Independent Police Review Authority
CITY OF
CHICAGO
TO: Office of the Mayor
Committee on Public Safety Office of the City Clerk Legislative Reference Bureau
FROM: liana B.R. Rosenzweig , Chief Administrator v
RE: Quarterly Report DATE: January 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 January 10, 2013. This quarterly report provides information for the period from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 312-746-3551.
LO
CJ— LO
—"j
c-J
lriir, WEST CHICAGO AVENUE. -1TH FLOOR. CHICAGO. ILUNOIS «ii>«2a
:.U-i.74fi.ar>iW (COMPLAINT LINE) • HVJ.T.-Hi.SMlH (GENERAL) • !Hi2.745.3o&) (TTY> - WWW.IPRACHtCAGO.ORG
Independent Police Review Authority
Quarterly Report
October 1, 2012 -
December 31, 2012
io
January 15, 2013
2-57-1100): The number of investigations initiated since the last report
Between October 1, 2012 and December 31
2012, IPRA issued 1824 Log Numbers. Of
these Log Numbers, IPRA retained 543 for resolution. IPRA forwarded the remaining 1281 Log Numbers to the Internal Affairs Division of the Chicago Police Department for appropriate resolution. .?
Of the 543 Log Numbers retained by IPRA, IPRA classified 141 as Complaint Register Numbers. In addition, IPRA began Pre-affijdavit Investigations for 187 of the Log Numbers retained by IPRA. The remainder! of the retained Log Numbers consisted of 14 Log Numbers for shootings where an individual was hit by a bullet and a "U Number" was issued, 13 for shootings where no one was hit by a bullet, 26 for shots fired at animals, 149 for reported uses of tasers, 4 for reported uses of pepper spray,7 and 8 for Extraordinary Occurrences. i
!
2-57-110(2): The number of investigations concluded since the last report
Between October 1, 2012 and December 31' 2012, IPRA closed 759 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 December 31, 2012, there were 1925 investigations pending completion by IPRA. These include both allegations that have received Complaint Register Numbers, and those
1 as officer-involved shootings, and
being followed under a Log Number, as we' Extraordinary Occurrences.
2-57-110(4): The number of complaints not sustained since the last report
Between October 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012, IPRA recommended that 229 investigations be closed as "not sustained."
In addition, 170 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 1 be closed as "exonerated."
2-57-110("5V. The number of complaints sustained since the last report
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 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 toiprove or disprove allegation." In addition, cases may be "unfounded," which means "the allegation is false or not factual."
4
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 July October 1, 2012 through December 31, 20112. The information contained in this report is accurate as of January 10, 2013. All of IPRA's public reports are available at www.iprachicago.org.
Quarterly Overview
During the final quarter of 2012, IPRA initiated 543 investigations. This includes the 149 investigations resulting from notifications of a Taser discharge. IPRA responded to 14 officer-involved shootings from October through December which is down from the previous quarter. j
I
This past quarter, IPRA closed 759 investigations. The number reflects an eight percent increase from the third quarter. IPRA ended the calendar year with 2 investigator and 3 supervising investigator vacancies. j
From October through December, IPRA completed 20 sustained investigations. Sustained cases were down during the last quarter of 2012 compared to the previous quarter. There were 16 cases this past quarter identified where mediation was deemed appropriate and 13 officers agreed to accept. IPRA expects that more cases will be handled through the mediation process, thus, leaving more investigative resources to close older cases. I
More than 20 completed officer-involved shooting case summaries have been uploaded to IPRA's web site. These cases can be found by clicking on the Resources section followed by the Officer-Involved Shootings tab on IPRA's web site at www.iprachicago.org.
1
IPRA Cumulative Figures
|
INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)1 |
IPRA Investigations Openeld2 i |
IPRA Investigations Closed3 |
IPRA Caseload4 |
Sept. 2007 |
746 |
216 |
162 |
1290 |
,4Q 2007 |
2273 |
6131 |
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 |
2Q2009 |
2648 |
755 |
|
651 |
1635 |
3Q2009 |
2807 |
812 |
|
586 |
1981 |
4Q2009 |
2235 |
617 |
654 |
1949 |
1Q2010 |
2191 |
640 |
|
561 |
2028 |
2Q2010 |
2626 |
868 |
|
832 |
2048 |
3Q2010 |
2591 |
942 |
|
835 |
2168 |
4Q 2010 |
2127 |
746 |
|
681' |
2233 |
1Q2011 |
2023 |
610 |
|
711 |
2132 |
2Q2011 ■ |
2171 |
778 |
|
747 |
2159 |
3Q2011 |
2335 |
788 | |
749 |
2173 |
4Q2011 ' |
2038 |
688 ! |
594 |
2237 |
1Q2012 |
1995 |
620 |
|
649 |
2210 |
2Q2012 |
2155 |
693 |
|
747 |
2155 |
3Q2012 |
2264 |
690 |
|
698 |
2147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
' 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 IPR A 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 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 i |
IPRA Investigations Closed |
IPRA Caseload |
4Q 2012 |
1824 |
543 |
|
759 |
1925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident
|
IPRA (COMPLAINTS) |
|
IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) 1 |
EXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO) |
s |
HIT HOOTING (U#) |
NON-HIT SHOOTING |
SHOOTING/ ANIMAL |
TASER |
oc DISCHARGE |
|
1Independent Police Review Authority CITY OF CHICAGO TO: Office of the Mayor Committee on Public Safety Office of the City Clerk Legislative Reference Bureau FROM: liana B.R. Rosenzweig , Chief Administrator v RE: Quarterly Report DATE: January 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 January 10, 2013. This quarterly report provides information for the period from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 312-746-3551. LO CJ— LO —"j c-J lriir, WEST CHICAGO AVENUE. -1TH FLOOR. CHICAGO. ILUNOIS «ii>«2a :.U-i.74fi.ar>iW (COMPLAINT LINE) • HVJ.T.-Hi.SMlH (GENERAL) • !Hi2.745.3o&) (TTY> - WWW.IPRACHtCAGO.ORG Independent Police Review Authority Quarterly Report October 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012 io January 15, 2013 2-57-1100): The number of investigations initiated since the last report Between October 1, 2012 and December 31 2012, IPRA issued 1824 Log Numbers. Of these Log Numbers, IPRA retained 543 for resolution. IPRA forwarded the remaining 1281 Log Numbers to the Internal Affairs Division of the Chicago Police Department for appropriate resolution. .? Of the 543 Log Numbers retained by IPRA, IPRA classified 141 as Complaint Register Numbers. In addition, IPRA began Pre-affijdavit Investigations for 187 of the Log Numbers retained by IPRA. The remainder! of the retained Log Numbers consisted of 14 Log Numbers for shootings where an individual was hit by a bullet and a "U Number" was issued, 13 for shootings where no one was hit by a bullet, 26 for shots fired at animals, 149 for reported uses of tasers, 4 for reported uses of pepper spray,7 and 8 for Extraordinary Occurrences. i ! 2-57-110(2): The number of investigations concluded since the last report Between October 1, 2012 and December 31' 2012, IPRA closed 759 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 December 31, 2012, there were 1925 investigations pending completion by IPRA. These include both allegations that have received Complaint Register Numbers, and those 1 as officer-involved shootings, and being followed under a Log Number, as we' Extraordinary Occurrences. 2-57-110(4): The number of complaints not sustained since the last report Between October 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012, IPRA recommended that 229 investigations be closed as "not sustained." In addition, 170 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 1 be closed as "exonerated." 2-57-110("5V. The number of complaints sustained since the last report 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 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 toiprove or disprove allegation." In addition, cases may be "unfounded," which means "the allegation is false or not factual." 4 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 July October 1, 2012 through December 31, 20112. The information contained in this report is accurate as of January 10, 2013. All of IPRA's public reports are available at www.iprachicago.org. Quarterly Overview During the final quarter of 2012, IPRA initiated 543 investigations. This includes the 149 investigations resulting from notifications of a Taser discharge. IPRA responded to 14 officer-involved shootings from October through December which is down from the previous quarter. j I This past quarter, IPRA closed 759 investigations. The number reflects an eight percent increase from the third quarter. IPRA ended the calendar year with 2 investigator and 3 supervising investigator vacancies. j From October through December, IPRA completed 20 sustained investigations. Sustained cases were down during the last quarter of 2012 compared to the previous quarter. There were 16 cases this past quarter identified where mediation was deemed appropriate and 13 officers agreed to accept. IPRA expects that more cases will be handled through the mediation process, thus, leaving more investigative resources to close older cases. I More than 20 completed officer-involved shooting case summaries have been uploaded to IPRA's web site. These cases can be found by clicking on the Resources section followed by the Officer-Involved Shootings tab on IPRA's web site at www.iprachicago.org. 1 IPRA Cumulative Figures INTAKE (all allegations/ notifications)1IPRA Investigations Openeld2 iIPRA Investigations Closed3IPRA Caseload4Sept. 20077462161621290,4Q 20072273613136815351Q2008236659055415712Q 2008243664067015413Q 2008263468166715554Q 2008233769969215621Q2009238465768715322Q2009264875565116353Q2009280781258619814Q2009223561765419491Q2010219164056120282Q2010262686883220483Q2010259194283521684Q 20102127746681'22331Q2011202361071121322Q2011 ■217177874721593Q20112335788 |74921734Q2011 '2038688 !59422371Q2012199562064922102Q2012215569374721553Q201222646906982147 ' 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 IPR A 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 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 iIPRA Investigations ClosedIPRA Caseload4Q 201218245437591925 Type IPRA Investigations Opened by Incident IPRA (COMPLAINTS)IPRA (NOTIFICATIONS) 1 INFO & CREXTRAORDINARY OCCURRENCE (EO)sHIT HOOTING (U#)NON-HIT SHOOTINGSHOOTING/ ANIMALTASERoc DISCHARGESept. 2007 |
195 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
|
3 |
2 |
40 2007 |
572 |
18 |
|
7 |
1 |
|
12 |
5 |
102008 ; |
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 |
1 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 |
1 12 |
14 |
29 |
74 |
15 |
20 2010 |
505 |
16 |
i 10 |
10 |
19 |
285 |
27 |
30 2010 |
576 |
15 |
1 11 |
10 |
30 |
285 |
16 |
40 2010 |
470 |
7 |
' 1 10 |
10 |
28 |
227 |
10 |
10 2011 |
377 |
17 |
1 15 |
12 |
27 |
155 |
10 |
20 2011 |
471 |
9 |
1 20 |
10 |
20 |
240 |
10 |
30 2011 |
460 |
15 |
1 16 |
17 |
22 |
248 |
9 |
40 2011 |
420 |
10 |
1 7 |
14 |
20 |
210 |
6 |
10 2012 : |
384 |
14 |
i 12 |
10 |
13 |
186 |
3 |
20 2012 |
440 |
9 |
i 5 |
12 |
23 |
188 |
3 |
30 2012 |
411 |
12 |
! 19 |
14 |
28 |
204 |
5 |
40 2012 |
328 |
8 |
1 14 |
13 |
26 |
149 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
Between October 1,2012 and December 31, 2012, IPRA recommended that 20 cases be closed as sustained. Attached are abstracts for each case where IPRA recommended a sustained finding, and the discipline IPRA recommended.9
.10
2-57-110(6): The number of complaints filed in each district since the last report
Between October 1,2012 and December 31,2012, IPRA received complaints of alleged misconduct based on incidents in the following districts, as follows:
District 19 = 62 District 20 = 29 District 22 = 48 District 24 = 43 District 25 = 79
District 01 =64 District 02 = 91 District 03 = 87 District 04 = 81 District 05 = 75 District 06= 104
District 07 = 105 District 08= 108 District 09 = 93 District 10 = 58 District 11 = 113 District 12 = 30 Outside City Limits = 38
District 13 = 30 District 14 = 40 District 15 = 58 ■ District 16 = 46 District 17 = 27 District 18 = 63
Unknown location = 30
n
2-57-110(7): The number of complaints filed against each officer in each district since
the last report
(See Attachment)
2-57-110(8): The number of complaints referred to other agencies and the identity of
such other agencies
2012, IPRA referred 1303 cases to other
Between October 1,2012 and December 31, agencies as follows:
Chicago Police Department - Internal Affairs Division =1281
Cook County State's Attorney = 22
9 Abstracts for all investigations where IPRA has recommended a sustained finding can be found at www, iprachicago.org under the Resources heading. |
10 "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.
ll
;the
preceding section. Except as otherwise noted, if a at the time of the complaint, the member is listed
This uses the same definition of "complaints" as member was assigned to one unit but detailed to another under the detailed unit.
5
ATTACHMENT: COMPLAINTS AGAINST CPD MEMBERS BY UNIT
District 001
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each Member 15:2 complaints District 002
Members 1-20: 1 complaint each Members 21:2 complaints District 003
Members 1-21: 1 complaint each District 004
Members 1-32: 1 complaint each Members 33-39: 2 complaints each Members 40-41: 3 complaints each District 005
Members 1-12: 1 complaint each District 006
Members 1-33: 1 complaint each Member 34-37: 2 complaints each Member 38: 1 complaint District 007
Members 1 -23: 1 complaint each Members 24-25: 2 complaints each District 008
Members 1-21: 1 complaint each District 009
Members 1-20: 1 complaint each District 010
Members 1-28: 1 complaint each Members 29-30: 2 complaints each District 011
Members 1-22: 1 complaint each Member 23: 2 complaints
District 012
Members 1-5: 1 complaint each District 013
Members 1-6: 1 complaint each Member 7: 2 complaints District 014
Members 1-14: 1 complaint each District 015
Members 1-19: 1 complaint each Members 20-23: 2 complaints each District 016
Members 1-13: 1 complaint each Member 14:2 complaints District 017
Members 1-26: 1 complaint each Member 27: 2 complaints District 018
Members 1-18: 1 complaint each Members 19-21: 2 complaints each District 019
Members 1-26: 1 complaint each Member 27: 2 complaints District 020
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each District 022
Members 1-16: 1 complaint each Member 17: 2 complaints District 023 Member 1: 1 complaint District 024
Members 1-15: 1 complaint each
6
District 025
Members 1-25: 1 complaint each
Member 26-27: 2 complaints each
Member 28: 3 complaints
Recruit Training (044)1
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Airport Law Enforcement Unit -North (050)
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each
Airport Law Enforcement Unit -South (051)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Marine Unit (059)
Members 1-3: 1 complaint each
Inactive Unit (071)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Office of News Affairs (102)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Human Resources Division (123)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint
Education and Training Division (124)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Public Safety Information Technology (125)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Special Functions Division (141) Member 1: 1 complaint Traffic Section (145) Members 1-5:1 complaint each Field Services Section (166) Members 1-4: 1 complaint each
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.
Central Detention (171)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint
Forensic Services Division (177)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Bureau of Detectives (180)
Member 1: 1 complaint each
Youth Investigation Section (184)
Member 1: 1 complaint each
Narcotics Section (189)
Members 1-24: 1 complaint each
Members 25-26: 2 complaints each
Asset Forfeiture Division (192)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each
Gang Investigation Division (193)
Members 1-20: 1 complaint each
Members 21-22: 2 complaints each
Bureau of Patrol - Area Central (211)
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each
Members 11-15:2 complaints each
Bureau of Patrol - Area South (212)
Members 1-8: 1 complaint each
Member 9: 2 complaints
Bureau of Patrol - Area North (213)
Members 1-6: 1 complaint each
Medical Services Section (231)
Member 1: 1 complaint
OEMC - Detail Section (276)
Member 1: 1 complaint each
Gang Enforcement - Area Central {311}
Members 1-15: 1 complaint each Member 16: 2 complaints
7
Gang Enforcement - Area South (312)
Members 1-8: 1 complaint each
Gang Team - Area 4 (Former 314)
Member 1: 1 complaint each
Gang Team - Area 5 (Former 315)
Members 1-18: 1 complaint each
Member 19-20: 1 complaint each
Alternate Response Section (376)
Members 1-7: 1 complaint each
Member 8-9: 2 complaints each
Crime Scene Processing Unit - ET North (377)
Member 1-2: 1 complaint each
Juvenile Intervention Support Center (384)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Gang Enforcement Division (393)
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each
Detached Services-Miscellaneous Detail (543)
Members 1-2: 1 complaint each Central Investigations Unit (606)
Members 1-4: 1 complaint each
Member 5: 1 complaint
Major Accident Investigation Unit (608)
Member 1: 1 complaint
Bureau of Detectives - Area Central (610)
Bureau of Detectives - Area North (630)
Members 1-10: 1 complaint each Public Transportation Section (701)
Member 1: 1 complaint
8
Members 1-12: 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives - Area South (620)
Members 1-8: 1 complaint each Member 9: 2 complaints
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
OCTOBER 2012
Log/C.R. No. 1013283
On January 10, 2008, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on January 10, 2008, involving two on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officer A and Officer B). It was alleged that Officers A and B stopped tlie Victim and searched his vehicle without justification, locked the Victim's cell phone and keys inside his vehicle, failed to return or inventory his wallet, and failed to enforce traffic violations. It was also alleged that Officer A pulled the Victim's hat over his eyes and punched the1 Victim on the face. It was alleged that on August 10, 2012, Officers A and B gave false statements to IPRA regarding the incident that occurred on January 10, 2008. Based on statements from the accused!, the victim, and witnesses, IPRA recommended a finding of "EXONERATED" for the allegation that Officer A stopped the Victim and j searched him and his car without justification. IPRA recommended a finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegations that Officer A locked the Victim's cell phone and keys inside his vehicle and failed to return or inventory the Victim's wallet. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN? the allegation that Officer A pulled the Victim's hat over his eyes, punched the Victim on the face, failed to enforce traffic violations, and made two false statements to IPRA. IPRA recommended a finding of ^EXONERATED" for the allegation that Officer B stopped the Victim and searched him and his car without justification. IPRA recommended a1 finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegations that Officer A locked the Victim's cell phone and keys inside his vehicle and failed to return or inventory the Victim's wallet. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAINj' the allegation that Officer B failed to enforce traffic violations and made two false statements to IPRA. IPRA recommended a twenty (20) day suspension for Officer A and a ten (10) day suspension for Officer B.
Log/C.R. No. 1031088
allegation that the Officer verbally racial slur at him. The Officer
On October 18, 2009, a conjiplaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on October 18, 2009, involving one off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the Officer physically maltreated Victim A by shoving her, and verbally abused Victim B by directing a racial slur at him. Based on an admission by the accused, statements from the victim and witnesses, and security camera footage, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that the Officer physically maltreated Victim A by shoving her. IPRA
recommended to "SUSTAIN" the
abused Victim B by directing a
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Page 1 of 4
IPRA
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
OCTOBER 2012
apologized to Victim B independent of the investigation, recommended a five (5) day suspension for the Officer.
Log/C.R. No. 1026207
handcuffed the Victim too tightly, inventory or return the Victim's unnecessarily detained her, failed
On May 8, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on May 8, 2009, involving two on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officer A and Officer B). It was alleged that Officers A and B
shoved her against a car, failed to property, falsely imprisoned her, to complete a contact card for her,
finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for
to take action against Officer A unnecessarily detained her. IPRA
and failed to ensure that she was safe and secure. It was alleged that Officer A refused to loosen the Victim's handcuffs. It was also alleged that Officer B failed to take action against Officer A, when Officer A shoved the Victim. Based on statements from the accused Officers and the victim, photographs and video footage, IPRA recommended a finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" |for the allegations that Officer A handcuffed the Victim too tightly, shoved her against a car, refused to . loosen her handcuffs, and unnecessarily detained her. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that Officer A failed to inventory or return the Victim's property and failed to ensure the Victim's safety. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer A failed to complete a contact card for the Victim. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that Officer B handcuffed the Victim too tight, shoved her against a car, failed to inventory or return her property, falsely imprisoned her, and failed to ensure her safety. IPRA recommended a
the allegations that Officer B failed when he shoved the Victim and recommended to "SUSTAIN" the
allegation that Officer B failed to complete a contact card for the Victim. IPRA recommended a reprimand for Officer A and Officer B.
Log/C.R. No. 1025040
On March 27, 2009, a complaint vvas registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on March 27, 2009, involving one ojff-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer (Officer A) and two on-duty CPD Officers (Officer B and Officer C). It was alleged that Officer A verbally abused Sergeant Victim A, advanced toward Sergeant Victim A in a threatening manner and struck his hand, refused to o^ey the Sergeant's direct order to open the door, engaged in a verbal altercation with Victim B via the
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVjlEW AUTHORITY Page 2 of 4
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
OCTOBER 2012
telephone, and was intoxicated/urjider the influence of alcohol during the incident. It was also alleged that Officer B and Officer C failed to follow proper procedure, and took Officer A's wallet and failed to secure/return it to him. Based on1 statements from the accused, the victim and witnesses, and police reports, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A verbally abused Sergeant Victim A, advanced toward him in a threatening manner and struck his hand, refused to obey the Sergeant's direct order, engaged in a verbal altercation with Victim B via the telephone, and was intoxicated/under the influence of alcohol during the incident. IPRA recommended a finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegation that Officer B and Officer C failed to follow proper procedure. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation that Officer B and Officer C took Officer A's wallet and failed to secure/return it to him. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for Officer A.
Log/C.R. No. 1018945 \
(CPD) Officer. It was alleged that
On August 10, 2008, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on August 9, 2008, involving one on-duty Chicago Police Department
the Officer used excessive force in
striking the Victim about the body with a metal baton, stomped him about the body, kicked him about the body, and violated his Fourth Amendment rights by falsely arresting him. It was also alleged that the Officer failed to properly document his encounter with the Victim. Based on statements from the accused, the victim and witnesses, photographs, medical records, and police reports, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the Officer used excessive force in striking the Victim about the body with a metal baton and failed to properly document his encounter with the Victim. IPRA recommended a finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegations that the Officer stomped and kicked the Victim about the body. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for thej allegation that the Officer violated the Victim's Fourth Amendment rights by falsely arresting him. IPRA recommended a ninety (90) day suspension for the Officer.
Log/C.R. No. 1027703
On June 27, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on June 27, 2009, involving two on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officers A and B). It was alleged that Officer A pushed Victim A, hit him about the face and body with a metal object, verbally abused Victims A and B, failed to provide Victim B his name and star
Page 3 of 4
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
OCTOBER 2012
number upon her request, and used inappropriate language on the radio. It was also alleged that Ofjficer B used inappropriate language on the radio. Based on statements from the accused, the victims and witnesses, photographs, medical records, and police reports, IPRA recommended a finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegations that Officer A pushed Victim A, hit him about the face and body with a metal object, verbally abused Victims A and B, failed to provide Victim B his name and radio number upon her request, and used inappropriate language on the radio. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer B used inappropriate language on the radio. IPRA recommended a written reprimand for Officer B.
Log/C.R. No. 1052493
On March 12, 2012, a complaint yvas registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on March 11, 2012, involving an on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the officer pushed the Victim and pulled her hair. Based upon a mediation, the accused officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a suspension of twenty (20) days.
i
Page 4 of 4
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
NOVEMBER 2012
Log/C.R. No. 1021573
recommended to "SUSTAIN" the
On November 9, 2008, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on November 9, 2008, involving an off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Captain and Sergeant. It was alleged that the Captain was intoxicated while off-duty; failed to identify himself; used excessive force in that he pepper-jsprayed the Sergeant; and failed to complete a Tactical Response Report. It was also alleged that the Sergeant was intoxicated while off-duty; was insubordinate to the Captain; directed profanities at [he Captain; grabbed the Captain without justification; failed to identify himself; and released his dog at the Captain. Based on statements from the accused and witnesses, OEMC transmissions, department reports, and drug and alcohol results, IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that the Captain was intoxicated while off-duty; failed to identify himself; and pepper-sprayed the Sergeant. IPRA
allegation that the Captain did not
complete a Tactical Response Report. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that the Sergeant was intoxicated while off-duty and failed to identify himself. IPRA recommended a finding of "NOT SUSTAINED" for the allegations that the Sergeant was insubordinate to the Captain and released his dog at the Captain. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the Sergeant directed profanities at the Captairji and grabbed the Captain without justification. IPRA recommended! a written reprimand for the Captain and a three (3) day suspension for the Sergeant.
Log/C.R. No. 1010082
On October 12, 2007, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on October 12, 2007, involving one known on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer (Officer A) and several unknown CPD Officers. It was alleged that Office'r A was inattentive to duty in that a prisoner, the Victim, escaped while in his custody; pushed the Victim to the ground without justificationj; punched the Victim; and stepped on the Victim's neck. It was also! alleged that the unknown Officers pushed the Victim to the ground without justification; choked the Victim; and struck the Victim aboilit the body several times with their fists. Based on statements from the accused, the Victim and witnesses, photographs, medical records, and department reports, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer A was inattentive to duty in that a prisoner, the Victim, escaped while in his custody. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the
Page 1 of 2
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
NOVEMBER 2012
allegations that Officer A pushed the Victim to the ground without justification; punched the Victim; and stepped on the Victim's neck. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations pushed the Victim to the ground without justification; choked the Victim; and struck the Victim aboiiit the body several times with their fists. IPRA recommended a two (2) day suspension for Officer A.
Page 2 of 2
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Cases
Abstracts of Sustained
DECEMBER 2012
Log/C.R. No. 1051989
of two (2) days.
On February 19, 2012, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on February 19, 2012 in. the 5th District involving an off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the accused Officer discharged her weapon in the air. Based upon a mediation, the accused Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of
'SUSTAINED" and a suspension
Log/C.R. No. 1045076
garaged and to the ground. It was accused Officer yelled at Victims
On May 1, 2011, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding two incidents that both occurred on May 1, 2011 in the j25th District, involving an on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the accused Officer on May 1, 2011 in! the 25th District removed Victim A from his bike; pointed his gun as he gave instructions to Victims A through D to show themselves and one of the Victims remained out of view; stated that he would damage Victims A through D's residences; handcuffed Victim A too tightly; stated that he would push Victims A through D through the wall; pushed Victims A through D against the
also alleged that later that day, the A through D and verbally abused
Victim B. Based upon a mediation, the accused Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegations that he removed Victim A from his bike; pointed his gun as he gave instructions to Victims A through D to show themselves and one of the Victims remained out of view; stated that he would damage Victims A through D's residences; handcuffed Victim A too tightly; stated that he would push Victims A through Q through the wall; yelled at Victims A through D; and verbally abused Victim B. The Officer agreed though mediation to accept a suspension of five (5) days.
Log/C.R. No. 1014796 \
A was intoxicated while off-duty; maintain control of his weapon; action; carried his firearm while
On March 9, 2008, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on March 9, 2008 in the 8th District involving an off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer (Complainant Officer A), two on-duty CPD Officers (Officers B and C), one on-duty CPD Sergeant (Sergeant D), one on-duty CPD Lieutenant (Lieutenant E), and one on-duty CPD Deputy Chief (Deputy Chief F). It was alleged that Complainant Officer
resisted a lawful arrest; failed to threatened improper government consuming alcoholic beverages in
Page 1 of 6
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
DECEMBER 20i2
arrested Complainant Officer A; su arrest of Complainant Officer A;
violation of a General Order; and brought discredit upon the Department by creating a disturbance by attempting to kick in a door. It was alleged that Officer B called Complainant Officer A and Complainants B and C a racial epifjhet; physically abused Complainant Officer A; discriminated against Complainant Officer A based on his racial status; falsely arrested Complainant Officer A; submitted false reports regarding the arrest of Complainant Officer A; failed to report misconduct; and subsequently provided a false statement to IPRA. It was alleged that Officer C failed | to prevent misconduct; physically abused Complainant Officer A; discriminated against Complainant Officer A based on his racial status; falsely arrested Complainant Officer A; submitted false reports regarding the arrest of Complainant Officer A; failed to report misconcluct; and subsequently provided a false statement to IPRA. It was alleged that Sergeant D, Lieutenant E and Deputy Chief F individually discriminated against Complainant Officer A based on his racial status; submitted false reports regarding the arrest of Complainant Officer A; and failed to report misconduct. Based upon statements from ithe accused, complainants and witnesses, ET photographs, Department, OEMC, medical and alcohol/drug reports, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the accused Complainant Officer A was intoxicated while off-duty; resisted a lawful arrest; failed to maintain control of his weapon; threatened improper government action; carried his firearm while consuming alcoholic beverages in violation of a General Order; and brought discredit upon the Department by creating a disturbance by attempting to kick in a doorJ IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegations that the accused Officer B called Complainant Officer A and Complainants B and C a racial epithet; physically abused Complainant Officer A; discriminated against Complainant Officer A based on his racial status; falsely arrested Complainant Officer A; submitted false reports regarding the arrest of Complainant Officer A; failed to report misconduct; and subsequently provided a false statement to IPRA. IPRA recommended a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for the allegation's that Officer C failed to prevent misconduct; physically abused Complainant Officer A; discriminated against Complainant Officer A based on his racial status; falsely
Dmitted false reports regarding the failed to report misconduct; and
the allegations that Sergeant D, individually discriminated against his racial status; submitted false
subsequently provided a false statement to IPRA. IPRA recommended
a finding of "UNFOUNDED" for
Lieutenant E and Deputy Chief F Complainant Officer A based on
reports regarding the arrest of Complainant Officer A; and failed to
EW AUTHORITY
Page 2 of 6
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REV
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
DECEMBER 2012
report misconduct. IPRA recommended a thirty (30) day suspension for the accused Complaint Officer A.
Log/C.R. No. 1043164
Police Department (CPD) Officer,
On February 7, 2011, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on February 7, 2011 in the 15th District involving an on-duty Chicago
It was alleged that the accused
Officer was inattentive to duty in that he discharged his weapon twice. Based upon a mediation, the accused Sergeant agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a "Violation Noted
Log/C.R. No. 1052912
On March 28, 2012, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on March 28, 2012 in the 15th District! involving an on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the accused Officer was inattentive to duty in that he accidentally discharged his taser. Based upon a mediation, the accused Officer agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" and a "Violation Noted".
Log/C.R. No. 1043770
the mouth. IPRA recommended allegation that the accused Officer the Victim, inside a vehicle. IPRA recommended suspension for the accused Officer.
On March 6, 2011, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding two incidents that both occurred on March 6, 2011 in thej 16th District, involving an off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that the accused Officer verbally abused his minor son, the Victim, and struck his minor son, the Victim, on the mouth. It was also alleged that later that day the accused Officer grabbed and pushed his minor son, the Victim, inside a vehicle. Based upon statements by the accused, the victim and witnesses, ET photos, |911 recordings, DCFS investigation finding, department and medical reports, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that thelaccused Officer verbally abused his minor son, the Victim. Further, IPR^\ recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that the accused Officer struck his minor son, the Victim, on
a finding of "EXONERATED" for
grabbed and pushed his minor son,
a two (2) day
Page 3 of 6
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
! i
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
DECEMBER 2012
Log/C.R. No. 1033369
Police Review Authority (IPRA), between January 6, 2010 through involving two off-duty Chicago
On January 6, 2010, a complaint was registered with the Independent
regarding incidents that occurred January 20, 2010 in the 5th District Police Department (CPD) Officers
harassed Complainant Officer B messages after he informed her to
(Officer A and Complainant Officer B). It was alleged that Officer A
by sending him numerous text cease contact with him and verbally
abused Complainant Officer B by directing profanities and derogatory names at him via text message between January 6, 2010 through January 20, 2010. Based upon statements from Officer A and Complainant Officer B, department reports, and text messages, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the! allegations that Officer A harassed Complainant Officer B by sending him numerous text messages after he informed her to cease contact with him and verbally abused Complainant Officer B by directing profanities and derogatory names at him via text message between Jjanuary 6, 2010 through January 20, 2010. IPRA recommended a reprimand for the accused member.
Log/C.R. No. 1036894 j
Police Review Authority (IPRA), between April 4, 2009 through
On June 4, 2010, a complaint was registered with the Independent
regarding incidents that occurred June 9, 2010 in the 4th District
involving an off-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer. It was alleged that between April 4, 2009. through June 9, 2010, the accused Officer violated an active Order of Protection by calling Complainant and/or sending the Complainant text messages. Based upon statements from the accused, jthe Complainant, and witnesses, department and court reports and documents, text messages and phone records, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that the accused Officer violated an active Order of Protection by calling Complainant and/or sending the Complainant text messages between April 4, 2009 through June 9, 20l!p. IPRA recommended a three (3) day suspension for the accused!Officer.
Log/C.R. No. 1045794 j
May 29, 2011 in Hazel Crest, Illi Police Department (CPD) Officer. Officer engaged in a public verbal a
On May 31, 2011, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on
nois involving an off-duty Chicago It was alleged that the accused Itercation with the Complainant and
kicked the Complainant's vehicle. Based upon statements from the accused, the Complainant, CPD and Hazel Crest Police Department
Page 4 of 6
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
!
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
DECEMBER 2012
recommended
to in
"SUSTAIN" the
a public verbal
reports, and photographs, IPRA
a two (2) day suspension for the accused
allegations that the accused Officer engaged altercation with the Complainant and kicked the Complainant's vehicle. IPRA recommended Officer.
Log/C.R. No. 1035710
Officer A struck the Victim on the
On April 23, 2010, a complaint Was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on April 23, 2010 in the 2nd District involving three on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officers (Officers A though C). It was alleged that
chest; struck the Victim on the leg;
choked the Victim; failed to complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR); and failed to arrest and appropriately charge the Victim. It was also alleged that Officer B failed to report misconduct. It was alleged that Officer C failed to register Victim's complaint. Based upon statements by the accused, the victim and witnesses, photographs, and department reports, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer B failed to report misconduct. Further, IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN^ the allegation that Officer C failed to register Victim's complaint. Based upon a mediation, the Officer A agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "SUSTAINED" for the allegations that he ,struck the Victim on thej leg; failed to complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR); and failed to arrest and appropriately charge the Victim. The Officer agreed though mediation to accept a suspension of one (1) day.
Log/C.R. No. 1028778
at Complainant Nurse; released without proper authorization; failed to complete a regarding his contact with Complainant Nurse; secure and handcuff the DUI arrestee; arrested Complainant Nurse without probable cause; and by his overall actions brought discredit
On August 1, 2009, a complaint was registered with the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), regarding an incident that occurred on August 1, 2009 in the 19th District involving one on-duty Chicago Police Department (CPD) Officer (Officer A). It was alleged that Officer A pursued and harassed Complainant Nurse by following her throughout the emergency room jand demanding that a DUI kit be administered to a DUI arrestee;! threatened to arrest Complainant Nurse if the DUI kit was not administered to the DUI arrestee; pulled Complainant Nurse's arms behind j her back and handcuffed her too tightly; unnecessarily detained Complainant Nurse; directed profanities
Complainant
Nurse from custody Field Contact Card failed to properly
Page 5 of 6
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Abstracts of Sustained Cases
DECEMBER 2012
Sergeant B.
upon the Department. It was alleged that Sergeant B allowed Officer A to release Complainant Nurse from custody without proper authorization. Based upon statements from the accused Officer and Sergeant, the Complainant Nurse, witnesses, OEMC and medical records, CPD, Chicago Fire Departijnent and medical ambulance service reports, ET photographs, surveillance video and still photographs, IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegations that Officer A pursued and harassed Complainant Nurse by following her throughout the emergency room and demanding jthat a DUI kit be administered to a DUI arrestee; threatened to arrest Complainant Nurse if the DUI kit was not administered to the DUI arrestee; pulled Complainant Nurse's arms behind her back and handcuffed her too tightly; unnecessarily detained Complainant Nurse; released Complainant Nurse from custody; without proper authorization; failed to complete a Field Contact Card regarding his contact with Complainant Nurse; failed to properly secure and handcuff the |DUI arrestee; arrested Complainant Nurse without probable cause; and by his overall actions brought discredit upon the Department. IPRA recommended to "NOT SUSTAIN" the allegation that Officer A directed profanities at Complainant Nurse. IPRA recommended to "SUSTAIN" the allegation that Sergeant B allowed Officer Ajto release Complainant Nurse from custody without proper authorization. IPRA recommended a one hundred and twenty (120) day suspension for Officer A and a
fifteen (15) day suspension for
Page 6 of 6
Created by INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY