Independent Police Review Authority city of chicago
Office of the Mayor Committee on Public Safety Office ofthe City Clerk Legislative Reference Bureau
FROM: Scott M. Ando
Chief Administrator
DATE: July 15, 2015
Enclosed please find the Independent Police Review Authority's Quarterly Report provided pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-57-110, which requires the filing of quarterly reports. The information contained in this report is accurate as of July 14, 2015. This quarterly report provides information for the period from April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 312-746-
3551.
fO
CS3
cn
WEST CHICAGO AVENUE, •■ITH FLOOR. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ti\)*i?.-A 8l:i.74f?.8K»4 (COMPLAINT LINE) • 5irJ.74K.3tfi» (GENERAL) • ;t]a.745.33&3 (Try) • WWW.IPRACHlCAGO.pRC
City of Chicago Independent Police Review Authority
Quarterly Report
April 1, 2015 - June 30, 2015
July 15, 2015
i
This report is filed pursuant to Municipal Code of Chicago, Section 2-57-110, which requires the filing of quarterly reports. This quarterly report provides information for the period April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015. The information contained in this report is accurate as of July 14, 2015. All of IPRA's public reports are available at www, iprachicago. or g.
Quarterly Overview
For the second consecutive quarter, the number of officer-involved shootings matched an all time low since the creation of IPRA. There were 4 officer-involved shootings between April and June, equaling the same amount during the first quarter of 2015. IPRA opened 377 investigations which included 121 instances where officers discharged their Tasers.
IPRA completed 385 investigations during the second quarter. IPRA completed 37 sustained investigations from April to June; a slight increase for the third consecutive quarter. These are investigations where discipline was recommended by IPRA. Mediation numbers increased slightly as well. There were 31 cases during the last quarter where mediation was deemed appropriate and 25 cases where officers accepted mediation. IPRA will continue to work with the Fraternal Order of Police and the Policemen's Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois to extend mediation to those department members where it is warranted, thus leaving more investigative resources to close older cases.
The IPRA held meetings with members of the community and family members of individuals that were fatally wounded in officer-involved shootings. The department will continue to conduct such meetings and reach out to the community at large to inform them about IPRA and how to contact IPRA to register a complaint. During May, IPRA accepted an invitation by the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority to speak to a group of teens at Julian High School on the City's South Side and also made a visit to a group of young adults at the Austin Career Education Center, located at 5352 W. Chicago Avenue. During both visits, information was provided suggesting how to react when approached by the police. IPRA invited the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois to join during the Austin Career Education Center visit and assist in answering questions from the students. IPRA also held its very first Advisory Board Meeting at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Input was received from community leaders representing faith based organizations, private charitable organizations, the educational community, and elected officials of ideas how IPRA can publicize its mission to the community. IPRA was also represented at three different locations during the May 22nd Faith & Action Summer Campaign event; M.M.A.D (Men making a Difference) community BBQ at 15th & Christiana; Police Officer & Youths Basketball Game, BBQ, and Outdoor Roll at 1800 S. Throop; and the Austin Community Network event at Friendship Baptist Church (5200 W. Jackson). IPRA advised attendees of its function and how to contact IPRA. Also during the quarter, IPRA had a table at the June 17th "Pray Chicago" event held in Garfield Park in addition to speaking during a previously held planning meeting for the event to a group of pastors and community members. The IPRA also attended the three monthly Police Board Meetings held in April, May, and June.
2
IPRA Cumulative Figures
|
|
INTAKE
(all allegations/
notifications)1 |
IPRA
Investigations Opened2 |
IPRA
Investigations Closed |
IPRA Caseload |
|
Sept. 2007 |
746 |
216 |
162 |
1290 |
|
4Q 2007 |
2273 |
613 |
368 |
1535 |
|
1Q 2008 |
2366 |
590 |
554 |
1571 |
|
2Q 2008 |
2436 |
640 |
670 |
1541 |
|
3Q 2008 |
2634 |
681 |
667 |
1555 |
|
4Q 2008 |
2337 |
699 |
692 |
1562 |
|
1Q2009 |
2384 |
657 |
687 |
1532 |
|
2Q 2009 |
2648 |
755 |
651 |
1635 |
|
3Q 2009 |
2807 |
812 |
586 |
1981 |
|
4Q 2009 |
2235 |
617 |
654 |
1949 |
|
1Q2010 |
2191 |
640 |
561 |
2028 |
|
2Q 2010 |
2626 |
868 |
832 |
2048 |
|
3Q2010 |
2591 |
942 |
835 |
2168 |
|
4Q 2010 |
2127 |
746 |
6814 |
2233 |
|
1Q 2011 |
2023 |
610 |
711 |
2132 |
|
2Q 2011 |
2171 |
778 |
747 |
2159 |
|
3Q2011 |
2335 |
-788 |
749 |
2173 |
|
4Q 2011 |
2038 |
688 |
594 |
2237 |
|
1Q2012 |
1995 |
620 |
649 |
2210 |
|
2Q 2012 |
2155 |
693 |
747 |
2155 |
|
3Q2012 |
2264 |
690 |
698 |
2147 |
IPRA Cumulative Figures (Continued)
1 Pursuant to the IPRA Ordinance, certain events trigger an IPRA investigation even in the absence of an allegation of misconduct. The term "notification" refers to those events that IPRA investigates where there is no alleged misconduct.
2 This number includes investigations opened and assigned to IPRA as of the end of the identified quarter. It does not include investigations "Re-opened" because of the settlement of litigation, new evidence, or the results of the Command Channel Review process.
3 This number may include some investigations "Re-closed" after being Re-opened.
4 The number of investigations closed and IPRA Caseload reflect a correction of numbers reported in a previous report.
3
|
|
INTAKE
(all allegations/
notifications) |
IPRA
Investigations Opened |
IPRA
Investigations Closed |
IPRA Caseload |
|
4Q 2012 |
1824 |
543 |
759 |
1925 |
|
1Q 2013 |
1828 |
475 |
509 |
1883 |
|
2Q 2013 |
2122 |
558 |
668 |
1754 |
|
3Q2013 |
2032 |
508 |
692 |
1594 |
|
4Q 2013 |
1588 |
375 |
632 |
1327 |
|
1Q2014 |
1483 |
388 |
583 |
1133 |
|
2Q 2014 |
1768 |
484 |
642 |
971 |
|
3Q2014 |
1672 |
437 |
542 |
862 |
|
4Q 2014 |
1377 |
354 |
443 |
771 |
|
1Q 2015 |
1251 |
298 |
414 |
655 |
|
2Q 2015 |
1463 |
377 |
385 |
636 |
IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type5
|
|
IPRA
(COMPLAINT S) |
IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) |
|
INFO & CR |
EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO) |
HIT
SHOOTING
(U#) |
NON-HIT SHOOTING |
SHOOTING/ ANIMAL |
TASER |
oc
DISCHARGE |
|
Sept. 2007 |
195 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
3 |
2 |
|
40 2007 |
572 |
18 |
7 |
1 |
|
12 |
5 |
|
10 2008 |
475 |
16 |
8 |
12 |
18 |
31 |
16 |
|
20 2008 |
526 |
16 |
15 |
8 |
21 |
45 |
9 |
|
30 2008 |
563 |
8 |
14 |
10 |
20 |
52 |
13 |
|
40 2008 |
579 |
16 |
14 |
7 |
24 |
35 |
24 |
|
10 2009 |
553 |
11 |
9 |
9 |
25 |
39 |
14 |
|
20 2009 |
624 |
15 |
14 |
13 |
28 |
56 |
7 |
|
30 2009 |
657 |
21 |
18 |
16 |
18 |
63 |
22 |
|
40 2009 |
495 |
19 |
16 |
19 |
20 |
39 |
9 |
|
10 2010 |
482 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
29 |
74 |
15 |
5 Note: A single investigation may fall into more than one Incident Type. For instance, an investigation may be both an Extraordinary Occurrence (EO) and a Complaint Register (CR). For this chart, the investigation is counted in all applicable Incident Types. They are counted only once, in the total Log Numbers retained by IPRA. As defined by ordinance, an Extraordinary Occurrence (EO) is a death or injury to a person while in police custody or other extraordinary or unusual occurrence in a lockup facility.
4
IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type (Continued)
|
|
IPRA
(COMPLAINTS) |
IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) |
|
INFO & CR6 |
EXTRAORDINARY
OCCURRENCE
(EO) |
HIT
SHOOTING (U#) |
NON-HIT SHOOTING |
SHOOTING/ ANIMAL |
TASER |
oc
DISCHARGE 7 |
|
20 2010 |
505 |
16 |
10 |
10 |
19 |
285 |
27 |
|
30 2010 |
576 |
15 |
11 |
10 . |
30 |
285 |
16 |
|
40 2010 |
470 |
7 |
10 |
10 |
28 |
227 |
10 |
|
102011 |
377 |
17 |
15 |
12 |
27 |
155 |
10 |
|
20 2011 |
471 |
9 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
240 |
10 |
|
30 2011 |
460 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
22 |
248 |
9 |
|
40 2011 |
420 |
10 |
7 |
14 |
20 |
210 |
6 |
|
10 2012 |
384 |
14 |
12 |
10 |
13 |
186 |
3 |
|
20 2012 |
440 |
9 |
5 |
12 |
23 |
188 |
3 |
|
30 2012 |
411 |
12 |
19 |
14 |
28 |
204 |
5 |
|
40 2012 |
328 |
8 |
14 |
13 |
26 |
149 |
4 |
|
10 2013 |
329 |
24 |
11 |
9 |
15 |
87 |
5 |
|
20 2013 |
400 |
14 |
13 |
7 |
16 |
96 |
5 |
|
30 2013 |
344 |
14 |
13 |
5 |
14 |
110 |
8 |
|
40 2013 |
263 |
17 |
5 |
4 |
9 |
77 |
2 |
|
10 2014 |
264 |
17 |
10 |
4 |
14 |
76 |
2 |
|
20 2014 |
307 |
25 |
9 |
9 |
23 |
111 |
1 |
|
30 2014 |
269 |
12 |
13 |
9 |
17 |
115 |
2 |
|
40 2014 |
325 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
19 |
82 |
3 |
|
10 2015 |
325 |
13 |
4 |
5 |
12 |
82 |
3 |
|
20 2015 |
211 |
17 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
123 |
5 |
6 These numbers include one Log Number classified as both a U Number and a Complaint Register. These Log Numbers are counted only once in the total number of Log Numbers retained by IPRA, but included in the breakouts of all applicable incident types.
7 As of December 31, 2007, IPRA issued a Log Number for notifications of uses of taser, pepper spray, or for shootings where no one is injured only if it received a telephonic notification of the incident or there was an allegation of misconduct. As of January 1, 2008, IPRA implemented procedures to issue Log Numbers for all uses of Taser deployments and shootings, regardless ofthe method of notification.
In addition, CPD issued a reminder to CPD personnel to provide notification to IPRA. IPRA continues to issue Log Numbers for discharges of pepper spray at the request of CPD personnel.
5
|
|
* COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED |
|
Sustained 8 |
Not
Sustained 9 |
Unfounded |
Exonerated |
No
Affidavit |
|
1Q 2015 |
27 |
89 |
59 |
4 |
62 |
|
2Q 2015 |
37 |
61 |
40 |
1 |
85 |
* Investigation Completed include Closed and Re-Closed cases
2-57-110(6): The number of complaints filed in each district since the last report
Between April 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015, IPRA received complaints of alleged misconduct based on incidents in the following districts, as follows:
District 01 = 48 District 07 = 96 District 14 = 25
District 02 = 83 District 08 = 72 District 15 = 36
District 03 = 75 District 09 ="54 District 16 = 47
District 04 = 64 District 10 = 62 District 17 = 30
District 05 = 70 District 11 = 104 District 18 = 48
District 06 = 73 District 12 = 41 District 19 = 47
District 20 = 26 District 22 = 43 District 24 = 34 District 25 = 56
Outside City Limits = 29 Unknown location = 28
Abstracts for all investigations where IPRA has recommended a sustained finding can be found at www.iprachicago.org under the Resources heading.
9 The finding of "not sustained" is a term used in police misconduct investigations. It is defined in CPD Special Order S08-01-01 as "when there is insufficient evidence either to prove or disprove allegation." In addition, cases may be "unfounded," which means "the allegation is false or not factual."
10 "Complaints", reported as log numbers, is defined as all reports of alleged misconduct, whether from
the community or from a source internal to the Police Department, whether a Complaint Register number
has been issued or not. This does not include, absent an allegation of misconduct, reports of uses of Tasers,
pepper spray, discharges of weapons whether hitting an individual or not, or Extraordinary Occurrences.
Districts are identified based on the district where the alleged misconduct occurred. Some complaints
occurred in more than one District, they are counted in each district where they occurred. This list does
include confidential complaints.
6
2-57-110(7): The number of complaints filed against each officer in each district since the last report"
2-57-110(8): The number of complaints referred to other agencies and the identity of such other agencies
Between April 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015, IPRA referred 1092 cases to other agencies as follows:
Chicago Police Department - Internal Affairs Division = 1086 Cook County State's Attorney = 4 Federal Bureau of Investigations = 2
(See Attachment)
This uses the same definition of "complaints" as the preceding section. Except as otherwise noted,' if a member was assigned to one unit but detailed to another at the time of the complaint, the member is listed under the detailed unit.
7
ATTACHMENT: COMPLAINTS AGAINST CPD MEMBERS BY UNIT
District 001
Members 1-15: 1 complaint each Members 16-17: 2 complaints each District 002
Members 1-13: 1 complaint each Member 14: 2 complaints District 003
Members 1-18: 1 complaint each Members 19-21: 2 complaints each District 004
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each Member 11:3 complaints District 005
Members 1-22: 1 complaint each Member 23: 2 complaints District 006
Members 1-35: 1 complaint each Member 36: 2 complaints Member 37: 3 complaints District 007
Members 1-28: 1 complaint each Member 29: 2 complaints District 008
Members 1-20: 1 complaint each Member 21-24: 2 complaints each District 009
Members 1-19: 1 complaint each Member 20: 2 complaints District 010
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each Member 10: 2 complaints
District 011
Members 1-17: 1 complaint each Members 18-22: 2 complaints each District 012
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each District 014
Members 1-6: 1 complaint each Member 7: 2 complaints Member 8: 3 complaints District 015
Members 1-16: 1 complaint each District 016
Members 1-17: 1 complaint each District 017
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each District 018
Members 1 -23: 1 complaint each Members 24-25: 2 complaints each District 019
Members 1-18: 1 complaint each Members 19-20: 2 complaints each District 020
Members 1-18: 1 complaint each Member 19: 2 complaints District 022
Members 1-21: 1 complaint each District 024
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each District 025
Members 1-26: 1 complaint each District Reinstatement (045)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Airport Law Enforcement Unit -North (050)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Airport Law Enforcement Unit -South (051)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Member 3: 2 complaints
Legal Affairs Section (114)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Administration (120)
Member 1: 2 complaints
Bureau of Internal Affairs (121)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Human Resources Division (123)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Education and Training Division (124)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Inspection Division (126)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Special Functions Division (141)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Traffic Section (145)
Member 1: 2 complaints
Records Inquiry Section (163)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Field Services Section (166)
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each
Member 5: 2 complaints
Evidence and Recovered Property Section (167)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Central Detention (171)
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each
Forensics Services Division (177)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Bureau of Detectives (180)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Narcotics Section (189)
Members 1-31: 1 complaint each
Members 32-33: 2 complaints each
Intelligence Section (191)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Vice and Asset Forfeiture Division (192)
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each Gang Investigation Division (193)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Asset Forfeiture Investigations Section 096}
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Patrol - Area Central (211)
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Patrol - Area South (212)
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each
Member 15:2 complaints
Bureau of Patrol - Area North (213)
Members 1-5: 1 complaint each
Medical Services Section (231)
Member 1: 1 complaint each
Gang Enforcement - Area Central (311)
Members 1-8: 1 complaint each
Gang Enforcement - Area South (312)
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Gang Enforcement - Area North (313)
Members 1-6: 1 complaint each
Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Unit) 353
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each Alternate Response Section (376)
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each
Member 15:2 complaints
Juvenile Intervention Support Center (JISC) (384)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Gang Enforcement Division (393)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Area Central, Deputy Chief - Bureau of Patrol (411)
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Area South , Deputy Chief - Bureau of Patrol (412)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Area North , Deputy Chief - Bureau of Patrol (413)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Detached Services - Governmental Security Detail (542)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Detached Services - Miscellaneous Detail (543)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Central Investigations Unit (606)
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives - Area Central (610)
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each
Member 10: 2 complaints
Bureau of Detectives - Area South (620)
Members 1-12: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives - Area North (630)
Members 1-20: 1 complaint each Public Transportation Section (701) Members 1-4: 1 complaint each Transit Security Unit (704)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1/adopted minor child from harm on November 13, 2009, failed to seek timely medical treatment for Complainant 1/adopted minor child one week prior to November 15, 2009 and one month prior to November 15, 2009, and physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1 by failing to administer prescribed medication to him; "EXONERATED" for the allegation that on three separate occasions in 2009 she failed to summit a written report that she was under investigation by DCFS; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Log/C.R. No. 1047853
Notification Date: August 19, 2011 Location: 16th District Complaint: Racial
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and three Complainants (1,2, and 3), it was alleged that the Officer verbally abused Complainant 1, Complainant 2 and other family members on unknown dates and times for a period of years, made racial comments to Complainant 2 and his family, harassed Complainant 2 by threatening to have him and his family arrested, harassed Complainant 2 by telling him that she reported Complainant 2 to the city building inspector, harassed Complainant 2 by repeatedly flipping her middle finger at him, threatened to grab Complainant 2's children by their necks on unknown dates and times, harassed Complainant 3 on unknown dates and times, was disrespectful towards Complainant 1, and used Chicago Police Department (CPD) resources for personal gain.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and Complainants; department reports/records, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Reprimand
for the allegation that she used CPD resources for personal gain; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
Log/C.R. No. 1052025
Notification Date: February 21, 2012 Location: 18th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer and two Complainants (1 and 2), it was alleged that while on the Chicago Transit Authority's red line platform, the Officer grabbed Complainant 1 by the neck, pushed him against the wall and struck him on the face without justification. It is further alleged that the Officer directed racial slurs and profanities at Complainant 1, and threw his state identification card into the trash can. It was also alleged that the Officer made an inaccurate and/or incomplete report regarding the incident, falsely arrested Complainant 1, and falsely swore to and signed a misdemeanor complaint. The Officer is also alleged to have pushed Complainant 2 against the wall, failed to identify himself as an officer when requested, refused to show his department identification card, refused to provide Complainant 2 with his department identification card, used racially biased language in his conversation with Complainant 2, and directed profanity toward Complainant 2.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 2-day suspension for
the allegations that he made an inaccurate and/or incomplete report regarding the incident, used racially biased language in his conversation with Complainant 2, and directed profanity toward Complainants 1 and 2. All other allegations were "NOT SUSTAINED."
Log/C.R. No. 1064583
Notification Date: August 30, 2013 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Complaint: Domestic Incident
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant/Sergeant (husband), it was alleged that while inside a vehicle, the Officer threw coins at the Complainant/Sergeant, struck the Complainant/Sergeant about the body and threatened to leave with the children if the Complainant/Sergeant did not get back in the car.
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainant/Sergeant, a witness; and department re ports/records;
IPRA recommended a finding of "SUSTAINED" and a
penalty of a
Reprimand for the allegations that the Officer, while inside a vehicle, threw coins at the Complainant/Sergeant and threatened to leave with the children if the Complainant/Sergeant did not get back in the car. A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that the Officer struck the Complainant/Sergeant about the body.
Log/C.R. No. 1061456
Notification Date: April 13, 2013 Location: 2nd District Complaint: Domestic Incident
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Officer harassed the Complainant from March 7, 2013 to April 13, 2013, by sending her a Facebook message, numerous text messages and making numerous unwanted calls to the Complainant's cell phone. It was further alleged that on April 13, 2013, the Officer harassed the Complainant by sending numerous texts and making numerous unwanted phone calls to the Complainant's cell phone. It was also alleged that, on April 13, 2013, the Officer made entry into the Complainant's building without her permission. Additionally, it was alleged that, on May 11, 2013, the Officer sent the Complainant numerous text messages. Finally, it was alleged that the Officer contacted the Complainant via telephone on June 17, 2013 and failed to notify the Department that he was the respondent of an order of protection.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 2-day suspension for
the allegations that the Officer harassed the Complainant from March 7, 2013 to April 13, 2013, by sending her a Facebook message, numerous text messages and making numerous unwanted calls to the Complainant's cell phone, harassed the Complainant by sending numerous texts, making numerous unwanted phone calls to the Complainant's cell phone on April 13, 2013, harassed the Complainant by sending the Complainant numerous text messages on May
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
11, 2013, contacted the Complainant via telephone on June 17, 2013 and failed to notify the Department that he was a respondent of an order of protection; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that, on April 13, 2013, the Officer made entry into the Complainant's building without her permission.
Log/C.R. No. 1068827
Notification Date: April 28, 2014 Location: 1st District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving a Detention Aide and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Detention Aide struck the Complainant on the head with a boot.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and a witness; department reports/records and a video recording; IPRA recommended the following:
Dentention Aide: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Violation Noted for the allegation that he struck the Complainant on the head with a boot.
Log/C.R. No. 1034630
Notification Date: March 16, 2010 Location: 5th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving ten CPD Officers (A-J), two Sergeants (A and B), a Lieutenant, and the Complainant, it was alleged that Officer A failed to provide immediate medical attention for the Complainant, failed to document the traffic crash/accident involving the Complainant and failed to complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR). Also, it was alleged that Officer B failed to provide immediate medical attention for the Complainant and failed to document the traffic crash/accident involving the Complainant. It was further alleged that Officers C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and Sergeants A and B conspired to falsely arrest the Complainant, conspired to use
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
excessive force against the Complainant, conspired not to report each other after witnessing and/or using excessive force on the Complainant, conspired not to report each other after falsely arresting the Complainant, conspired to generate false documentation to cover up for their and other officers' misconduct, conspired not to report each other or identify unknown police officers after witnessing unknown police officers hitting the Complainant with an unmarked squad car, and failed to provide immediate medical attention for the Complainant. Finally, it was alleged that the Lieutenant violated General Order 93-03-02B, when he went and viewed the security camera footage in relation to the alleged misconduct of a department member in which an investigation was being conducted by IPRA and the Lieutenant brought discredit upon the Department when he viewed the surveillance video and immediately dismissed the Complainant's complaint.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and a witness; department reports/records, medical records, photos, a video recording, and OEMC communications; IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for all ,the allegations. Officer B: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the allegations.
Officer C. P, E, F: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the
allegations.
Officer G and J: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that they conspired to falsely arrest the Complainant. "NOT SUSTAINED"
for all other allegations.
Officer H: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for all the allegations.
Sergeant A: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the allegations.
Sergeant B: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for all the allegations.
Lieutenant: During mediation, the Lieutenant agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he violated General Order 93-03-02B, when he went and viewed the security camera footage in relation to the alleged misconduct of a department
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
member in which an investigation was being conducted by IPRA and a penalty of a VIOLATION NOTED. The allegation that the Lieutenant brought discredit upon the Department when he viewed the surveillance video and immediately dismissed the Complainant's complaint was "NOT SUSTAINED."
Log/C.R. No. 1051991
Notification Date: February 19, 2012 Location: 2nd District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer, a Sergeant and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Officer detained the Complainant without justification, transported the Complainant to the hospital against his will, slammed the Complainant against a wall, directed profanities at the Complainant, and released the Complainant without approval from the watch commander. It was further alleged that the Sergeant released the Complainant without approval from the watch commander.
Finding: Based on statements from the Officer, Sergeant,
and Complainant; department reports/records, video recording and
medical records, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Reprimand
for the allegations that he detained the Complainant without justification and transported the Complainant to the hospital against his will; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegations that he slammed the Complainant against the wall and directed profanities at the Complainant; "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that he released the Complainant from custody without approval from the watch commander.
Sergeant: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that he released the Complainant from custody without approval from the watch commander.
Log/C.R. No. 1069841
Notification Date: June 17, 2014 Location: 6th District .
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer, a Sergeant and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Officer directed profanities at the Complainant and punched the Complainant. It was further alleged that the Sergeant failed to register a CR as requested by the Complainant.
Finding: Based on statements from the accused Officer, Sergeant, witnesses, and Complainant; department reports/records and medical records; IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he directed profanities at the Complainant; "EXONERATED" for the allegations that he punched the Complainant.
Sergeant: During mediation, the Sergeant agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Violation Noted for the
allegation that he failed to register a CR as requested by the Complainant.
Log/C.R. No. 1065605
Notification Date: October 19, 2013
Location: 2nd District
Complaint: Unnecessary Physical Contact
Summary: In an incident involving two on-duty CPD Officers, it was alleged that Officer A pushed Officer B and Officer B pushed Officer A.
Finding: Based on statements from the accused Officers and witnesses; department reports/records, and an OEMC recording, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that she pushed Officer B.
Officer B: During mediation, Officer B agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he pushed Officer A and a penalty of a Reprimand.
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
Log/C.R. No. 1040551
Notification Date: October 12, 2010 Location: 6th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty Sergeant, six on-duty CPD Officers (A, B, C, D, E, F), and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Sergeant struck the Complainant on the face, failed to complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR) regarding the incident, was found guilty of two counts of Aggravated Battery, was found guilty of Official Misconduct, and brought discredit upon the Department. It was also alleged that Officer A physically maltreated the Complainant by knocking his hat off his head, directed profanities at the Complainant, observed the Sergeant slap the Complainant without justification and failed to report it, and brought discredit upon the Department by physically maltreating the Complainant. Also, it was alleged that Officers B, C, and D observed the Sergeant slap the Complainant without justification and failed to report it. It was further alleged that Officer E observed the Sergeant slap the Complainant without justification and failed to report it, failed to protect the Complainant, and put the incorrect time of incident on the General Offense Case Report for this incident. Finally, it was alleged that Officer F observed the Sergeant slap the Complainant without justification and failed to report it, failed to protect the Complainant, falsely arrested the Complainant, put the incorrect time of incident on the General Offense Case Report for this incident and brought discredit upon the Department by failing to protect the Complainant.
Finding: Based on statements from the accused Officers, Sergeant and witnesses; department reports/records, court documents and a video recording, IPRA recommended the following:
Sergeant: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of Separation
for all allegations.
Officer A: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 2-day suspension for the allegations that she physically maltreated the Complainant by knocking his hat off his head, brought discredit upon
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
the Department by physically maltreating the Complainant when she knocked his hat off his head, and observed the Sergeant slap the Complainant without justification and failed to report it; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that she directed profanities at the Complainant.
Officer B, C, D: During mediation, Officer B, C, and D agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a 3-day suspension.
Officer E: During mediation, Officer E agreed to
accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for all allegations and a
penalty of a 5-day suspension.
Officer F: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 1-day suspension for the allegations that he failed to protect the Complainant and brought discredit upon the Department by failing to protect the Complainant; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he observed the Sergeant slap the Complainant without justification and failed to report it; "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that he falsely arrested the Complainant and put the incorrect time of incident on the General Offense Case Report for this incident.
Log/C.R. No. 1067091
Notification Date: January 18, 2014 Location: 8th District Complaint: RACIAL/ETHNIC
Summary: In an incident involving two on-duty CPD Officers (A, and B), five on-duty Sergeants (A, B, C, D, and E), a Lieutenant and the Complainant, it was alleged that during a foot pursuit Officer A made racial comments to the Complainant and Officer B failed to report misconduct committed by Officer A when Officer A made racial comments to the Complainant. It was also alleged that Sergeant A failed to obtain a complaint register number regarding Officer A's misconduct and was inattentive to duty in that he failed to monitor his radio during the foot pursuit of the Complainant by Officer A and B. Also, it was alleged that Sergeant B, C, D, and E failed to obtain a complaint register number regarding Officer A's misconduct. It was further alleged that the Lieutenant failed to obtain a complaint register number regarding Officer A's misconduct and was inattentive to duty
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
in that he failed to monitor his radio during the foot pursuit of the Complainant.
Finding: Based on statements from the accused and Complainant; department reports/records, and OEMC radio transmissions, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: During mediation, Officer A agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a 10-day suspension.
Officer B: During mediation, Officer B agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a 1-day suspension.
Sergeant A: During mediation, Sergeant A agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Reprimand for the
allegation that he was inattentive to duty in that he failed to monitor his radio during the foot pursuit of the Complainant by Officer A and B; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he failed to obtain a complaint register number regarding Officer A's misconduct.
Sergeant B. C. D and E: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the
allegation that they failed to obtain a complaint register number regarding Officer A's misconduct.
Lieutenant: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Reprimand for the allegation that he failed to obtain a complaint register number regarding Officer A's misconduct; ANOT SUSTAINED"
for the allegation that he failed to monitor his radio during the foot pursuit of the Complainant by Officer A and B.
Log/C.R. No. 1061941
Notification Date: May 2, 2013 Location: 1st District Complaint: Proper Care
Summary: In an incident involving four on-duty CPD Officers (A, B, C, and D), it was alleged that Officers A, B, C, and D failed to properly
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
search the Subject/Arrestee, who was subsequently observed cutting his forearm with a knife.
Finding: Based on statements from the accused; department reports/records; Chicago Fire Department run sheet; medical report; and photographs, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A, B. and C: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the
allegation that they failed to properly search the Subject/Arrestee.
Officer D: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Reprimand for the allegation that he failed to properly search the Subject/Arrestee, who was subsequently observed cutting his forearm with a knife.
Officer E: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he failed to properly search the Subject/Arrestee.
Log/C.R. No. 1068523
Notification Date: April 11, 2014 Location: 24th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and two Complainants (A and B), it was alleged that the Officer pointed his gun at the Complainants without justification, directed profanities toward the Complainants, struck Complainant A with his gun and kicked Complainant A on his legs.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused Officer, the Complainants, and a witness; department reports/records; medical records, and photos, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 5-day suspension for the allegations that he pointed his gun at the Complainants without justification, directed profanities toward the Complainants, and kicked Complainant A on his legs; "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that he struck Complainant A with his gun.
Log/C.R. No. 1032414
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
Notification Date: December 10, 2009 Location: 8th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, the Officer was alleged to have improperly displayed his weapon, engaged in an unauthorized and improper vehicle pursuit, grabbed the Complainant and threw her to and held her on the ground, grabbed the Complainant's cell phone and failed to return it, threatened to discharge a Taser at/on her, failed to identify himself as a police officer, pointed his weapon at the Complainant without justification, failed to complete departmental reports and brought discredit upon the Department by his overall actions.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Violation Noted for the allegation that he failed to complete department reports; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the all the other allegations.
Log/C.R. No. 1050270
Notification Date: November 26, 2011 Location: 24th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving four on-duty CPD Officers (A, B, C, and D), an unknown on-duty CPD officer (E) and five Complainants (1,2,3,4,and 5), Officers A and D were alleged to have directed profanities at the Complainants, knocked Complainant l's head on a table, pushed Complainant 1 against a fence several times, punched Complainant 1 several times about the face and body, banged Complainant l's head several times against the back window of a police vehicle, entered Complainant l's residence without justification, handcuffed Complainant 1 too tightly, punched Complainant 1 in the face and groin several times, and failed to complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR). It was further alleged that Officers B and C struck Complainant 2 with an object several times about the body and made improper racial comments to Complainant 2. Finally, it was alleged that Officer E directed profanities at the Complainants, knocked Complainant l's head on a table, pushed Complainant 1
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
against a fence several times, punched Complainant 1 several times about the face and body, banged Complainant l's head several times against the back window of a police vehicle, broke Complainant l's rear view mirror to his vehicle, handcuffed Complainant 3 too tightly and refused to loosen the handcuffs, made improper racial remarks to Complainant 4 and Complainant 2, handcuffed Complainant 1 too tightly and punched Complainant 1 in the face and groin several times.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainants; department re ports/records; medical reports; a video, and photos, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A and D: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a "Reprimand" for directing profanities at the Complainants and failing to complete a TRR; "NOT SUSTAINED" for knocking Complainant l's head on a table, pushing Complainant 1 against a fence several times, punching Complainant 1 several times about the face and body, banging Complainant l's head several times against the back window of a police vehicle, entering Complainant l's residence without justification, and punching Complainant 1 in the face and groin several times; "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that they handcuffed Complainant 1 too tightly.
Officer B and C: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for striking Complainant 2 with an object several times about the body and making improper racial comments to Complainant 2.
Officer E: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for directing profanities at the Complainants, knocking Complainant l's head on a table, pushing Complainant 1 against a fence several times, punching Complainant 1 several times about the face and body, banging Complainant l's head several times against the back window of a police vehicle, breaking the rear view mirror of Complainant l's vehicle, making improper racial remarks to Complainant 4 and Complainant 2, and punching Complainant 1 in the face and groin several times; "UNFOUNDED" for handcuffing Complainant 3 too tightly and refusing to loosen the handcuffs and handcuffing Complainant 1 too tightly.
Log/C.R. No. 1055267
Notification Date: July 4, 2012 Location: 4th District
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
Complaint: Domestic Incident
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant/spouse, it was alleged that the Officer repeatedly struck the Complainant/spouse on the face, restrained the Complainant/spouse by holding her down against the floor, pursued the Complainant/spouse from the residence as she attempted to get away, grabbed the Complainant/spouse about the body, and brought discredit upon the Department in that he was arrested for domestic battery.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and six witnesses; department reports/records, photos, OEMC communications, and court documents, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "SUSTAINED" for all allegations and a penalty of a "45-day suspension."
Log/C.R. No. 1031971
Notification Date: November 19, 2009 Location: 4th District Complaint: Domestic Altercation
Summary: In an incident involving two off-duty CPD Officers (A and B) and three Complainants/adopted minor children (1, 2, and 3), it was alleged that, during the course of several law enforcement investigations regarding the abuse and/or neglect of Officer B's three adopted minor children, Officer A made false reports to medical personnel and/or law enforcement, physically maltreated Complainant 1/adopted minor child on an unspecified time and date between June and July of 2008, physically maltreated Complainant 1/adopted minor child on April 29, 2009, November 13, 2009, one week prior to November 15, 2009, and one month prior to November 15, 2009. Officer A is also alleged to have physically maltreated Complainant 2/adopted minor child on February 24, 2009, on or about November 15, 2009, and physically maltreated Complainant 3/adopted minor child on or on about November 15, 2009. Also, it was alleged that Officer B on three separate occasions in 2009 failed to summit a written report that she was under investigation by the Illinois
Abstracts of Sustained Cases April 2015
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), made false reports to medical personnel and/or law enforcement officials during the course of several law enforcement investigations regarding abuse and/or neglect of the Complainants/adopted minor children, failed to seek timely medical treatment for Complainant 1/adopted minor child on an unspecified date between June and July of 2008, on April 29, 2009, one week prior to November 15, 2009, and one month prior to November 15, 2009, physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1/adopted minor child from harm on an unspecified date between June and July of 2008, on approximately April 29, 2009, November 13, 2009, one week prior to November 15, 2009 and one month prior to November 15, 2009, physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1/adopted minor child by failing to administer prescribed medication to him, physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 2/adopted minor child from harm on February 24, 2009 and on November 15, 2009, and physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 3/adopted minor child from harm on November 15, 2009.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and witnesses, department reports/records, photos, doctors' statements, medical reports, and DCFS report, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of Separation
for the allegations that during the course of several law enforcement investigations regarding the abuse and/or neglect of Officer B's three adopted minor children, Officer A made false reports to medical and/or law enforcement personnel, physically maltreated Complainant 1/adopted minor child on April 29, 2009 and on November 13, 2009; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Officer B: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of Separation
for the allegations that during the course of several law enforcement investigation regarding abuse and/or neglect of the Complainants/adopted minor children she made false reports to medical personnel and/or law enforcement officials, failed to seek timely medical treatment for Complainant 1/adopted minor child on an unspecified date between June and July of 2008, physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1/adopted minor child from harm on an unspecified date between June and July of 2008 and on approximately April 29, 2009, failed to seek timely medical treatment for Complainant 1/adopted minor child on April 29, 2009, physically
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
April 2015
maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1/adopted minor child from harm on November 13, 2009, failed to seek timely medical treatment for Complainant 1/adopted minor child one week prior to November 15, 2009 and one month prior to November 15, 2009, and physically maltreated and/or failed to protect Complainant 1 by failing to administer prescribed medication to him; "EXONERATED" for the allegation that on three separate occasions in 2009 she failed to summit a written report that she was under investigation by DCFS; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Log/C.R. No. 1047853
Notification Date: August 19, 2011 Location: 16th District Complaint: Racial
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and three Complainants (1,2, and 3), it was alleged that the Officer verbally abused Complainant 1, Complainant 2 and other family members on unknown dates and times for a period of years, made racial comments to Complainant 2 and his family, harassed Complainant 2 by threatening to have him and his family arrested, harassed Complainant 2 by telling him that she reported Complainant 2 to the city building inspector, harassed Complainant 2 by repeatedly flipping her middle finger at him, threatened to grab Complainant 2's children by their necks on unknown dates and times, harassed Complainant 3 on unknown dates and times, was disrespectful towards Complainant 1, and used Chicago Police Department (CPD) resources for personal gain.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and Complainants; department reports/records, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Reprimand
for the allegation that she used CPD resources for personal gain; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
Log/C.R. No. 1069863
Notification Date: June 17, 2014 Location: 11th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer and two Complainants (Complainant 1/parent and Complainant 2/minor child), it was alleged that the CPD Officer directed profanities at Complainant 2/minor child and punched Complainant 2/minor child on the right side of his rib cage which knocked him to the ground. Also, it was alleged that the CPD Officer failed to document his encounter with Complainant 2/minor child.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the
Complainant 2/minor child and three witnesses; department
re ports/records; and OEMC transmissions IPRA recommended a finding
of "SUSTAINED" for all allegations and a penalty of a 30-day
suspension.
Log/C.R. No. 1072316
Notification Date: October 31, 2014
Location: 6th District
Complaint: Accidental Taser Discharge
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer, the Officer was alleged to have failed to maintain control of his Taser causing it to . accidentally discharge.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a Violation Noted.
Log/C.R. No. 1068869
Notification Date: April 29, 2014 Location: Chester, CT Complaint: Domestic Incident
Summary: In an incident involving a CPD Officer/nephew and the
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
Complainant/aunt, it was alleged that the Officer/nephew harassed the Complainant/aunt by directing profanities at the Complainant/aunt via Facebook, threatened the Complainant/aunt by writing that she should not return to Chicago, harassed the Complainant/aunt by sending numerous unwanted text messages between approximately April 15, 2014 and April 28, 2014, directed profanities at the Complainant/aunt via text messages, called the Complainant/aunt various derogatory terms via text messages, harassed the Complainant/aunt by calling the Complainant/aunt, and harassed the Complainant/aunt by sending numerous text messages.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer/nephew agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Violation Noted
for the allegations that he harassed the Complainant/aunt by sending numerous unwanted text messages between approximately April 15, 2014 and April 28, 2014, directed profanities at the Complainant/aunt via text messages and called the Complainant/aunt in various derogatory terms via text messages. All other allegations were "NOT SUSTAINED."
Log/C.R. No. 1074318
Notification Date: March 20, 2015
Location: 8th District
Complaint: Accidental Taser Discharge
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer, it was alleged that while at the station the Officer accidentally discharged her Taser during routine spark testing.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a Violation Noted.
Log/C.R. No. 1069987
Notification Date: June 25, 2014
Location: 6th District
Complaint: Accidental Taser Discharge
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer, it was alleged that while at the station the Officer accidentally discharged her
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
Taser during routine spark testing.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a Violation Noted.
Log/C.R. No. 1060197
Notification Date: February 16, 2013 Location: 8th District Complaint: Racial/Ethnic
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Officer made racially offensive comments to the Complainant and failed to complete a Traffic Stop Statistical Study Card.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainant and a witness; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended a finding of "SUSTAINED" for all allegations and a penalty of a 2-day suspension.
Log/C.R. No. 1073331
Notification Date: January 12, 2015 Location: 9th District
Complaint: Unnecessary Display of Weapon
Summary: In an incident involving one off-duty CPD Officer (Officer A), two on-duty CPD Officers (Officers B and C) and the Complainant, it was alleged that during a traffic altercation, Officer A pointed a gun at the Complainant, failed to notify a supervisor that he was under investigation by another law enforcement agency, and brought discredit upon the Department by displaying his gun at the Complainant. It was further alleged that Officer B and C failed to make a police report regarding the incident reported by the Complainant.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and the Complainant; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended the following:
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
May 2015
Officer A: A finding of "SUSTAINED" for all allegations and a penalty of Separation.
Officer B and C: During mediation, the Officers agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a Violation Noted.
Log/C.R. No. 1033422
Notification Date: January 25, 2012 Location: 7th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving two on-duty CPD Officers (Officer A and B) and the Complainant, Officer A was alleged to have violated the Department's Deadly Force Policy by shooting the Complainant without justification. Officer B was alleged to have violated the Department's procedures on crime scene protection and processing by moving and handling two guns without rubber gloves prior to evidence/forensic technicians' arrival on the scene.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainant and five witnesses; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation.
Officer B: A finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a Reprimand.
Log/C.R. No. 1074686
Notification Date: April 15, 2015
Location: 19th District
Complaint: Unnecessary Physical Contact
Summary: In an incident involving two on-duty CPD Officers (A and B) and the Complainant, it was alleged that Officer A directed profanity at the Complainant, pushed and handcuffed the Complainant too tight. It was also alleged that Officer B failed to register a complaint upon the Complainant's request.
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from both accused, the Complainant, and two witnesses; and department reports/records, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: A finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for directing profanity at the Complainant; "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that he pushed and handcuffed the Complainant too tight.
Officer B: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a Violation Noted.
Log/C.R. No. 1068340
Notification Date: April 2, 2014 Location: 16th District Complaint: Racial/Ethnic
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer and two on-duty CPD Officers/Complainants (Officer/Complainant 1 and Officer/Complainant 2), it was alleged that the Officer directed ethnically biased language at Officer/Complainant 1 and directed profanity at both Officers/Complainants.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainants and a witness; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended a finding of "SUSTAINED" for all allegations and a penalty of a 1-day suspension.
Log/C.R. No. 1067611
Notification Date: February 20, 2014
Location: 16th District
Complaint: Unnecessary Display of Weapon
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that while conducting a traffic stop the Officer unnecessarily displayed his firearm by pointing it in the Complainant's face, directed profanities at the Complainant, issued several traffic citations without justification, performed an improper traffic stop by failing to adhere to basic traffic safety practices, acted
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
unprofessionally in his interactions with the Complainant, and abused his police authority in his interactions with the Complainant.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and a witness, department re ports/records and a video, IPRA recommended a finding of "SUSTAINED" for unnecessary display of his weapon and acting unprofessionally in his interactions with the Complainant and a penalty of a " 1-day suspension". "NOT SUSTAINED" for directing profanities at the Complainant and issuing several traffic citations without justification. "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that he performed an improper traffic stop by failing to adhere to basic traffic safety practices and abused his police authority in his interactions with the Complainant.
Log/C.R. No. 1057473
Notification Date: October 2, 2012 Location: 3rd District Complaint: Domestic Incident
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Sergeant/ex-boyfriend and the Complainant/ex-girlfriend, it was alleged that, while aboard the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend's boat the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend was drinking while on duty, forcefully grabbed the Complainant/ex-girlfriend's arm, placed his forearm on the Complainant/ex-girlfriend's neck and slammed her against his truck, made an inappropriate comment to the Complainant/ex-girlfriend, took Complainant/ex-girlfriend's cell phone from her and prevented her from calling the police, and directed profanity at the Complainant/ex-girlfriend. Also, it was alleged that on or about September 22, 2012 the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend directed profanities at the Complainant/ex-girlfriend via text message. It is also was alleged that on or about August 29, 2012 the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend picked the Complainant/ex-girlfriend up and held her upside down and dropped her face first on the floor. It was further alleged that on an unknown date the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend punched the Complainant/ex-girlfriend on her left arm. Also, during the course of the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend's tour of duty on September 28, 2012-September 29, 2012, it was alleged that the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend left his 5th district assignment and traveled to the 3rd district without authorization, failed to notify OEMC of his change in availability when he left his 5th district assignment and traveled to 3rd district and failed to indicate the reason for that change and his
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
specific street location, was absent without permission, failed to respond to assignments given to him by OEMC, neglected his duty in that he did not respond to assignments given to him by OEMC and was inattentive to duty in that he failed to supervise his subordinates. Finally, it was alleged that the Sergeant/ex-boyfriend placed an inaccurate date and time on a case report and placed an inaccurate incident date on a petition for order of protection.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainant/ex-girlfriend; and department reports/records, IPRA recommended a finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 2-day suspension for the allegations that he directed profanities at the Complainant/ex-girlfriend, directed profanities at the Complainant/ex-girlfriend via text message on or about September 22, 2012, placed an inaccurate date and time on a case report and placed an inaccurate incident date on a petition for order of protection; "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that he was drinking while on duty, during the course of his tour of duty on September 28, 2012-September 29, 2012, he left his 5th district assignment and traveled to the 3rd district without authorization, failed to notify OEMC of his change in availability when he left his 5th district assignment and traveled to 3rd district and failed to indicate the reason for that change and his specific street location, was absent without permission, failed to respond to assignments given to him by OEMC, neglected his duty in that he did not respond to assignments given to him by OEMC and was inattentive to duty in that he failed to supervise his subordinates. All the other allegations were "NOT SUSTAINED."
Log/C.R. No. 1068751
Notification Date: April 23, 2014 Location: 1st District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Officer slapped, punched and directed profanities at the Complainant.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for all the allegations and a penalty of a 2-day suspension.
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases May 2015
Log/C.R. No. 1049811
Notification Date: November 5, 2011 Location: 13th District Complaint: Firearm Discharge
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer, it was alleged that the Officer was inattentive to duty in that he discharged his firearm without identifying the appropriate target and, while on-duty, provided a false statement regarding his actions in the police-involved shooting.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and two witnesses; department reports/records, a video, and OEMC recordings, IPRA recommended a finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of Separation for all the allegations.
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases June 2015
Log/C.R. No. 1071692
Notification Date: September 24, 2014 Location: 10th District Complaint: Firearm Discharge
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Officer, it was alleged that during the execution of a search warrant, the Officer was inattentive to duty in that she failed to maintain control of her firearm, causing it to accidentally discharge.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a 1-day suspension.
Log/C.R. No. 1065759
Notification Date: October 27, 2013 Location: Aurora, IL
Complaint: Unnecessary Physical Contact
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that while involved in a verbal altercation the Officer grabbed, pushed and directed profanities at the Complainant.
Finding: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept
IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a Violation Noted
for the allegation that while involved in an verbal altercation he directed profanities; "UNFOUNED" for the allegation that he grabbed and pushed the Complainant.
Log/C.R. No. 1066452
Notification Date: December 5, 2013 Location: 19th District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving an off-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Officer engaged in an unjustified
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases June 2015
physical altercation when he pushed the Complainant to the floor causing injury to his right shoulder. It was also alleged that the Officer used profanity and directed racially motivated language at the Complainant, was intoxicated, and brought discredit upon the Department when he engaged in a verbal and physical altercation while off-duty.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused and the Complainant; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended the following:
Officer: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and penalty of a 20-day suspension for the allegations that he engaged in an unjustified physical altercation when he pushed the Complainant to the floor causing injury to his right shoulder, used profanity and directed racially motivated language at the Complainant, and brought discredit upon the Department when he engaged in a verbal and physical altercation while off-duty; "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he was intoxicated.
Log/C.R. No. 1069362
Notification Date: May 23, 2014 Location: 22nd District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving two off-duty CPD Officers (Officer A and B), it was alleged that Officer A grabbed the Complainant from behind and placed him in a "full nelson" position, failed to complete an Officer's Battery Report (OBR), failed to complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR), and detained the Complainant without lawful justification. It was also alleged that on September 30, 2014, Officer A's demeanor was unbecoming during a discussion regarding possible mediation of his case. In addition, it was alleged that on October 15, 2015, Officer A delayed the investigation because he failed to arrive for a scheduled statement with IPRA. It was further alleged that on October 21, 2014, Officer A provided a false statement to IPRA. Finally, it was alleged that Officer B grabbed the Complainant's arm and bent it.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases June 2015
Complainant, and witnesses; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: A finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 3-day suspension for the allegations that he failed to complete an OBR, failed to complete a TRR, and delayed the investigation because he failed to arrive for a scheduled statement with IPRA; "UNFOUNDED' for the allegation that he detained the Complainant without lawful justification; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Officer B: During mediation, Officer B agreed to accept
IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a
Reprimand.
Log/C.R. No. 1067407
Notification Date: February 8, 2014 Location: 22nd District Complaint: Excessive Force
Summary: In an incident involving two on-duty CPD Sergeants (Sergeant 1 and 2), eight on-duty CPD Officers (Officer A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) and three Complainants (la, 2b, and 3c), it was alleged that Officers A and B reported an armed robbery in progress without sufficient evidence, thereby unnecessarily placing citizens, the Complainants, and fellow officers in a potentially dangerous situation. It was also alleged that Sergeants 1, 2 and Officers C, D, E, F, G and H pointed a gun at the Complainants, grabbed and pushed the Complainants to the ground and against a vehicle, and directed profanities at the Complainants.
Finding: Based on statements to IPRA from the accused, the Complainant and a witness; and department reports/records; IPRA recommended the following:
Sergeant 1: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for all allegations.
Sergeant 2: A finding of,"EXONERATED" for the
allegation that he pointed a gun at the Complainants; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases June 2015
Officer A: During mediation, the Officer agreed to accept
IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a
30-day suspension.
Officer B: A finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation and a penalty of a 30-day suspension.
Officer C. D, E. F. G: A finding of "UNFOUNDED" for all
allegations.
Officer H: A finding of "EXONERATED" for the
allegation that they pointed a gun at the Complainants; "NOT SUSTAINED" for all the other allegations.
Log/C.R. No. 300039
Notification Date: August 17, 2014 Location: 17th District Complaint: Inattention to Duty
Summary: In an incident involving an on-duty CPD Sergeant, an on-duty CPD Officer and the Complainant, it was alleged that the Sergeant failed to comply with a general order, left his duty assignment without being properly relieved or without proper authorization, left his district of assignment and failed to obtain authorization to leave his district of assignment. Also, it was alleged that the Sergeant failed to notify OEMC that he initiated the pursuit of a vehicle, was involved in an unauthorized vehicle pursuit and failed to properly document his involvement in the vehicle pursuit of a stolen vehicle, failed to make immediate notification to OEMC about the traffic accident, failed to obtain immediate medical attention for the Complainant, failed to complete a vehicle pursuit report after the incident, gave an inaccurate account of his involvement in the pursuit ofthe stolen vehicle, and gave an inaccurate account involving his actions. It was further alleged that on September 23, 2004, the Sergeant submitted an inaccurate report regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit, and submitted an inaccurate report regarding his actions related to the traffic accident. Finally, it was alleged that during his formal deposition on September 14, 2006, the Sergeant gave inconsistent testimony regarding his involvement in a vehicle pursuit in that he was not involved in a vehicle pursuit and that he never told an investigator that he was in the parking lot prior to the
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
June 2015
accident. The Officer was alleged to have failed to comply with a general order, left his duty assignment without being properly relieved or without proper authorization, was involved in an unauthorized vehicle pursuit, failed to notify a supervisor of the vehicle pursuit and failed to properly document his involvement in the pursuit of a stolen vehicle. It was further alleged that the Officer failed to notify OEMC that he initiated a pursuit of a vehicle, failed to make an immediate notification to OEMC about the traffic accident, failed to provide immediate medical attention to the Complainant, failed to complete a vehicle pursuit report after the incident, and provided an inaccurate account of his involvement in the pursuit of the stolen vehicle. Also, on September 23, 2004, it was alleged that the Officer submitted an inaccurate report regarding his involvement of the vehicle pursuit. In addition, it was alleged that the Officer submitted an inaccurate report regarding his actions related to the traffic accident. Finally, it was alleged that during the Officer's formal deposition on September 14, 2006, he gave inconsistent testimony regarding his involvement in a vehicle pursuit by stating he was not involved in a vehicle pursuit and that he was never in the parking lot prior to the accident.
Finding: During mediation, the Sergeant and the Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a penalty of a 90-day suspension for all allegations.
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY