INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW 'AUTHORITY
CITY OF CHICAGO
TO:
rri -
FROM:
Office of the Mayor Committee on Public Safety Office of the City Clerk
(uv*j>
Legislative Reference Bureau
liana B.R. Rosenzweig Chief Administrator
RE:
Quarterly Report
DATE: April 15, 2013
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 April 11, 2013. This quarterly report provides information for the period from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at'312-746-
3551.
Independent Police Review Authority
Quarterly Report
January 1, 2013 - March 31, 2013
April 15, 2013
o
This report is filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-57-110, which requires the filing of quarterly reports. This quarterly report provides information for the period January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. The information contained in this report is accurate as of April 11, 2013. All of IPRA's public reports are available at www.iprachicago.org.
Quarterly Overview
During the first quarter of 2013, IPRA initiated 475 investigations. This includes the 87 investigations resulting from notifications of a Taser discharge. IPRA responded to 11 officer-involved shootings during the first quarter of 2013.
This past quarter, IPRA closed 509 investigations. The number reflects a slight decrease compared to last quarter. IPRA begins this new quarter having filled three vacant Supervising Investigator positions. IPRA will continue to work with the Mayor's Office and Budget Office to address filling positions as they become open.
During the first three months of 2013, IPRA completed 10 sustained investigations. Sustained cases were down during the first quarter of 2013 compared to the previous quarter. However, both the number of cases identified for mediation as well the number of officers who agreed to accept mediation more than doubled in both categories. There were 40 cases this past quarter identified where mediation was deemed appropriate and 34 officers agreed to accept. IPRA will continue to work with the Fraternal Order of Police to extend mediation to those cases where it is warranted, thus, leaving more investigative resources to close older cases.
Chief Administrator liana Rosenzweig announced to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the IPRA staff that she will be stepping down from the position she has held since September 2007. The Chief has expressed her gratitude to the entire IPRA staff for their hard work and dedication in ensuring fair, thorough, and timely investigation.
1
IPRA Cumulative Figures
|
INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)1 |
IPRA Investigations Opened" |
IPRA Investigations Closed3 |
IPRA Caseload4 |
Sept. 2007 |
746 |
216 |
162 |
1290 |
4Q 2007 |
2273 |
613 |
368 |
1535 |
1Q2008 |
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 |
1Q 2010 |
2191 |
640 |
561 |
2028 |
2Q2010 |
2626 |
868 |
832 |
2048 |
3Q2010 |
2591 |
942 , |
835 |
2168 |
4Q 2010 |
2127 |
746 |
681' |
2233 |
1Q 2011 |
2023 |
610 |
711 |
2132 |
2Q 2011 |
2171 |
778 |
747 |
2159 |
3Q2011 |
2335 |
788 |
749 |
2173 |
4Q 2011 |
2038 |
688 |
1 594 |
2237 |
1Q 2012 |
1995 |
620 |
649 |
2210 |
2Q 2012 |
2155 |
693 |
747 |
2155 |
3Q2012 |
2264 |
690 |
698 |
2147 |
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.
" 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 caseload number for periods prior to 3Q 2009 are the numbers that IPRA previously reported in quarterly reports. As discussed previously, due to a calculation error, over time these numbers became inaccurate. The caseload number for 3Q 2009 reflects the results of IPRA's complete audit of pending investigations.
5 The number of investigations closed and IPRA Caseload reflect a correction of numbers reported in a previous report.
2
IPRA Cumulative Figures (Continued)
|
INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications) |
IPRA Investigations Opened |
IPRA Investigations Closed |
IPRA Caseload |
4Q 2012 |
1824 |
543 |
759 |
1925 |
1Q 2013 |
1828 |
475 |
509 |
1883 |
IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type6
|
IPRA (COMPLAINTS ) |
IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) |
EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO) |
HIT SHOOTING <U#) |
NON-HIT SHOOTING |
SHOOTING/ ANIMAL |
TASER |
OC DISCHARGE |
|
1INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW 'AUTHORITY CITY OF CHICAGO TO: rri - FROM: Office of the Mayor Committee on Public Safety Office of the City Clerk (uv*j> Legislative Reference Bureau liana B.R. Rosenzweig Chief Administrator RE: Quarterly Report DATE: April 15, 2013 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 April 11, 2013. This quarterly report provides information for the period from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at'312-746- 3551. Independent Police Review Authority Quarterly Report January 1, 2013 - March 31, 2013 April 15, 2013 o This report is filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-57-110, which requires the filing of quarterly reports. This quarterly report provides information for the period January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. The information contained in this report is accurate as of April 11, 2013. All of IPRA's public reports are available at www.iprachicago.org. Quarterly Overview During the first quarter of 2013, IPRA initiated 475 investigations. This includes the 87 investigations resulting from notifications of a Taser discharge. IPRA responded to 11 officer-involved shootings during the first quarter of 2013. This past quarter, IPRA closed 509 investigations. The number reflects a slight decrease compared to last quarter. IPRA begins this new quarter having filled three vacant Supervising Investigator positions. IPRA will continue to work with the Mayor's Office and Budget Office to address filling positions as they become open. During the first three months of 2013, IPRA completed 10 sustained investigations. Sustained cases were down during the first quarter of 2013 compared to the previous quarter. However, both the number of cases identified for mediation as well the number of officers who agreed to accept mediation more than doubled in both categories. There were 40 cases this past quarter identified where mediation was deemed appropriate and 34 officers agreed to accept. IPRA will continue to work with the Fraternal Order of Police to extend mediation to those cases where it is warranted, thus, leaving more investigative resources to close older cases. Chief Administrator liana Rosenzweig announced to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the IPRA staff that she will be stepping down from the position she has held since September 2007. The Chief has expressed her gratitude to the entire IPRA staff for their hard work and dedication in ensuring fair, thorough, and timely investigation. 1 IPRA Cumulative Figures INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)1IPRA Investigations Opened"IPRA Investigations Closed3IPRA Caseload4Sept. 200774621616212904Q 2007227361336815351Q2008236659055415712Q 2008243664067015413Q 2008263468166715554Q 20082337 .69969215621Q2009238465768715322Q 20092648.75565116353Q 2009280781258619814Q 2009223561765419491Q 2010219164056120282Q2010262686883220483Q20102591942 ,83521684Q 20102127746681'22331Q 2011202361071121322Q 2011217177874721593Q2011233578874921734Q 201120386881 59422371Q 2012199562064922102Q 2012215569374721553Q201222646906982147 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. " 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 caseload number for periods prior to 3Q 2009 are the numbers that IPRA previously reported in quarterly reports. As discussed previously, due to a calculation error, over time these numbers became inaccurate. The caseload number for 3Q 2009 reflects the results of IPRA's complete audit of pending investigations. 5 The number of investigations closed and IPRA Caseload reflect a correction of numbers reported in a previous report. 2 IPRA Cumulative Figures (Continued) INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)IPRA Investigations OpenedIPRA Investigations ClosedIPRA Caseload4Q 2012182454375919251Q 201318284755091883 IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type6 IPRA (COMPLAINTS )IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) INFO&CREXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO)HIT SHOOTING <U#)NON-HIT SHOOTINGSHOOTING/ ANIMALTASEROC DISCHARGESept. 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 |
1O2010 |
482 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
29 |
74 |
15 |
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 |
10 2011 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 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.
3
IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type (Continued)
|
IPRA (COMPLAINTS) |
IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) |
EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO) |
HIT SHOOTING (U#) |
NON-HIT SHOOTING |
SHOOTING/ ANIMAL |
TASER |
OC DISCHARGE |
|
1INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW 'AUTHORITY CITY OF CHICAGO TO: rri - FROM: Office of the Mayor Committee on Public Safety Office of the City Clerk (uv*j> Legislative Reference Bureau liana B.R. Rosenzweig Chief Administrator RE: Quarterly Report DATE: April 15, 2013 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 April 11, 2013. This quarterly report provides information for the period from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at'312-746- 3551. Independent Police Review Authority Quarterly Report January 1, 2013 - March 31, 2013 April 15, 2013 o This report is filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-57-110, which requires the filing of quarterly reports. This quarterly report provides information for the period January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013. The information contained in this report is accurate as of April 11, 2013. All of IPRA's public reports are available at www.iprachicago.org. Quarterly Overview During the first quarter of 2013, IPRA initiated 475 investigations. This includes the 87 investigations resulting from notifications of a Taser discharge. IPRA responded to 11 officer-involved shootings during the first quarter of 2013. This past quarter, IPRA closed 509 investigations. The number reflects a slight decrease compared to last quarter. IPRA begins this new quarter having filled three vacant Supervising Investigator positions. IPRA will continue to work with the Mayor's Office and Budget Office to address filling positions as they become open. During the first three months of 2013, IPRA completed 10 sustained investigations. Sustained cases were down during the first quarter of 2013 compared to the previous quarter. However, both the number of cases identified for mediation as well the number of officers who agreed to accept mediation more than doubled in both categories. There were 40 cases this past quarter identified where mediation was deemed appropriate and 34 officers agreed to accept. IPRA will continue to work with the Fraternal Order of Police to extend mediation to those cases where it is warranted, thus, leaving more investigative resources to close older cases. Chief Administrator liana Rosenzweig announced to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the IPRA staff that she will be stepping down from the position she has held since September 2007. The Chief has expressed her gratitude to the entire IPRA staff for their hard work and dedication in ensuring fair, thorough, and timely investigation. 1 IPRA Cumulative Figures INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)1IPRA Investigations Opened"IPRA Investigations Closed3IPRA Caseload4Sept. 200774621616212904Q 2007227361336815351Q2008236659055415712Q 2008243664067015413Q 2008263468166715554Q 20082337 .69969215621Q2009238465768715322Q 20092648.75565116353Q 2009280781258619814Q 2009223561765419491Q 2010219164056120282Q2010262686883220483Q20102591942 ,83521684Q 20102127746681'22331Q 2011202361071121322Q 2011217177874721593Q2011233578874921734Q 201120386881 59422371Q 2012199562064922102Q 2012215569374721553Q201222646906982147 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. " 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 caseload number for periods prior to 3Q 2009 are the numbers that IPRA previously reported in quarterly reports. As discussed previously, due to a calculation error, over time these numbers became inaccurate. The caseload number for 3Q 2009 reflects the results of IPRA's complete audit of pending investigations. 5 The number of investigations closed and IPRA Caseload reflect a correction of numbers reported in a previous report. 2 IPRA Cumulative Figures (Continued) INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)IPRA Investigations OpenedIPRA Investigations ClosedIPRA Caseload4Q 2012182454375919251Q 201318284755091883 IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type6 IPRA (COMPLAINTS )IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) INFO&CREXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO)HIT SHOOTING <U#)NON-HIT SHOOTINGSHOOTING/ ANIMALTASEROC DISCHARGESept. 20071954433240 2007572187112510 20084751681218311620 2008526161582145930 20085638141020521340 20085791614724352410 2009553119925391420 20096241514132856730 2009657 '21181618632240 2009495191619203991O201048213121429741520 2010505161010192852730 2010576151110302851640 201047071010282271010 2011377171512271551020 201147192010202401030 201146015161722248940 20114201071420210610 2012384 .14121013186320 2012440951223188330 201241112191428204540 201232881413261494 6 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. 3 IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident Type (Continued) IPRA (COMPLAINTS)IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) INFO & CREXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO)HIT SHOOTING (U#)NON-HIT SHOOTINGSHOOTING/ ANIMALTASEROC DISCHARGE10 2013 |
329 |
24 |
11 |
9 |
15 |
87 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-57-110( 1): The number of investigations initiated since the last report
Between January 1, 2013 and March 31,, 2013, IPRA issued 1828 Log Numbers. Of these Log Numbers, IPRA retained 476 for resolution. IPRA forwarded the remaining 1352 Log Numbers to the Internal Affairs Division of the Chicago Police Department for appropriate resolution.
Of the 476 Log Numbers retained by IPRA, IPRA classified 176 as Complaint Register Numbers. In addition, IPRA began Pre-affidavit Investigations for 153 of the Log Numbers retained by IPRA. The remainder of the retained Log Numbers consisted of 11 Log Numbers for shootings where an individual was hit by a bullet and a "U Number" was issued, 9 for shootings where no one was hit by a bullet, 15 for shots fired at animals, 87 for reported uses of tasers, 5 for reported uses of pepper spray,7 and 24 for Extraordinary Occurrences8.
2-57-110(2): The number of investigations concluded since the last report
Between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2013, IPRA closed 509 Log Numbers. A Log Number is considered closed when IPRA completes its work on the matter, regardless of whether the Police Department is still processing the results.
2-57-110(3): The number of investigations pending as of the report date
As of March 31, 2013, there were 1883 investigations pending completion by IPRA. These include both allegations that have received Complaint Register Numbers, and those
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 and shootings, regardless of the 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.
8 These numbers include three Log Numbers classified as both a U Number and a Complaint Register; and two Log Numbers classified as both an Extraordinary Occurrence 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.
4
being followed under a Log Number, as well as officer-involved shootings, and Extraordinary Occurrences.
2-57-110(4): The number of complaints not sustained since the last report9
Between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2013, IPRA recommended that 167 investigations be closed as "not sustained."
In addition, 129 cases were closed after a Pre-affidavit Investigation because the complainants refused to sign an affidavit. IPRA recommended that 67 investigations be closed as "unfounded," and 4 be closed as "exonerated."
2-57-110(5): The number of complaints sustained since the last report
Between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2013, IPRA recommended that 10 cases be closed as sustained. Attached are abstracts for each case where IPRA recommended a sustained finding, and the discipline IPRA recommended.10
2-57-110(6): The number of complaints filed in each district since the last report11
Between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2013, IPRA received complaints of alleged misconduct based on incidents in the following districts, as follows:
District 20= 17 District 22 = 55 District 24 = 47 District 25 = 62
District 01 = 62 District 02= 117 District 03 = 74 District 04 = 72 District 05 = 95 District 06= 134
District 07= 105 District 08 = 104 District 09 = 83 District 10 = 77 District 11 = 107 District 12 = 56 Outside City Limits = 44
District 14 = 40 District 15 = 88 District 16 = 53 District 17 = 26 District 18 = 67 District 19 = 63
Unknown location = 90
9 The term "not sustained" is a term of art in police misconduct investigations. It is defined in CPD G.O. 93-3 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 Abstracts for all investigations where IPRA has recommended a sustained finding can be found at
1' "Complaints" 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.
5
2-57-110( 7): The number of complaints filed against each officer in each district since the last report12
2-57-110(8): The number of complaints referred to other agencies and the identity of such other agencies
Between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2013, IPRA referred 1384 cases to other agencies as follows:
Chicago Police Department - Internal Affairs Division = 1352 Cook County State's Attorney = 26 Federal Bureau of Investigations = 6
(See Attachment)
p
" 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.
6
ATTACHMENT: COMPLAINTS AGAINST CPD MEMBERS BY UNIT
District 001
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each Members 15-16: 2 complaints each District 002
Members 1-27: 1 complaint each Members 28-29: 2 complaints each District 003
Members 1-23: 1 complaint each Member 24: 2 complaints District 004
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each Member 11:2 complaints District 005
Members 1-42: 1 complaint each Members 43-46: 2 complaints each District 006
Members 1-33: 1 complaint each Member 34-38: 2 complaints each Member 39: 3 complaints District 007
Members 1-22: 1 complaint each Members 23-24: 2 complaints each District 008
Members 1-17: 1 complaint each Member 18-19: 2 complaints each District 009
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each Member 8: 2 complaints District 010
Members 1-40: 1 complaint each Members 41-43: 2 complaints each
District 011
Members 1-18: 1 complaint each Member 19: 2 complaints District 012
Members 1-20: 1 complaint each District 014
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each Member 10: 2 complaints District 015
Members 1-27: 1 complaint each Members 28-29: 2 complaints each District 016
Members 1-15: 1 complaint each Member 16: 2 complaints District 017 Member 1: 2 complaints District 018
Members 1-11: 1 complaint each Members 12: 2 complaints District 019
Members 1-15: 1 complaint each District 020
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each District 022
Members 1-15: 1 complaint each Member 16-17: 2 complaints each District 023 Member 1: 1 complaint District 024
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each Members 15-16: 2 complaints each Member 17: 3 complaints
7
District 025
Members 1-10: 1. complaint each
Member 11-13:2 complaints each
Recruit Training (044)'
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Airport Law Enforcement Unit -North (050)
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Airport Law Enforcement Unit -South (051)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Marine Unit (059)
Members 1-3:1 complaint each
Special Investigations Unit (079)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Finance Division (122)
Memberl: 1 complaint
Human Resources Division (123)
Memberl: 1 complaint
Education and Training Division (124)
Member 1-2: 1 complaint
Public Safety Information Technology (125)
Member 1: 1 complaint each Professional Counseling Division (128) Member 1: 1 complaint each Special Functions Division (141) Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Traffic Section (145) Members 1-6: 1 complaint each Member 7: 2 complaints
1 These numbers include CPD members who are detailed to a District as part of their training, but are officially still assigned to Recruit Training.
Records Inquiry Section (163)
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Central Detention (171)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Bureau of Detectives (180)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Narcotics Section (189)
Members 1-13: 1 complaint each
Asset Forfeiture Division (192)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Gang Investigation Division (193)
Members 1-16: 1 complaint each
Member 17: 2 complaints
Bureau of Patrol - Area Central (211)
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Patrol - Area South (212)
Members 1-12: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Patrol - Area North (213)
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each
Members 11-14: 2 complaints each
Troubled Buildings Unit (241)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint
Court Section (261)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Gang Enforcement - Area Central
mn
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each
Member 5: 2 complaints
Gang Enforcement - Area South (312)
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each
Gang Enforcement - Area North (313)
Members 1-5:1 complaint each
8
Alternate Response Section (376)
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each Member 8-9: 2 complaints each Gang Enforcement Division (393)
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Member 4-5: 2 complaints each
Crime Processing Unit - ET South (477}
Member 1: 1 complaint each Central Investigations Unit (606)
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each
Major Accident Investigation Unit (608)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives - Area Central £610}
Members 1-12: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives - Area South (620)
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives - Area North (630)
Members 1-9: 1 complaint each
Member 10: 2 complaints
Public Transportation Section (701)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Transit Security Unit (704)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
January 2013 Log/C.R. No. 1034408
On March 2, 2010, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on March 2, 2010 in the 2nd District, involving an on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Detective (Detective A) and Officer (Officer B). It was alleged that Detective A became combative towards Officer B and had to be restrained; directed profanities at Officer B; verbally abused Officer B; and by his overall actions brought discredit on the department. It was alleged that Officer B directed profanities at Detective A and attempted to provoke Detective A into a . physical altercation. Based on statements from the accused members and witnesses, and department reports, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Detective A became combative towards Officer B and had to be restrained; directed profanities at Officer B; verbally abused Officer B; and by his overall actions brought discredit on the department. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that Officer B directed profanities at Detective A and attempted to provoke Detective A into a physical altercation. IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for DETECTIVE A.
Log/C.R. No. 1018010
On June 22, 2008, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on June 22, 2008, in the 7th District involving three on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officers A through C). It was alleged that Officers A through C fired their weapons into a wall behind which the Subject was not clearly visible in violation of a General Order. Based on statements from the accused members and witnesses, Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), Illinois State Police (ISP), CPD, and medical reports, Evidence Technicians (ET) photographs, Forensic Services reports and video, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer B fired his weapon into a wall behind which the Subject was not clearly visible in violation of a General Order. Further, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer A fired his weapon into a wall behind which the subject was not clearly visible in violation of a General Order. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that Officer C fired his weapon into a wall behind which the subject was not clearly visible in violation of a General Order. IPRA recommended a three (3) day suspension for Officer B.
Page 1 of 3
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases January 2013
Log/C.R. No. 1031119
On October 19, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on October 17, 2009, in the 4th District involving two on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officers A and B). It was alleged that Officer A engaged in improper verbal action while speaking with the Complainant; directed racially biased language at the Complainant; and failed to complete a Contact Card for Complainant. It was alleged that Officer B failed to complete a Contact Card for Complainant. Based on statements from the accused Officers, complainant, and witnesses, video and photographs, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A directed racially biased language at the Complainant and failed to complete a Contact Card for Complainant. Further, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer A engaged in improper verbal action while speaking with the Complainant. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer B failed to complete a Contact Card for Complainant. IPRA recommended a seven (7) day suspension for Officer A and a written reprimand for Officer B.
Log/C.R. No. 1046629
On July 2, 2011, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding three separate incidents involving one off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer (Officer A) and one on-duty CPD Sergeant (Sergeant B). It was alleged that on an unspecified date in 2008, that Officer A pushed the Victim. It was alleged that on November 14, 2010, that Officer A engaged in an unjustified physical altercation with the Victim and that Sergeant B failed to initiate a complaint log number. It was also alleged that on July 2, 2011, Officer A was arrested for Domestic Battery; failed to provide the Department with a current address; used Department equipment for Non-Departmental purposes; and was insubordinate in that he disobeyed a direct order given by Sergeant C. Based on statements from the accused members, the Victim and witnesses, OEMC, department, court, and phone records, ET photographs, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A was arrested for Domestic Battery; failed to provide the Department with a current address; and used Department equipment for Non-Departmental purposes on July 2, 2011. IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A pushed the Victim on an unspecified date in 2008, engaged in an unjustified physical altercation with the Victim on November 14, 2010 and was insubordinate in that he disobeyed a direct order given by Sergeant C on July 2, 2011. IPRA
Page 2 of 3
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases January 2013
recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Sergeant B failed to initiate a complaint log number on November 14, 2010. IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for Officer A and a written reprimand for Sergeant B.
Page 3 of 3
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases February 2013
Log/C.R. No. 1050511
On December 5, 2011, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on December 5, 2011 in the 12th District involving an on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Sergeant. It was alleged that the Sergeant accidentally discharged his weapon. Based upon a mediation, the accused Sergeant agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a suspension of two (2) days.
Log/C.R. No. 1027914
On July 3, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on July 3, 2009 in the 5th District involving an on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the Officer verbally abused Complainants 1 through 5 during a traffic stop; improperly searched Complainants 1 through 5; conducted an improper search of the vehicle; and by his overall actions brought discredit on the department. Based on statements from the accused Officer, Complainants and witnesses, traffic and department records, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that the accused Officer improperly searched Complainants 1 through 5. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the accused Officer verbally abused Complainants 1 through 5 during a traffic stop; conducted an improper search of the vehicle; and by his overall actions brought discredit on the department. IPRA recommended a ten (10) day suspension for the accused Officer.
Log/C.R. No. 1031087
On October 18, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on October 18, 2009 in the 21th District involving an off-duty Civilian Crossing Guard. It was alleged that the Civilian Crossing Guard punched the Victim about the body; pulled the Victim's hair; verbally abused the Victim; was intoxicated while off-duty; was arrested, charged and found Guilty of Battery; provided a false statement to IPRA; and by her overall actions brought discredit on the department. Based on statements from the Civilian Crossing Guard, Victim and witnesses, photographs, department reports, court and medical records, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegations that the Civilian Crossing Guard pulled the Victim's hair; verbally abused the Victim; and was intoxicated while off-duty. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the Civilian Crossing Guard punched the Victim about the body; was arrested, charged and found Guilty of
Page 1 of 4
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases February 2013
Battery; provided a false statement to IPRA; and by her overall actions brought discredit on the department. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) thirty day suspension for the Civilian Crossing Guard.
Log/C.R. No. 1026190
On May 8, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on May 8, 2009 in the 22nd District involving three off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officers A through C). It was alleged that Officer A kicked in the door of Victim Officer B's residence and entered without justification; pointed a firearm at Victim Officer B without justification; struck Victim Officer B about the face and head; prevented Victim Officer B from calling 911 by smashing her telephone; failed to render medical assistance or call 911 on behalf of Victim Officer B; damaged Victim Officer B's residential property; was arrested for Domestic Battery, and subsequently pleaded Guilty to Aggravated Battery; and was ordered via cell phone at approximately 0800 hours to report to the 22nd District and subsequently did not arrive until 1145 hours. It was alleged that Officer C failed to make the necessary notifications regarding a crime in a timely manner and by his overall actions brought discredit on the Department. Based on statements from the accused Officers, the Victim and witnesses, ET photographs, department reports, OEMC transmissions, court and medical records, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer A prevented Victim Officer B from calling 911 by smashing her telephone. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A kicked in the door of Victim Officer B's residence and entered without justification; pointed a firearm at Victim Officer B without justification; struck Victim Officer B about the face and head; failed to render medical assistance or call 911 on behalf of Victim Officer B; damaged Victim Officer B's residential property; was arrested for Domestic Battery, and subsequently pleaded Guilty to Aggravated Battery; and was ordered via cell phone at approximately 0800 hours to report to the 22nd District and subsequently did not arrive until 1145 hours. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that Officer C failed to make the necessary notifications regarding a crime in a timely manner and by his overall actions brought discredit on the department. IPRA recommended separation for Officer A from the Department.
Page 2 of 4
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases February 2013
Log/C.R. No. 1024914
On March 23, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on November 16, 2008 in the 9th District involving one on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Sergeant and twelve on-duty Officers (Officers A through L). It was alleged that the accused Sergeant improperly served a search warrant; pointed a gun at Complainant A and her family members; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed documents and property; took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars; failed to properly document a strip search; and failed to promote the Department's efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals. It was alleged that Officer A conducted a strip search of Complainant A without probable cause and verbally abused Complainant A. It was alleged that Officer B pointed guns at Complainant A and her family members; searched Complainant A's home without justification; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed personal documents and property; took , and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars; verbally abused Complainant A; and submitted a false Report to IPRA concerning the incident. It was alleged that Officer C pointed guns at Complainant A and her family members; searched Complainant A's home without justification; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed personal documents and property; took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars; and conducted an improper strip search of Complainant B. It was alleged that Officers D through L pointed guns at Complainant A and her family members; searched Complainant A's home without justification; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed personal documents and property; and took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars. Based on statements from the accused members, Complainants and witnesses, photographs, department reports, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegations that the accused Sergeant pointed a gun at Complainant A and her family members; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed documents and property; and took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the accused Sergeant improperly served a search warrant; failed to properly document a strip search; and failed to promote the Department's efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A conducted
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Page 3 of 4
Abstracts of Sustained Cases February 2013
a strip search of Complainant A without probable cause and verbally abused Complainant A. IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer B pointed guns at Complainant A and her family members; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed personal documents and property; took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars; and submitted a false Report to IPRA concerning the incident. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that Officer B searched Complainant A's home without justification. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer B verbally abused Complainant A. IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer C pointed guns at Complainant A and her family members; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed personal documents and property; took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars; and conducted an improper strip search of Complainant B. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that Officer C searched Complainant A's home without justification. IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officers D through L pointed guns at Complainant A and her family members; ransacked Complainant A's home; destroyed personal documents and property; and took and subsequently failed to return or inventory a PlayStation II game cartridge and one hundred dollars. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that Officers D through L searched Complainant A's home without justification. IPRA recommended a fifteen (15) day suspension for the accused Sergeant, a ten (10) day suspension for Officer A, and a five (5) day suspension for Officer B.
Page 4 of 4
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
MARCH 2013 Log/C.R. No. 1025739
On April 23, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on April 23, 2009, involving an off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Detective (Detective A), an on-duty CPD Sergeant (Sergeant B), and an on-duty Officer (Officer C). It was alleged that Detective A was intoxicated while off-duty; pointed his weapon at the Victim and threatened to shoot him; failed to pay a cab fare; was in possession of a firearm while off-duty knowing there was a likelihood of consuming alcoholic beverages; was arrested and charged with Theft and Aggravated Assault; and was convicted of committing a Theft and Aggravated Assault. It was alleged that Sergeant B failed to conduct a thorough log number investigation; failed to document an allegation that a department member threatened a citizen with a firearm; failed to document an allegation that a department member was intoxicated; failed to ensure that a Department member accused of intoxication was administered a breathalyzer; and failed to ensure that a case report be prepared that a Department member failed to pay a cab fare. It was alleged that Officer C improperly attempted to influence an investigation. Based upon statements from the accused, the Victim and witnesses, photo arrays and photographs, Department and OEMC reports, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer C improperly attempted to influence an investigation. Based upon the evidence, IPRA recommended that all allegations against Detective A be "SUSTAINED". Upon the rejection of a proposed mediated resolution at the Superintendent's direction, IPRA recommended separation for Detective A from the Department. Further, based upon a mediation, Sergeant B agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegation that he failed to ensure that a case report be prepared that a Department member failed to pay a cab fare and a suspension of five (5) days.
Page 1 of 1
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY