no substitute for a chance to prevent the deprivation before or immediately after it occurs. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), and its progeny are not to the contrary. In Parratt, the Supreme Court decided that when employees of a prison’s hobby center lost a prisoner’s mail order hobby kit, the state’s tort claims procedure provided the prisoner all the process he was due. Since then it seems virtually every defendant in a due process clause case has raised adequacy of post-deprivation state law remedies as a defense. See, e.g., Doty v. Carey, 626 F.Supp. 359 (N.D.Ill.1986); Begg v. Moffitt, 555 F.Supp. 1344 (N.D.Ill.1983). The City here is no exception. Defendants attempt to argue from Parratt that since an officer has an action for backpay if wrongfully suspended, his state law remedies are adequate, and thus he has all the procedural protection he needs. The argument is misplaced. As not only Parratt itself but also later Supreme Court cases have made clear, Parratt was a decision of narrow scope which rested in large part on a particular set of facts. At a maximum, it reaches only random, unauthorized acts by state employees, not deprivations which come as a result of established state procedure. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3203, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-436, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1157-1158, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982); Parratt, 451 U.S. at 537, 101 S.Ct. at 1914. There are two reasons why. First, Parratt was expressly concerned with the kind of random, negligent loss which could not be predicted. No pre-deprivation procedure was practical or even possible on its facts. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533, 104 S.Ct. at 3203; Parratt, 451 U.S. at 541, 101 S.Ct. at 1916. Where pre-deprivation or prompt post-deprivation notice and hearing are possible, as they usually are when the system itself is doing the depriving, the procedure ought to come before or immediately after the deprivation. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1493; Logan, 455 U.S. at 436, 102 S.Ct. at 1158. See also Toney-El, 777 F.2d at 1228; Brown v. Trench, 787 F.2d 167, 171 (3d Cir.1986); Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596, 607 (8th Cir. 1986); Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 760 (9th Cir.1985). Second, when the challenge is to the system itself, an independent state tort or contract action simply is not a constitutionally adequate remedy. The whole point of the procedural protection is to give the individual a chance to prevent the loss before it occurs or as soon thereafter as possible. A lawsuit cannot do that. It therefore is no remedy at all for the constitutional deficiency in the system, since it cannot take a plaintiff back in time and give him the chance he never got. Logan, 455 U.S. at 436-437, 102 S.Ct. at 1158-1159; Patterson, 761 F.2d at 893; Parrett v. City of Connersville, 737 F.2d 690, 697 (7th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed 469 U.S. 1145, 105 S.Ct. 828, 83 L.Ed.2d 820 (1985). The police officers here complain precisely that the existing system suspends them without giving a chance to tell their side. The Illinois law action for backpay is irrelevant to that complaint. 3. A Hearing Must Include an Opportunity to be Heard Defendants also try to characterize the review of each suspension within seven days by the hearing officer or a Board member as an adequate substitute for a pre-deprivation or a prompt post-deprivation hearing. It is not. Again, cases such as Loudermill and Mathews say merely that the promise of an eventual full hearing means that the procedural requirements of the first stage may be somewhat relaxed. They do not say that an essential element of that first stage — the opportunity to be heard — can simply be left out. Loudermill calls for “an initial check against mistaken decisions.” 470 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. Certainly the existence of the Department’s internal review reduces the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation and its timing comes far closer to the constitutional standard of a prompt post-deprivation hearing. But one addition would make it far more likely to prevent error, namely the addition of an opportunity to be heard. “The opportunity to present reasons either in person or in writing why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement.” Id. In Mathews, a social security recipient facing termination of disability benefits had the opportunity to submit medical documentation and to communicate in writing. The Supreme Court held that in those circumstances, coupled with the opportunity for full review later, due process did not require a chance for an oral presentation at the first stage as well. 424 U.S. at 345, 96 S.Ct. at 907-908. In some circumstances the opportunity to make one’s case only orally might be enough. Kelly v. Smith, 764 F.2d 1412, 1414 (11th Cir.1985); Stermetz v. Harper, 612 F.Supp. 423, 431 (W.D.Ark.1985). However, a purely ex parte internal review which gives the individual no chance to present his side of the story, neither in writing nor orally, cannot satisfy due process. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546, 105 S.Ct. at 1495; Gleason v. Board of County Commissioners, 620 F.Supp. 632, 635 (D.Colo.1985). Cf. Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Donovan, 774 F.2d 693, 705 (6th Cir.1985) (employer’s right to be heard when government reinstates employee). Defendants admit that the internal review provides no opportunity to be heard. Since the review is already in place, providing the opportunity would be a minimal burden on the government. The presence of the internal review cannot save the procedures. Defendants also point out, however, that officers against whom charges have been filed are subject to investigation by members of the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division. Such investigation ordinarily includes an interrogation. Defendants suggest that the investigation provides the suspended officer with an opportunity to be heard. Defendants may have a point. Thanks to the thoroughness with which the Board’s later hearing is conducted, the first stage hearing need not be particularly formal. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 545, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. Depending on the factual circumstances, a meeting with an appropriate official, with a chance to respond orally, can satisfy first stage due process. Kelly, 764 F.2d at 1414. If the officer had adequate notice of the charge and the investigation offered him “a full and fair opportunity to tell his side of the story,” an Internal Affairs investigation could meet the constitutional standard. Click, 609 F.Supp. at 1207. See also McLean v. Rochford, 404 F.Supp. 191, 197 (N.D.Ill.1975). However, defendants’ point is not one which can carry the day for purposes of a motion to dismiss. To pass constitutional muster the opportunity to be heard “must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” not in a manner which imposes unnecessary burdens on the person facing a deprivation. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). See also Patkus v. Sangamon-Cass Consortium, 769 F.2d 1251, 1265 (7th Cir.1985); Schultz v. Baumgart, 738 F.2d 231, 235 (7th Cir. 1984). Given the possibilities for intimidation which an atmosphere of interrogation offers, this court cannot assume as a matter of law that an interrogation equals a full and fair opportunity to present one’s case. The question needs more factual development. Further, defendants have not shown how such an investigation fits into the review system,, so that it could constitute a true check against a mistaken decision. They do not claim that the Internal Affairs investigator has the power to reverse a suspension, nor do they indicate how his input would be channeled to anyone who did have that power. We cannot leap to the conclusion that an interrogation by an officer who has no reviewing authority is necessarily a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Plaintiffs still state a claim for denial of due process through the absence of a pre-deprivation or prompt post-deprivation hearing. 4. Delay of the Evidentiary Hearing Even if the Internal Affairs interrogation proved to be an adequate first stage hearing, however, that would not mean that the officers had no claim for denial of due process. The officers allege that the delay before the Police Board decides on the propriety of suspensions can last up to two years. If so, that delay could by itself constitute a separate due process violation. The ideal due process model is still one full evidentiary hearing before deprivation. Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 261, 90 S.Ct. at 1016-1017; also 267 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1020 n. 14 (“Due process does not, of course, require two hearings.”) As a practical matter, the balance of interests rarely dictates that a full evidentiary hearing is constitutionally required at that point; as we have just discussed, various considerations allow postponement of the full hearing when an adequate pre-deprivation or prompt post-deprivation hearing is used. See, e.g., Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 532, 105 S.Ct. at 1495; Mathews, 424 U.S. at 348, 96 S.Ct. at 909. But postponement of the full hearing is nevertheless deviation from the ideal model. Too much postponement for too long will be a violation regardless of the adequacy of the first stage hearing. The Supreme Court said as much in Loudermill. Although it rejected that plaintiff’s claim based solely on delay of the full hearing, it did not say that such delay could never be a separate claim. To the contrary, it expressly recognized such a claim in theory, saying, “[a]t some point, a delay in the post-termination hearing would become a constitutional violation.” 470 U.S. at 547, 105 S.Ct. at 1496. See also Mathews, 424 U.S. at 342, 96 S.Ct. at 906; Fusari, 419 U.S. at 389, 95 S.Ct. at 539-540 (both discussing constitutional dimensions of delay between first and second stage hearings). The Court also indicated that a claim based on delay of the evidentiary hearing would not be decided on the amount of time involved alone. The decision did not set out a bright line rule that nine months will always fall safely within due process. Cf. Stermetz, 612 F.Supp. at 431. The same balancing of factors that applies to all other aspects of due process applies here. The concern is whether the time between the first and second stage hearings was “unreasonably prolonged.” Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 547, 105 S.Ct. at 1496 (emphasis added). On the specific allegations before it, the Court held that nine months was not an unreasonable delay in light of the thoroughness of the hearing’s procedures. Id. It follows that a delay of less than nine months could infringe due process if there was no reason for the delay and, conversely, that a longer delay than nine months could in some circumstances be constitutionally justifiable. In the case at bar the allegations of both parties focus almost exclusively on the amount of time between suspension and Police Board review, and not on the reasons for delay. Defendants maintain that they do not deny the officers due process because the average delay is four to five months, far less than the nine months in Loudermill. The assertion misses the mark, because four or five months could be too long if there were no procedural justification for the delay. On the face of things we are inclined to think it is not, since the Board review includes trial-like protections for the parties such as representation, discovery and cross examination of witnesses. Preparing a good case takes time. However, plaintiffs allege that the delays come from the Department’s request for continuances which are routinely granted without determining the need for them. Plaintiffs point to cases which have dangled unresolved for up to two years. Two years does strike this court as too long, although it might not be if, for example, the delay was solely for the benefit of the officer involved. The issue needs factual development. This court needs to know not just how long but also why. Until it does, plaintiffs state a due process claim for delay of the evidentiary hearing. B. Illinois Law Defendants also attempt to save their procedures by arguing that they comply with Illinois law. Several Illinois appellate court decisions have held that Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, K 10-1-18.1 does not mean what it appears to mean, i.e., does not mean that an officer cannot be suspended without pay for more than 30 days without a hearing. Reasoning, apparently, that an officer who is reinstated with backpay to the 30th day after his suspension began has not actually been suspended over 30 days, while an officer whose suspension is eventually upheld has not been suspended without a hearing, these decisions hold that a suspended officer has no claim for his salary while awaiting his hearing. See Hoban, 73 Ill.App.3d at 679, 29 Ill.Dec. at 537, 392 N.E.2d at 94; Crowell v. Bilandic, 77 Ill. App.3d 162, 32 Ill.Dec. 642, 395 N.E.2d 1023 (1st Dist.1979), rev’d on other grounds 81 Ill.2d 422, 44 Ill.Dec. 110, 411 N.E.2d 16 (1980); Cotter v. Conlisk, 17 Ill.App.3d 346, 308 N.E.2d 1 (1st Dist.1974). Thus, defendants argue that a police officer’s property interest does not extend to salary while on suspension. Therefore, an officer suspended without a hearing has received all the procedure to which his interest entitles him. The Supreme Court, however, roundly rejected that line of argument in Loudermill. State law controls only the substance of property interests, not their procedure, and “property” is not defined by the procedures for its deprivation. 470 U.S. at 541, 105 S.Ct. at 1493. See also Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 490-491, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1262-1263, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). “Indeed, any other conclusion would allow the state to destroy at will virtually any state-created property interest.” Logan, 455 U.S. at 432, 102 S.Ct. at 1156. The question of delay before a hearing is granted, of the timing on the opportunity to be heard, is just as much a procedural question governed by constitutional standards as is the quality of the opportunity. Barry, 443 U.S. at 66, 99 S.Ct. at 2650; Goss, 419 U.S. at 583,