IPRA
INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
—* * *
INTEGRITY • TRANSPARENCY • INDEPENDENCE • TIMELINESS
July 14, 2016
To the Mayor, Members of City Council Committee on Public Safety, the City Clerk, the Legislative Reference Bureau and the Citizens of Chicago:
Enclosed is the public report on the operation of the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) for the Second Quarter of 2016 that is submitted herein pursuant to Municipal Code of Chicago, Section 2-57-110.
Although I hope you will see how much the agency has been able to accomplish this quarter, this report also highlights some of the key challenges we face at this unprecedented time in our agency's history.
It is important to acknowledge that our City is in engaged in perhaps the most important undertaking it has attempted in decades - true reform for policing and police accountability. As was made clear during last week's City Council meetings, there are many differences of opinion as to what the future should look like. As the key decision-makers, you are charged with parsing through the myriad of ideas on how to fix a system that is broadly viewed to be badly broken. We understand that this challenge must be faced in a thoughtful, transparent and inclusive manner. We must get it right.
However, it is my hope that we proceed as expediently as possible.
Although we continue to strive for continuous improvement in our operations, IPRA is unlikely to be able to achieve the effectiveness and efficiency in operations that the City deserves under the present circumstances. Thus, we are asking that you work to solidify the vision for the future of police accountability in Chicago as soon as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve.
1615 WEST CHICAGO AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60622 312.746.3594 (COMPLAINT LINE) | 312.746.3609 (MAIN LINE) | 312.745.3593 (TTY) | WWW.IPRACHICAGO.ORG
Sincerely,
City of Chicago Independent Police Review Authority
INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORTTY
—
INTEGRITY . TRANSPARENCY • INDGPENHENCt • TlM^liNESS
Second Quarter Report
¦ ¦ j
April 1, 2016 - June 30, 2016
This report is filed pursuant to Municipal Code of Chicago, Section 2-57-110, which requires the filing of quarterly reports. This quarterly report provides information for the period April 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016. The information contained in this report is accurate as of July 14, 2016. All public reports produced by the Independent Police Review Authority's (IPRA) are available online at www.iprachicago.org/ .
IPRA performs the intake function for all allegations of misconduct made against members of the Chicago Police Department (CPD). IPRA investigates allegations of excessive force, domestic violence, coercion and bias-based verbal abuse. IPRA also investigates misconduct even if no allegations have been made, including, all instances where (i) a CPD member discharges a firearm, stun gun or taser in a manner that could potentially strike someone and (ii) a person dies or sustains a serious injury while in police custody, or where an extraordinary occurrence occurs in a lockup facility.
I. Intake and Notification Overview
a. Opened Investigations
During the second quarter of 2016, IPRA received 1292 misconduct complaints and incident notifications, representing a 10.3% increase compared to Ql 2016. However, when compared to the second quarters of both 2015 and 2014, Q2 2016 complaints decreased 11.7% and 26.9%, respectively. The factors contributing to the steady decline in complaints are unclear. However, as explained below, we have stepped up our community outreach programs in an attempt to address this.-IPRA referred 963 investigations to CPD's Bureau of Internal Affairs (BIA), and IPRA retained 329 investigations
JQ2 2015
Domestic Violence i6': ¦ 23 16 ' ' 25 16
Excessive Force 78 , 78 102 96 97
Bias-Based Verbal Abuse 14 22 15 27 29
Unnecessary Display of Weapon io. 11 11 12|99|
Unnecessary Physical Contact ii 12 12|99|15
Civil Suits1 15 9 10 17|99|
Miscellaneous2 19 20 30 28 45
1 Pursuant to MCC 2-57-040(e), IPRA is authorized to review all cases settled by the Department of Law where a complaint register was filed against a department member, and if, in the opinion of the Chief Administrator, further investigation is warranted, conduct such investigation.
2Q 2016 Report Page 2 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Proper Care|9999|12 10
Escape|99 9 9 9 9|
False Testimony in Court|99 9 9 9 9|
Threats|99 9|1 .|9 9 9|
Fourth Amendment|9 9 9999|
Shooting Conversion|9999 9 9|
Failure to ID|9 9 9 9 99|
Vehicle|9 9 9 9|0 '|99|
mum mmm mmm mmm
Figure !: Investigations opened between April 1 and June 30, 2016 categorized by allegation.
Complaints involving allegations of the use of excessive force continue to represent the largest percentage of complaints IPRA retains and investigates.
Investigations Opened by Complaint Category
False Testimony in
Figure 2: Investigations opened between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016 based on an allegation being filed (by percentage).
2 Miscellaneous includes both miscellaneous and blank category codes. Blank category codes are allegations that IPRA has not yet determined the specific category that fits the allegation.
2Q 2016 Report Page 3 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
I
Lastly, of the 329 incidents that fell within IPRA's jurisdiction, IPRA referred 10 matters to the Cook County State's Attorney and a single incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
b. Weapons Discharge Data
In addition to taking in complaints of misconduct, IPRA receives notifications from CPD related to incidents that fall within IPRA's investigatory jurisdiction. As outlined below, the year-over-year decline in officer-involved shooting incidents continued through the second quarter of this year.
. Notifications and Complaints of Weapon *Dischafges:^-;.-^--.
1 No'tification'.Type •• ; :' "\ Q2 2016 'fQ4v2015 * Q3 2015
Firearm Discharge Striking an Individual '|9999|15
No Hit Shootings|999 99|
Animal Destruction 12 9 9 20
Taser Discharges 125 78 95 116
OC Spray|99999|
Sl^lCompi^ntJype^^ Q2 20i6 r|Ql'2016ll
Accidental Firearm Discharge|99999|
Accidental Taser Discharge|99999|
0 ¦ m' ¦ s ...
Figure 3: Weapons-discharge investigations opened between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.
There were 10 officer-involved shooting incidents during the second quarter. Five shootings resulted in injuries, and two of those were fatal. Taser discharges continue to represent the majority of weapons notifications IPRA receives. During Q2 2016, Taser discharge notifications increased by 60% over Ql 2016. This may be the result of the expansion of the Department's Taser program.
3 Note: Accidental discharges are included in Figure 1 above and thus are represented twice. IPRA's total investigations for Q2 2016, as stated on page 2, is 329 investigations, comprised of 175 complaints and 154 notifications.
2Q 2016 Report Page 4 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Q2 2016 Weapon Discharge Notifications
Figure 4: Investigations opened between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016 upon the notification of a weapon discharge (by percentage).
c. Lockup Incidents and Motor Vehicle-related Deaths
IPRA received 12 notifications of extraordinary occurrences (EO) in lockup during the second quarter. This is an increase of 20.0% from the first quarter, during which IPRA received 10 EO notifications, but a decrease of 29.4% from Q2 2015.
$Qf!2016l ^420151 jE3*2ST5 ^2"2015-
Extraordinary Occurrences 12 10 9 14 17
Figure 5: Notifications of extraordinary occurrences during lockup.
As of January 1, 2016, state law requires IPRA to investigate incidents related to officer-involved motor vehicle accidents that result in a fatality. Thus, we now report on officer-involved fatal motor vehicle incidents. IPRA received one notification of an officer-involved fatal motor vehicle accident and that investigation is underway.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
II. Investigative Overview
a. Closed Investigations
During the second quarter, IPRA closed 162 investigations, which is a 57.9% decline from Q.2 2015. As discussed in our Ql 2016 report, the new administration has introduced new policies and procedures intended to improve the quality and timeliness of the investigative process. The focus for the first half of 2016 has been on quality improvements. Our investigative processes have temporarily slowed down as the investigative staff learns and adopts quality control mechanisms the new administration has put in place. In addition, since the announcement that IPRA will be replaced by a new civilian oversight agency, some staff members have left the agency to pursue other opportunities. We have also lost several staff members to retirement since the beginning of the year. Given the status of the agency, we are unable to fill these vacated positions.
mmm
161 1 115 ;. 378 372 385
Figure 6: Total investigations closed per quarter.
During Q2 2016, of the investigations that resulted in a finding, IPRA's sustained rate increased to 37.3%, up from 15.4% in Ql 2016 and 10.1% in Q3 2015.
m WM MM
Sustained4 19. 38.0% 4 . 15.4%|99|10.5% 12 10.1% 37 19.6%
Not Sustained* 24 48.0% 10 38.5%.:. 31 .40.8% 51 42.9% 89 47.1%
Unfounded6|99|12.0% 10 38.5% 35 46.1% 49 ,. ,41.2% ,59 31.2%
Exonerated7|99|2.0%.|99|7.7%|99|2.6%|99|5.9%|99|.2.1%
¦¦EH MR Eo"615%M EH 1100!0%« mm
Figure 7: Findings from investigations closed between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.
|109|Sustained: The allegation was supported by sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action. Recommendations of disciplinary action may range from violation noted to separation from the CPD. See Appendix F for all sustained case abstracts.|109|Not Sustained: The allegation is not supported by sufficient evidence, which could be used to prove or disprove the allegation.|109|Unfounded: The allegation was not based on the facts revealed through investigation, or the reported incident did not occur.|109|Exonerated: The incident occurred, but the action taken by the officer(s) was deemed lawful and proper.
2Q 2016 Report Page 6 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
2Q 2016 Closed Investigation Findings
Exonerated 2%
Figure'8:' Findings from investigations d6se'd!between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016'(by percentage)
During the same time period, IPRA closed 111 without a specific finding. More specifically, this quarter, IPRA closed 53 investigations due to the lack of a signed affidavit and administratively closed 58 investigations. During Q2 2016, IPRA instituted new policies and procedures to ensure that investigations were not being closed without findings unnecessarily. In particular. Wo investigation is closed for a lack of affidavit without being reviewed as a potential case in which to pursue an affidavit override. The breakdown for investigations closed without findings is below:
Per Illinois Statute, IPRA is required to obtain a sworn affidavit to bring allegations of misconduct against an officer. See 50 ILCS 725/3.4 "Uniform Peace Officers' Disciplinary Act."
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Q2 2016 Closed Investigations - No findings ,.-'C."-.-M'. v;-
No Findings . ~f. Q2 2016 ; Ql 2016 •'v£*' Q4 2015 Q3 20i5 ^ " Q22bl5 ' ;
# . % % # %. # . % " .# % .
No Affidavit 53 47.3% 15 16.9% 82 27.2% 90 35.6% 84 35%
Administratively Closed 58 52.7% 74 83.1% 220 72.8% 163 64.4% 154 65%
msmmmm m mm mm F25.3HI ^38l fipo%J
Figure 9: Results from investigations with no findings closed between April 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.
IPRA administratively closed approximately one-third of all complaints and notifications. These investigations include weapons discharge notifications with no apparent misconduct nor any allegation of misconduct on the part of the involved officer and allegations that do not fall within IPRA's nor BIA's jurisdiction.9 IPRA exercised its authority to request an affidavit override in four investigations this quarter, which is provided in more detail in subsection (c) below.
b. Pending Investigations
As of June 30, 2016, IPRA had 919 pending investigations representing an increase of 20% increase over the number of pending investigations at the close of Ql 2016. Nearly 41% of the pending investigations relate to excessive force allegations, which are complex and often require significant analysis and investigative work.
There are 66 pending officer-involved shooting investigations involving an incident in which a member of the public was injured or killed.
Given the fact that our investigative staff is.down to only 75% of capacity, and because we expect to lose more staff members in the coming months due to the agency transition, the administrative staff expects that this rise. in. pending investigations will continue through the balance of 2016. The Chief Administrator has requested additional resources from the City Administration in order to mitigate.this rising case load to the extent possible given the unusual and unprecedented status of the agency.
As outlined in our ordinance, review of settled civil matters involving officer misconduct is part of IPRA's mandate. It is important to note here that there has been a significant rise in the number of settled civil cases that are being forwarded to IPRA for review. The investigations arising from these matters are often among the most time-consuming for the agency.
9 For example, if a citizen made a complaint against someone and they were a member of a non-CPD agency, IPRA would administratively close that investigation.
2Q 2016 Report Page 8 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
:V v:V : Category .: ¦"' ¦ ¦ 2Q2016 \ : 1Q2016
,':.:"#. ::: %.
Excessive Force / Use of Force 380 413% 346 45.3%
Taser, OC Spray Discharge 139 15.1% 47 6.2%
Domestic Altercation or Incident 97 10.6% 98. 12.8%
Firearm Discharge that Strikes an Individual ' 66 ' 7:2% 75 9.8%
Verbal Abuse / Harassment 59 6.4% 63 8.2%
Miscellaneous 51- 5.5% ' 45 5:9%
Civil Suits 38 4.1% 25 3;3%
Weapon Display : 35 3.8% . 38 5.0%
No Hit Shooting 26 2.8%|99|0.7%
Proper Care 21 2:3% 17 2.2%
No Injury|99|0.3%|99|0.4%
Shooting Conversion|99|0.2%|99|0.3%
False Arrest|99|0.1%|9 9|0.0%
False Testimony ¦ „ ¦ 1 . 0.1% ¦ 0 . 0.0%
mn
Figure 10: Pending investigations as of June 30, 2016.
Figure 11: Pending investigations as of June 30, 2016.
2Q 2016 Report Page 9 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
2Q 2016 Pending Investigations
c. Affidavit Overrides
Chief Administrator Fairley submitted four affidavit override requests during the second quarter. CPD granted each request.
III. Key Accomplishments
Transparency Project
On June 3, 2016, the City implemented the Police Accountability Task Force's Transparency Policy (the "Task Force") recommendations. The taskforce recommended that the City release all files related to certain types of police incidents.
The policy, which requires the City to release specific audio and video recordings and police reports to the public no later than 60 days from the date of the incident, was formally adopted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in February 2016. Since the formal adoption of the policy, IPRA collaborated with several city agencies to develop a new online case portal to facilitate the release of the case materials.
Pursuant to the Task Force's policy, the hew case portal features case materials related to pending IPRA investigations that fall within the following categories:
Officer-involved shootings;
Officer-involved taser discharges that result in death or great bodily harm; and
•, Incidents of death or great bodily harm (other than self-inflicted harm) that occur in police custody.
IPRA staff has devoted significant time and effort into developing this case portal and we are hopeful that implementing this new policy will take the city a step closer to building a police accountability system that cultivates trust from the community. The new case portal can be accessed at www.portal.iprachicago.org .
IPRA Rules and Regulations
On June 28, 2016, we made effective a set of rules and regulations for the agency in support of our goal to become more transparent about the work that we do and how we do it. We will continue to update our rules as necessary, and the IPRA administration will review the rules at least once per year to ensure that they are up-to-date and accurately reflect current organizational practices.
Historical Case Review
In late March, IPRA engaged McGuireWoods LLP to conduct an independent review of closed officer-involved shooting investigations to assess the quality of the investigative process, the
2Q 2016 Report Page 10 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
accuracy of IPRA's legal analysis, and the impact of the department's use-of-force policy on the investigation outcomes. Last month, McGuireWoods provided IPRA with summary data of its preliminary review of 305 officer-involved shooting investigations.
McGuireWoods' initial phase focused on reviewing the broad range of investigations to identify the criteria to be used to select 20 investigations for an in-depth review. Although this important project is well under way and on schedule to be completed in early fall, we can highlight some accomplishments during this initial phase. McGuireWoods has assisted IPRA in creating a database of information related to the shooting incidents reviewed. Because we believe this information will provide valuable insights as to CPD policies and a wealth of information of public interest, our goal is to make this database publicly available.
Based on this initial review, of the-305 closed investigations, 35% of closed shooting investigations involved a fatal shooting. Moreover, nearly 7% of these incidents resulted in injury to an unintended target. 13% of these shootings involved an off-duty officer.
% of Total # of Investigations Reviewed
Fatal Shooting
Subject under the influence of drugs or alcohol Off-duty officer No weapon recovered Mistaken weapon Unintended Hit
Subject with mental health history included in the report Non-firearm weapon recovered Continued shooting after intended individual disabled Secondary Use of Force with intervening event
¦ ¦ 2%
1% 1%
8% 6.5')%
5%.
¦ 13%
12%
10%
Figure 12: McGuireWoods' preliminary data summary. Note: The percentages above do not add up to 100%, because many cases meet none or more than one criteria.
IPRA has not yet validated the data provided by McGuireWoods LLP.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Policy Recommendations
As promised in our Ql 2016, this quarter we published a report with recommendations on ways to enhance CPD's Crisis Intervention Training Program. The report is available on our website, www.iprachicago.org .
Pursuant to the Municipal Code of Chicago Section 2-57-040, the Chief Administrator of the Independent Police Review Authority is empowered to and has a duty to make recommendations to the superintendent, the police board, and the chairman of the city council committee on public safety concerning revisions in policy and operating procedures to increase the efficiency of the department. To fulfill the mission, as the conclusion of an investigation, IPRA may issue an Advisory Letter to the department if the investigation uncovered a problem that hinders the effectiveness of department operations and programs or if the investigation has identified a verifiable potential liability or risk that warrants attention by the department. To that end, during the second quarter IPRA issued and made public on our website two separate advisory letters from Chief Fairley to the department regarding the following issues:
The first Advisory Letter requested that the Superintendent consider diversity training for the command staff at a particular district where a concerning incident involving racial sensitivity had occurred. The second Advisory Letter recommended that the Department examine policies regarding the treatment of detainees to ensure there is sufficient direction on how lockup personnel should handle passive resisters. These Advisory Letters are available on our website.
Staffing and Organizational Development
Despite turbulent, challenging times, IPRA remains committed to continuous improvement in the quality and timeliness of our investigations. During Q2, we achieved a number of significant milestones. Our hope is that the reforms we initiate under the IPRA banner will be carried into the future as the city transitions to a new accountability structure. Our accomplishments include:
Building out our legal function: We continued our efforts to enhance legal oversight of our investigations by increasing our legal team with two staff attorneys, a chief investigative law officer and General Counsel Helen O'Shaughnessy.
Closing aging investigations: During first quarter the agency's investigation closure rate dropped significantly because the entire agency was focused on implementing the new methods to enhance the quality and timeliness of our investigations. During the second quarter, the agency's priorities were centered on closing investigations that were over two years old. While we made significant strides towards that goal, we fell short of our expressed goal of closing every investigation two years or older due to a lack of
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
personnel resources. The transition has placed a tremendous strain on our organization, which has negatively impacted our productivity. We are operating at nearly 80% staffing capacity, and we're unable to hire additional personnel. Despite our current limitations, we closed 48 cases that were over 2 years old.
Providing Training opportunities: To further develop the knowledge and skills of our investigative and administrative staff, IPRA has implemented a new training curriculum. During Q2, our staff received training on the following topics:
Evidence Response Team Training
Summary Report Writing
Interview Skills
Transparency Policy
F. Community Engagement
IPRA remains committed to its mission to address the public on the work and policies of our police accountability. Chief Administrator Fairley. and other administrative staff members represented IPRA at several community events this quarter to discuss.IPRA's mission as well as contribute to the public debate regarding,police accountability. .,, <
The following are some of the highlights:
Communi^
April 6'; 2016 3rd Ward Town hall Meeting Washington Park Arts Incubator 301E. GarfieldiBlvd : . . .
April 9, 2016 Operation PUSH Breakfast & Broadcast .Rainbow Push Coalition (930 E. 50th Street)
April 9, 2016 Far South CAC Summit/Resource Fair - Co-Host Social Justice Workshop Corliss Early College STEM High School (821 E 103rd Street)
April 11, 2016 Humboldt Park-Orr CAC Nia Family Center- 744 N. Monticelio
April 11, 2016 Bronzeville CAC Meeting Chicago.Urban League (4510 S. Michigan)
April 12, 2016 New Life Centers Staff Meeting 2657 S. Lawndale
April 12, 2016 NAACP Police Accountability Hearing jensoh Elementary (3030 W. Harrison)
April 18, 2016 28th Ward Community Meeting Malcolm X Learning Center, 4624 W. Madison St, Lower Level
April 18, 2016 7th Ward Town Hall Meeting Compassion Baptist Church (2650 E
2Q 2016 Report Page 13 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Date ¦ \" Community Event Location ...
95th St)
April 28, 2016 South Shore CAC 7815 S. Jeffery Blvd (Our Lady of Peace Church)
May 2, 2016 IPRA meeting with OIS affected families 4315 S. Cottage Grove
May 10, 2016 Austin Community Action Council Michele Clark H.S. (5101W. Harrison)
May 10, 2016 28th Ward Community Meeting Garfield Park District, (100 N Central Park)
May 16, 2016 Chicago Council on Lawyers Police Accountability Session Jenner & Block (353 N. Clark)
May 17, 2016 Parent University Collaborative Mile Davis School (6740 S. Paulina)
May 18, 2016 CAPS Expanded Anti-Violence Initiative CAPS 011th District 3151 West Harrison
May 20, 2016 Interaction with High School students at Rowe-Clark H.S. Rowe-Clark H.S (3645 W. Chicago Ave)
May 23, 2016 CAPS District Advisory Committee 11th District (3151 West Harrison St)
May 24, 2016 20th Ward Health, Wellness, and Employment Resource Fair Sherwood Park (5701S. Shields Ave.)
May 24, 2016 Spring Session of the Citizen Police Academy CPD Academy - (1300 W. Jackson)
May 25, 2016 Building Community Trust Roundtable Kennedy-King (740 W. 63 Street)
May 26, 2016 Youth Expanded Anti-Violence Initiative 11th District (3151 West Harrison St)
June 1, 2016 IPRA Satellite Office-Investigator Availability St. Sabina (1210 W. 78th Place)
June 8, 2016 IPRA Satellite Office.-Investigator Availability North Area Center (845 W. Wilson)
June 15, 2016 IPRA Satellite Office-Investigator Availability Garfield Center (10 S. Kedzie)
June 16, 2016 Coalition of African American Leaders (COAL); to host a COAL Board Plus Forum, featuring IPRA Chief Administrator Ms. Sharon Fairley Lake Shore Hotel - 4900 S. Lake Shore Drive.
June 22, 2016 IPRA Satellite Office-Investigator Availability King Center (4314 S. Cottage Grove)
June 22, 2016 CAPS - 3rd District Advisory Committee Meeting 3rd District (7040 S. Cottage Grove)
June 23, 2016 10th Ward Community 3235 E. 91st Street
2Q 2016 Report Page 14 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Date Community Event Location ::"'.' /.'
Meeting
June 23, 2016 28th Ward Community Meeting Park Douglas Place (2719 W Roosevelt.Rd)
June 28, 2016 20th Ward Town Hall Meeting Sherwood Park (5701S. Shields)
Figure 13: The above chart describes IPRA's community outreach during 2Q 2016.
G. Satellite Offices
We understand that community accessibility is essential to the agency's ability to serve the citizens of Chicago. As of June 1, 2016, IPRA investigators are now available at four different satellite locations across the City. In partnership with the City's Department of Family & Support Services (DFSS) and Saint Sabina Church, every Wednesday of each month IPRA representatives now alternate between locations in East Garfield Park, Auburn Gresham, Uptown, and Grand Boulevard. Investigators can accept new complaints, answer any questions community members may have regarding the agency and/or the investigative process, and provide updates on pending investigations. IPRA investigative staff members are available at the below locations and times:
'.-i.^tt(^:^cat^;^|;p.^^^
Auburn Gresham St Sabina Church 1210 W 78th Place 773.483.4300 First Wednesday of each month 5pm - 7pm
Uptown North Area Center 845 W. Wilson Ave. 312.744.2580; TTY: 312.744.2081 Second Wednesday of each month 2pm -4pm
East Garfield Park Garfield Center 10 S. Kedzie Ave. 312.746.5400; TTY: 312.746.5445 Third Wednesday of each month 5pm - 7pm .
Grand Boulevard King Center 4314 S. Cottage Grove 312.747.2300; TTY: 312.744.5619 Fourth' Wednesday of each month 2pm - 4pm
Figure 14: IPRA's satellite office schedule.
IV. Complaints by Unit & Officer
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
a. Complaints by Officer11
District 'Number of Complaints
Unknown12 71 |109|45 |109|79 |109|63 |109|69 |109|67 |109|86 |109|73 |109|75 |10 9|52
10 48
11 109.
12 63
14 19
15 60
16 48
17 23
18 42
19 52.
20 24 '
22 43.
24 22
25 59
District Number of Complaints.
11 109
.1 •
C.' ¦" '
s ¦ •
mmBs
II1M9HB i iiiiff 'mi
la ¦ -i
. 20 i 24
17 23
24 22
.14 19
Figure 15: Number of complaints per district of occurrence during the second quarter'(in numerical order by Police District).13
Figure 16: Number of complaints per district of occurrence during the second quarter (in descending order).
In Figures 15 and 16, Lighter Grey signifies those districts with a substantially lower number of complaints, Grey signifies those districts that are below average. Red signifies those districts that are above average, and Dark Red signifies those districts with a substantially higher number of complaints.
11 To analyze the data, IPRA calculated the following descriptive statistics: Mean: 55.5; Median: 55.5; St. Dev:
22.45; Range: 90; Confidence level: 9.95.
12 Through the investigation, IPRA will determine the district of occurrence.
13 Please see Appendix A for a map of CPD police districts.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Figure 17: The above map represents the number of complaints filed per district.
Excluding unknown districts of occurrence, Figure 17 depicts the total number of complaints that occurred in each district during Q2 2016. The average is 55.5 complaints per district, which represents a 17% increase (approximately 8 complaints per district) from Ql 2016.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
b. Complaints by Unit of Assignment
The following chart reflects the number of members per unit with the identified number of complaints.
Complaints per member by unitpf assignment .
District 1 24 members with 1 complaint each 2 members with 2 complaints each District 2 23 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints District 3 31 members with 1 complaint each 3 members with 2 complaints each 1 member with 4 complaints
District 4 31 members with 1 complaint each 3 members with 2 complaints each 1 member with 3 complaints District5 29 members with 1 complaint each District 6 30 members with 1 complaint each 3 members with 2 complaints each
District 7 15 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints District 8 40 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints District 9 11 members with 1 complaint each 2 members with 2 complaints each
District 10 32 members with 1 complaint each 2 members with 2 complaints each District 11 33 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 4 complaints District 12 7 members with 1 complaint each
District 14 15 members with 1 complaint each District 15 19 members with 1 complaint each District 16 9 members with 1 complaint each 1 members with 2 complaints
District 17 7 members with 1 complaint each District 18 27 members with 1 complaint each 1 members with 2 complaints 1 member with 3 complaints District 19 15 members with 1 complaint each
District 20 15 members with 1 complaint each 2 members with 2 complaints each District 2l" 1 member with 1 complaint District 22 18 members with 1 complaint each 3 members. with 2 complaints each 1 member with 3 complaints
District 24 District 25 Airport Law Enforcement South
8 members with 1 complaint each 21 members with 1 complaint each 2 members with 2 complaints each ISil 2 members with 1 complaint each
Detail Unit (57) 4 members with 1 complaint each Special Investigations Section (079) 2"members with 1 complaint each Leeal Affairs Section (114) 1 member with 1 complaint
Office of Crime Control Strategies Deployment Operations Center Bureau of Internal Affairs (121)
(115) 1 member with 1 complaint ("6) 1 member with 1 complaint 2 members with 1 complaint each
Finance Division (122) Human Resources Division (123) . Education and Training Division
1 member with 1 complaint 1 member with 1 complaint (124) 2 members with 1 complaint each
14 See Appendix B for additional data concerning complaints per member per unit.
15 District 21 is not a current district. This complaint is against an inactive member who is no longer a member of
the Chicago Police Department.
2Q 2016 Report Page 18 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Complaints per member by unit of assignment
Public Safety Information Professional Counseling Division Special Functions Division (141)
Technology (PSIT) (125) 1 member with 1 complaint (128) 1 member with 1 complaint 1 member with 1 complaint
Traffic Section (1451 Field Services Section (166) Evidence and Recovered Property
6 members with 1 complaint each 3 members with 1 complaint each Section (167) 1 member with 1 complaint
Central Detention (171) 2 members with 1 complaint each Forensic Services Division (177) 1 member with 1 complaint Criminal Registration Unit (187) 2 members with 1 complaint each
Narcotics Section (189) Intelligence Section (191) Vice & Asset Forfeiture Division
31 members with 1 complaint each 1 members with 2 complaints 1 members with 3 complaints 1 member with 1 complaint (192) 2 members with 1 complaint each
Gang Investigation Division (193) Bureau of Patrol - Area Central Bureau of Patrol - Area South (212)
5 members with 1 complaint each (211) 10 members with 1 complaint each 13 members with 1 complaint each 2 members with 2 complaints each
Bureau of Patrol - Area North (213) Timekeeping - Headauarters (222) Medical Section (2311
13 members with 1 complaint each' 1 member with 3 complaints 1 member with 4 complaints 1 member with 1 complaint 1 member with 1 complaint
Troubled Buildings Section (241) Court Section (261) Forensic Services Evidence
2 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 1 complaint Technician Section (277) 1 member with 1 complaint
Gang Enforcement - Area Central Gang Enforcement - Area South' Gang Enforcement - Area North
(311) 9 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints 1 member with 3 complaints (312) 6 members with 1 complaint each (313) 8 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints
Canine Unit (341) 2 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints Alternate Resoonse Sectibn(376) 11 members with 1 complaint each 1 member with 2 complaints Gang Enforcement Division (393) 4 members with i complaint each
Detached Services - Miscellaneous Central Investigations Unit (606) Central Investigations Unit (608)
Detail (543) 1 member with 1 complaint 7 members'with 1 complaint each 7 members with 1 complaint each
Bureau of Detectives -'Area Central Bureau of Detectives - A'rea South Bureau of Detectives - Area North
(610) 10 members with 1 complaint each (620) 5 members with 1 complaint each' (630) 9 members with 1 complaint each
Public Transoortation Section (701) Violence Reduction Initiative North Violence Reduction Initiative South
3 members with'1 complaint each (711) ' 1 member with 1 complaint (712) 1 member with 1 complaint
Summer Mobile Patrol (714) 1 member with 1 complaint
Figure 18: The above chart depicts complaints per member per assigned unit.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
V. Use of Deadly Force Policy Recommendations
Given recent community concerns regarding officer-involved shootings, we are focusing our attention in this 2nd Quarter 2016 report on the policies governing the Chicago Police Department's use-of-force, and in particular, the policy governing the use of deadly force. The following discussion and policy recommendations emanate from our recent review of several officer-involved shooting investigations as well as a review of "deadly force" policies among several peer police departments.16A full report on these issues will be published later this summer; however, we will provide a summary of the key topics and recommendations here.
The use of physical force to achieve law enforcement goals is perhaps the most important privilege that we as a community bestow on our law enforcement professionals. This privilege, however, is" not without limits. The contours of the scope of permissible use-of-force are shaped by law - the United States Constitution, state law, and, in many instances, municipal law as well. Although the legal framework provides boundaries defining acceptable use-of-force from a legal perspective, a department's policies are intended to reflect what we, the community, accept as permissible.
As outlined in a 1989 Supreme Court case, Graham v. Connor, the legal framework for assessing whether an officer's use-of-force is acceptable has its foundation in the United States Constitution.17The two primary sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct are grounded in the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person and the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.18Claims of excessive force that occur in the context of an arrest are analyzed based on Fourth Amendment standards, while claims of excessive force used to subdue a convicted prisoner are analyzed under an Eighth Amendment standard.19
In Graham, the Supreme Court explained that an excessive force claim arising in the context of an arrest or an investigatory stop of a free citizen, is most properly characterized as one invoking the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of a citizen's "right to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures of the person."20 Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of "the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake."21 According to the Supreme Court,
16 See Appendix D for a list of the sources supporting this policy discussion. "Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). 18W. at 394.
l9See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985); Whitley v. Alters, 475 U.S. 312 (1986). 20490 U.S. at 394 (internal quotations omitted). 21ld. at 396 (internal quotations omitted).
2Q 2016 Report Page 20 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
the assessment of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is "not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."22 The Court has outlined a list of factors to be considered when assessing the reasonableness of force used by law enforcement officers which includes the following:
The severity of the crime at issue;
Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others;
And whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.23
An assessment of the reasonableness of a given use-of-force is judged from the perspective of a "reasonable officer on scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."24 When judging an officer's acts, the reviewer should allow "for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -about the amount of force that is necessary in*a particular situation."25
Because these terms are relatively undefined, there is no single, universally agreed-upon definition of use-of-force, nor is there a universal set of rules that governs when officers should use force and how much.26 As such, police department policies can have a significant impact on how force is used in street-level encounters.27 i
In addition to providing guidance to officers, uses of force policies are also critically important to police accountability because they define the conduct for which police officers can be held accountable.
a.' Chicago Police Department Policy Governing the Use of Deadly Force
A copy of the current policy, CPD^General Order G03-02-03, is provided as Appendix C to this report. Section 11(A) of the policy outlines the circumstances in which deadly force is permissible:
A sworn member is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary: 1. to prevent death , or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person, or:
23Garner, 471 U.S. at 8-9. 24490 U.S. at 396. 25W. at 397.
26 "Police Use of Force," National Institute for Justice, Office of Justice Programs, modified April 13, 2015, available
at .
27 "Principles of Good Policing: Avoiding Violence Between Police and Citizens," U.S. Department of Justice,
Community Relations Services, revised September 2003, available at www.usdoj.gov .
2Q 2016 Report Page 21 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
2. to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony which involves the infliction, threatened infliction, or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm or;
is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or;
otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
Section III of the current CPD policy outlines several prohibitions regarding the use of firearms:
Use of firearms in the following ways is prohibited:
Firing into crowds.
Firing warning shots.
Firing into buildings or through doors, windows, or other openings when the person lawfully fired at is not clearly visible.
Firing at a subject whose action is only a threat to the subject himself (e.g., attempted suicide).
Firing at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only force used against the sworn member or another person.
Section IV concludes the current CPD policy with the following proposition: Affirmation of Protection of Life Policy
Sworn members will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the restrictions of this directive.
b. IPRA Review and Preliminary Recommendations
IPRA has begun a review of policies governing the use of deadly force for several other large, urban police departments.28 Based on our preliminary review of policies and the published literature on the topic, we have identified the following areas of potential improvement to CPD's use of deadly force policy.
Recommendation #1: The "affirmation of the protection of life" provision should be revised to reflect that the department values all human life and should be placed as the first provision of the policy for greater emphasis.
28 A list of the departments for which policies were reviewed is included in the appendices.
2Q 2016 Report Page 22 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Based on our review of officer-involved shooting investigations, we are greatly
i
concerned about the number of instances in which the use of deadly force may have been justified, but the scope of the force used appears excessive based on the totality of circumstances. In particular, there have been investigations where the evidence suggests that officers have continued to fire their weapons without making any assessment of whether the additional shots fired were really necessary. As examples, we point to the sixteen shots fired at LaQuan McDonald, thirteen shots at Flint Farmer. Many other departments are incorporating provisions that express a stronger, clearer commitment to the sanctity of life - for officers and the public.
Recommendation 82: Section 11(A)(2), the provision that permits the use of deadly force to enforce the arrest of or prevent the escape of a fleeing felon, should be revised to require that deadly force can only be used where the officer reasonably believes that the fleeing suspect presents an immediate threat of harm to the officer or other individuals.
IPRA's review of officer-involved shooting investigations has revealed that many incidents arise out of an officer's interaction with an individual who the officer reasonably believes may have committed a serious felony offense. We have reviewed many cases in which the subject is fired upon while fleeing from the officer. In some, but not all cases, the evidence makes clear that the subject threatened the officer with a firearm to make good his escape. In other cases, the evidence is much less clear that the subject presented an imminent threat to the officer, or anyone else. In these cases, the policy should make clear that the need for deadly force is only present where the officer reasonably believes that the subject is1 either an immediate threat to the officer or an immediate threat to another person, or the public.
Recommendation #3: The policy should be revised to reflect that the context of the situation will be considered in evaluating the propriety of the officer's conduct. More specifically, many departments have adopted policy provisions that make clear that an officer's conduct leading up to the use of deadly force is an important consideration when evaluating a use-of-force incident. The goal of such policies is to discourage officers from using tactics that unnecessarily escalate a force incident or otherwise unnecessarily place the officer in a position that requires the use of deadly force.
Recommendation #4: The policy should explicitly articulate the factors that are considered in determining whether an officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Most of the policies IPRA reviewed specifically articulate a list of factors that will be considered in determining the appropriate level of force. The most common enumerated factors include:
The seriousness of the crime or suspected offense
The level of threat or resistance presented by the subject;
Whether the subject was posing an immediate threat to the officers or a danger to the community;
The risk or apparent attempt by the subject to escape;
The conduct of the subject being confronted (as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time);
The time available to an officer to make a decision;
The availability of other resources
The training and experience of the officer;
The proximity or access of weapons to the subject;
Officer versus subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/exhaustion and number of officer versus subjects; and
The environmental factors and/or other exigent circumstances
We believe that explicitly stating the factors that will be used to assess reasonableness will enhance the effectiveness of the policy. By incorporating this information into the policy, officers are provided with clarity regarding the criteria by which their conduct will be evaluated. Moreover, including this information directly in the policy will help to ensure that they will be reflected in training. It is imperative that officers incorporate these kinds of facts and considerations into their daily policing practices.
Recommendation #5: The policy,should be revised to require that, when possible under the circumstances, a warning should be given to a subject prior to deadly force being used.
We understand that these incidents evolve quickly and that officers do not always have the luxury of time in which to react to changing circumstances. However, the use of deadly force should always be a last resort. If there is ever an opportunity to provide a warning before using deadly force, such warning should be given. Many other jurisdictions are changing their policies to require that a warning be given, when
2Q 2016 Report Page 24 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
possible under the circumstances, particularly with regard to force being used against a person who is fleeing, rather than presenting a direct threat.
Recommendation #6: The policy should be revised to require that an officer may not draw his or her weapon unless the circumstances make clear that the use of deadly force is likely to be required.
Many jurisdictions have recognized that, to community members, the drawing of a firearm has a.tremendous impact and, as such, is tantamount to the use-of-force itself. Many communities are incorporating guidance in their policies that discourage officers from drawing and pointing a weapon without sufficient factual basis to believe that deadly force is likely to become necessary.
A full report on the completed IPRA review will be made available later this quarter.
VI. Office of Inspector General Audit and Advisory of IPRA's Historical Reporting
Per Chicago's Municipal Code, IPRA is required to report on certain aspects of its investigative activity, including (a) the number of investigations initiated, closed, and pending; (b) the number of complaints sustained and not sustained; (c) the number of complaints filed in each district; (d) the number of complaints filed against each police officer in each district; and (e) the number of complaints referred to other agencies. Historically, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, IPRA has also reported on weapon discharge notifications, including officer-involved shootings where an individual was injured or killed, shootings where no one was injured, weapons discharges involving an animal (firearm or taser discharges that strike or are intended to strike an animal), and OC spray discharges. According'to the Municipal Code, IPRA must publish data that is accurate as of the last day of the preceding month.29
During 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OjG) launched an audit of the accuracy and completeness of IPRA's reporting on officer-involved weapon discharge incidents and CPD's and IPRA's risk management practices related to such incidents. In June of 2016, OIG concluded the audit and has issued an Advisory Letter to IPRA and the City of Chicago documenting OIG's findings and recommendations. Although OIG requested a response from th'e'City of Chicago, rather than IPRA specifically, IPRA will submit a more detailed and formal response to the Advisory Letter on or before July 28, 2016, and, pursuant to OIG protocol, our response will be published by OIG alongside the Advisory Letter.30 However, we felt it appropriate to address
MCC 2-57-110.
30 Of note, a review of OIG Advisory Letters on the OIG website revealed no other letters in which the OIG demanded a response from the City of Chicago rather than from the agency that was the subject of OIG's auditing activity.
2Q 2016 Report Page 25 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Most of the policies IPRA reviewed specifically articulate a list of factors that will be considered in determining the appropriate level of force. The most common enumerated factors include:
The seriousness of the crime or suspected offense
The level of threat or resistance presented by the subject;
Whether the subject was posing an immediate threat to the officers or a danger to the community;
The risk or apparent attempt by the subject to escape;
The conduct of the subject being confronted (as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time);
The time available to an officer to make a decision;
The availability of other resources
The training and experience of the officer;
The proximity or access of weapons to the subject;
Officer versus subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/exhaustion and number of officer versus subjects; and
The environmental factors and/or other exigent circumstances
We believe that explicitly stating the factors that will be used to assess reasonableness will enhance the effectiveness of the policy. By incorporating this information jnto the policy, officers are provided with clarity regarding the criteria by which their conduct will be evaluated. Moreover, including this information directly in the policy will help to ensure that they will be reflected in training. It is imperative that officers incorporate these kinds of facts and considerations into their daily policing practices.
Recommendation #5: The policy should be revised to require that, when possible under the circumstances, a warning should be given to a subject prior to deadly force being used.
We understand that these incidents evolve quickly and that officers do not always have the luxury of time in which to react to changing circumstances. However, the use of deadly force should always be a last resort. If there is ever an opportunity to provide a warning before using deadly force, such warning should be given. Many other jurisdictions are changing their policies to require that a warning be given, when
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
possible under the circumstances, particularly with regard to force being used against a person who is fleeing, rather than presenting a direct threat.
Recommendation #6: The policy should be revised to require that an officer may not draw his or her weapon unless the circumstances make clear that the use of deadly force is likely to be required.
Many jurisdictions have recognized that, to community members, the drawing of a firearm has a tremendous impact and, as such, is tantamount to the use-of-force itself. Many communities are incorporating guidance in their policies that discourage officers from drawing and pointing a weapon without sufficient factual basis to believe that deadly force is likely to become necessary.
A full report on the completed IPRA review will be made available later this quarter.
VI. Office of Inspector General Audit and Advisory of IPRA's Historical Reporting
Per Chicago's Municipal Code, IPRA is required to report on certain aspects of its investigative activity, including (a) the number of investigations initiated, closed, and pending; (b) the number of complaints sustained and not sustained; (c) the number of complaints filed in each district; (d) the number of complaints filed against each police officer in each district; and (e) the number of complaints referred to other agencies. Historically, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, IPRA has also reported on weapon discharge notifications, including officer-involved shootings where an individual was injured or killed, shootings where no one was injured, weapons discharges involving an animal (firearm or taser discharges that strike or are intended to strike an animal), and OC spray discharges. According to the Municipal Code, IPRA must publish data that is accurate as of the last day of the preceding month.29
During 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) launched an audit of the accuracy and completeness of IPRA's reporting on officer-involved weapon discharge incidents and CPD's and IPRA's risk management practices related to such incidents. In June of 2016, OIG concluded the audit and has issued an Advisory Letter to IPRA and the City of Chicago documenting OIG's findings and recommendations. Although OIG requested a response from the City of Chicago, rather than IPRA specifically, IPRA will submit a more detailed and formal response to the Advisory Letter on or before July 28, 2016, and, pursuant to OIG protocol, our response will be published by OIG alongside the Advisory Letter.30 However, we felt it appropriate to address
" MCC 2-57-110.
30 Of note, a review of OIG Advisory Letters on the OIG website revealed no other letters in which the OIG demanded a response from the City of Chicago rather than from the agency that was the subject of OIG's auditing activity.
2Q 2016 Report Page 25 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
some of the issues OIG raised here in our report, as they involve work that is presently underway at the agency.
OIG Finding #1:
"OIG has determined that the public reporting by IPRA on CPD's use-of-force prior to 2015 was inaccurate and incomplete." As further outlined in the Advisory Letter, OIG determined that the numbers provided in IPRA's quarterly reports on CPD weapons discharges did not match the number of actual incidents.
IPRA has researched the discrepancies and found that many of the discrepancies are due to CPD's failure to notify IPRA of a weapon discharge. Other causes include false weapon discharge notifications and IPRA's historical lack of consistent categorization of firearm discharges at animals that did not actually strike the animal.
IPRA provided this information to OIG prior to receiving their Advisory Letter. Although the letter complains of the discrepancies OIG observed, the letter makes no mention of the primary source of the discrepancies. IPRA does acknowledge that IPRA's past failure to validate its own data resulted in lax oversight because IPRA did not investigate and fully report on incidents falling with its jurisdiction. As such, when OIG brought these discrepancies to our attention, we moved quickly to institute a new protocol for preparing and validating the data we publish in our quarterly reports. At this time, IPRA has taken steps that reduce or eliminate inaccuracies in the data we report to the extent possible based on the information technology infrastructure that we currently have in place. However, IPRA remains concerned about the effectiveness of the information systems at both IPRA and CPD and believes this is an important issue that must be addressed by reforms currently under consideration by the City. IPRA has begun to work in partnership with the City's Department of Information Technology to identify and procure the resources we need to construct effective and independent information technology infrastructure for the new civilian police oversight agency.
OIG Finding #2:
"IPRA did not follow best practices for use-of-force reporting." In particular, OIG faults IPRA for not reporting use-of-force data for incidents other than the five categories of weapons discharge incidents IPRA has historically reported on.
We agree that accurate and comprehensive reporting on a police department's use-of-force is critical to transparency and public trust. However, accountability for CPD's use-of-force reporting is not currently included in IPRA's present reporting mandate as outlined in the Municipal Code. IPRA is not now and has never been afforded the resources necessary to provide this level of data maintenance, auditing, analysis and reporting.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Moreover, OIG's Advisory Letter specifically states that, according to subject matter experts, "a police department's public use-of-force reporting should align comprehensively with a police department's use-of-force policies in order to fully reflect the range of force options" (emphasis added). In our view, because the Department collects and maintains this data, to which IPRA has never had unfettered access, responsibility for publication of all use-of-force data has rested with the Department.
Given that OIG has always had jurisdiction to audit and review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department, we are unsure why OIG is holding IPRA accountable for this lack of transparency. In fact, on March 30, 2016, IPRA sent a letter to OIG specifically requesting that OIG conduct an audit of the Department's use-of-force reports because IPRA has observed inconsistencies in some of the reports we have reviewed in the context of our investigations.31 IPRA understands the importance of accurate use-of-force reporting and its impact on how our investigations are conducted. Our concern for the accuracy of the Department's use-of-force reporting was reflected in our request for the audit as we explicitly expressed the view that a potential audit of CPD's*use-of-force reporting was a higher priority than the other audit topics that were scheduled oh OIG's 2016 audit plan. At this time, we are aware of no plans by OIG to undertake such an audit.
The fact that OIG is holding IPRA responsible for a perceived failure to report on the Department's use-of-force is even more surprising given that the Police Accountability Task Force, of which the Inspector General was a member, has recommended that the new Public Safety Inspector General be required to perform regularly.scheduled audits the department's use-of-force information.32
In addition to bringing this reporting issue to the attention of OIG, in March 2016, IPRA also informed the Department about pur.concerns about the accuracy of the Department's use-of-force reporting. It is our understanding that the Department is presently reviewing the general orders governing the use-of-force and use-of-force reporting. IPRA has publicly expressed the view that the community should have a voice in the development of the Department's reforms regarding the userof-force and we hope the Department will seek1 community input before finalizing such policies.
OIG Finding #3:
"IPRA's public reporting provided insufficient contextual detail."
31 See Appendix E.
32 Police Accountability Task Force Recommendations for Reform, April 2016, Page 13.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
We completely agree with this finding and have a number of initiatives underway to address this issue. For example, as discussed above, IPRA is in the process of constructing a database of information regarding officer-involved shooting incidents, which we anticipate will include the "contextual" information to which OIG refers. Once the data has been appropriately compiled and validated, we plan to make the database publicly available and will continue to build on the database as these events occur. This will be one of the important tactics we use to enhance transparency on use-of-force incidents that we investigate.
We look forward to a continued dialogue with the Office of the Inspector General on these and other topics.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appendix A
The map below is a detailed map of CPD Police Districts and Chicago Community areas.
Crw*(p Pfllca Owuwit lUNuiflilrwWMM ffrvicm
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appendix B
Table 1
The table below describes the number of complaints lodged against members per unit and total complaints lodged against members in each unit (in order by unit number).
unit Si .Number-^ * 12 .fa: < O ¦.-¦jc ¦¦n. 3 ¦?'.}-¦-jy2.fi g - jb ' t ¦:f"-.:.:f5'::':- o.,:. feo ¦ •.,Jo""ai' .Py. a. |109|DISTRICT 1 289 26 28 9.0% 0.10 |109|DISTRICT 2 367 24 25 6.5% 0.07 |109|DISTRICT 3 348 35 41 10.1% 0.12 |109|DISTRICT 4 358 35 40 9.8% 0.11 |109|DISTRICT 5 341 29 29 8.5% 0.09 |109|DISTRICT 6 358 33 36 9.2% 0.10 |109|DISTRICT 7 431 16 17 3.7% 0.04 |109|DISTRICT 8 371 41 42 11.1% 0.11 |10 9|DISTRICT 9 353 13 15 3.7% 0.04
10 DISTRICT 10 340 ' 34 36 10.0% 0.11
11 DISTRICT 11 438 34 37 7.8% 0.08
12 DISTRICT 12 337|999|2.1% 0.02
14 DISTRICT 14 237 15 15 6.3% 0.06
15 DISTRICT 15 334 19 .19 5.7% 0.06
16 DISTRICT 16 223 10 11 4.5% 0.05
17 DISTRICT 17 223|999|3.1% 0.03
18 DISTRICT 18 339 29 32 8.6% 0.09
19 DISTRICT 19 374 15 15 4.0% 0.04
20 DISTRICT 20 220 17 19 7.7% - 0.09
22 DISTRICT 22 250 22 27 8.8%, 0.11
24 DISTRICT 24 283|99|8; 2.8% 0.03
25 DISTRICT 25 357 23 25 . 6.4% 0.07
26 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS UNIT|9 9|n/a n/a n/a n/a
44 RECRUIT TRAINING SECTION 227|999|0.9% 0.01
45 DISTRICT REINSTATEMENT UNIT 10|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
50 AIRPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT SECTION -NORTH 124|99|10 6.5% 0.08
51 AIRPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT SECTION -SOUTH 42|999|4.8% 0.05
55 MOUNTED UNIT 26 28|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
57 DETAIL UNIT 2 64|999|6.3% 0.06
33 CPD provided total number of officers by Unit. IPRA did not validate CPD's numbers.
2Q 2016 Report Page 30 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Unit Number Unit Name #of-; Assigned Officers ^ Officers with Complaints Total ¦ Complaints % of Officers with .: Complaints Complaints per Officer
59 MARINE OPERATIONS UNIT 42|999|2.4% 0.02
60 HELICOPTER OPERATIONS UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
79 SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT 29|999|6.9% 0.07
102 OFFICE OF NEWS 14|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
111 OFFICE OF THE 18|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
114 LEGAL AFFAIRS SECTION 39|999|2.6% 0.03
115 OFFICE OF CRIME CONTROL STRATEGIES 24|999|4.2% 0.04
116 DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONS CENTER 64|999|1.6% . 0.02.
120 BUREAU OF SUPPORT SERVICES 9 ' 0|9 9|0:0% b.oo
121 BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS 89|999|2.2%; 0.02
122 FINANCE DIVISION 0 13|999|7,7% 0.08
123 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION 58|999|1.7% 0.02
124 EDUCATION AND TRAINING DIVISION 158|999|1.3% 0.01
125 INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION 71|999|1.4% 0.01
126 INSPECTION DIVISION 10 13|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
127 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 33|9 9 9|0:0% 0.00
128 PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING DIVISION|9999|14.3% 0.14
129 MANAGEMENT AND LABOR AFFAIRS SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
130 TECHNOLOGY AND RECORDS GROUP|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
133 ¦INFORMATION AND STRATEGIC SERVICES|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
135 CHICAGO ALTERNATIVE POLICING STRATEGY (CAPS) DIVISION 16|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
136 SPECIAL EVENTS UNIT 11|9 9 9|0.0% . 0.00
140 OFFICE OF THE FIRST DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 10|9 9 9|0:0% 0.00
141 SPECIAL FUNCTIONS DIVISION 12|999|8.3% 0.08
142 BUREAU OF PATROL 18|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
145 TRAFFIC SECTION 56 37|999|16.2%- 0.16
148 TRAFFIC COURT UNIT|99 9 9|0.0%" 0.00
153 SPECIAL FUNCTIONS SUPPORT UNIT 17|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
161 GENERAL SUPPORT DIVISION 10|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
163 RECORDS INQUIRY SECTION|99|'0|9 9|0.0% ' 0.00
166 FIELD SERVICES SECTION 114|999|2.6% 0.03
167 EVIDENCE AND RECOVERED PROPERTY SECTION 40|999|2.5% 0.03
169 POLICE DOCUMENTS SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% ' 0.00
171 CENTRAL DETENTION UNIT 42|999|4.8% 0.05
172 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
177 FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION 54|999|1.9% 0.02
179 REPRODUCTION AND GRAPHIC ARTS SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
180 BUREAU OF DETECTIVES 27|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Unit Number s Unit Name '' •'' ' ' Assigned Officers . Officers with : Complaihts Total : " Complaihts % of Officers ¦¦: with ¦Complaints Complaints perOfficer ¦¦
184 YOUTH INVESTIGATION DIVISION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
187 CRIMINAL REGISTRATION UNIT 13|999|15.4% 0.15
188 BUREAU OF ORGANIZED CRIME 9|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
189 NARCOTICS DIVISION 239 344 33 36 9.6% 0.10
191 INTELLIGENCE SECTION 50 50|999|2.0% 0.02
192 VICE & ASSET FORFEITURE DIVISION 47|999|4.3% 0.04
193 GANG INVESTIGATION DIVISION 163|999|3.1% 0.03
196 ASSET FORFEITURE SECTION 33|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
211 BUREAU OF PATROL - AREA CENTRAL 123 10 10 8.1% 0.08
212 BUREAU OF PATROL - AREA SOUTH 90 . 15 17 16.7% 0.19
213 BUREAU OF PATROL - AREA NORTH 108 12 17 11.1% 0.16
214 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION|9 9|n/a n/a n/a n/a
222 TIMEKEEPING UNIT|9999|100.0% 1.00
231 MEDICAL SECTION 2 13|999|7.7% 0.08
241 TROUBLED BUILDING SECTION 22,|999|9.1% 0.09
261 COURT SECTION 4 51|999|2.0% 0.02
277 FORENSIC SERVICES EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN SECTION ' 84|999|1.2% 0.01
311 GANG ENFORCEMENT - AREA CENTRAL 69 11 14 15.9% 0.20
312 GANG ENFORCEMENT - AREA SOUTH 70|999|8.6% 0.09
313 GANG ENFORCEMENT - AREA NORTH 54 9 10 16.7% 0.19
341 CANINE UNIT 34 43|999|7.0% 0.09
353 SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS (SWAT) UNIT 66|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
376 ALTERNATE RESPONSE SECTION 205 12 13 5.9% ' 0.06
384 JUVENILE INTERVENTION SUPPORT CENTER (JISC) 41|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
393 GANG ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 51|999|7.8% . 0.08
441 SPECIAL ACTIVITIES SECTION 16|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
442 BOMB SQUAD 15 15|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
541 FOP DETAIL 5|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
542 DETACHED SERVICES - GOVERMENT SECURITY 18|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
543 DETACHED SERVICES - MISCELLANEOUS DETAIL 49|999|2.0% 0.02
545 PBPA SERGEANT 0|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
549 INSPECTOR GENERAL DETAIL UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
603 ARSON SECTION 17 21|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
606 CENTRAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 97|999|7.2% 0.07
608 MAJOR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION UNIT 28|999|3.6% 0.04
610 DETECTIVE AREA - CENTRAL 280 11 11 3.9% 0.04
620 DETECTIVE AREA -. SOUTH 241|999|2.1% 0.02
630 DETECTIVE AREA - NORTH 256 9 9 3.5% 0.04
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Unit • Number Unit Name • ' :¦ #of Assigned Officers Officers with Complaints Total ' Complaints !. % of Officers with ;: ¦ Complaints Complaints ¦: per Officer
701 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECTION 119|999|2:5% 0.03
702 CTA SECURITY UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
704 TRANSIT SECURITY UNIT 41|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
711 VIOLENCE REDUCTION INITIATIVE NORTH 13|999|7.7% 0.08
712 VIOLENCE REDUCTION INITIATIVE SOUTH 17|999|5.9% 0.06
714 SUMMER MOBILE PATROL 104|999|i:o% 0.01
Table 2
The table below details number of complaints lodged against members per unit and total complaints lodged against members in each unit (in order from highest to lowest by percentage of members in unit with a complaint).
:^rr^e^ mi i - u\. ml it W&giof
222 TIMEKEEPING UNIT i i: i 100.0% 1.00
212 BUREAU OF PATROL - AREA SOUTH ; 90 15 17 •16.7% 0.19-
313 GANG ENFORCEMENT - AREA NORTH 54 9 10 16.7% 0.19'
145 TRAFFIC SECTION 56 37 6' ¦ 6- 16.2% 0.16
311 GANG ENFORCEMENT-AREA :'-! CENTRAL. 69 11 14 15.9% 0.201
187 CRIMINAL REGISTRATION UNIT 13|999|15.4% o:i5-'
128 PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING DIVISION|9999|14.3% 0.14
213 BUREAU OF PATROL - AREA NORTH 108 12 17 11.1% 0.16 |109|DISTRICT 8 371 41 42 11.1% 0.11 |109|DISTRICT 3 348 35 41 10.1% 0.12
10 DISTRICT 10 340 34 36 10:0% 0.11^ |109|DISTRICT 4 358 35 40 9.8% 0.11
189 NARCOTICS DIVISION 239 344 33 36 9.6% 0.10 |109|DISTRICT 6 358 33 36 9.2%. 0.10'
241 TROUBLED BUILDING SECTION 22|999|9.1%- 0.09 |109|DISTRICT 1 289 26 28 9.0% 0.10
22 DISTRICT 22 250 22 27 8.8%' 0.11
312 GANG ENFORCEMENT-AREA SOUTH 70|999|8.6% 0.09
18 DISTRICT 18 339 29 32 8.6% 0.09 |109|DISTRICT 5 341 29 29 8.5% 0.09
141 SPECIAL FUNCTIONS DIVISION 12|999|8.3% 0.08.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Unit Number Unit Name : , ;... i . ' Assigned Officers ¦ Officers with ; Complaints Total Complaints % of Officers with Complaints Complaints per bfficer
211 BUREAU OF PATROL - AREA CENTRAL 123 10 10 8.1% 0.08
393 GANG ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 51|999|7.8% 0.08
11 DISTRICT 11 438 34 37 7.8% 0.08
20 DISTRICT 20 220 17 19 7.7% 0.09
122 FINANCE DIVISION 0 13|999|7.7% 0.08
231 MEDICAL SECTION 2 13|999|7.7% 0.08
711 VIOLENCE REDUCTION INITIATIVE NORTH 13|999|7.7% 0.08
606 CENTRAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 97|999|7.2% 0.07
341 CANINE UNIT 34 43|999|7.0% 0.09
79 SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT 29|999|6.9% 0.07 |109|DISTRICT 2 367 24 25 6.5% 0.07
50 AIRPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT SECTION - NORTH 124|99|10 6.5% 0.08
25 DISTRICT 25 357 23 25 6.4% 0.07
14 DISTRICT 14 237 15 15 6.3% 0.06
57 DETAIL UNIT 2 64|999|6.3% 0.06
712 VIOLENCE REDUCTION INITIATIVE SOUTH 17|999|5.9% 0.06
376 ALTERNATE RESPONSE SECTION 205 12 13 5.9% 0.06
15 DISTRICT 15 ' 334 19 19 5.7% 0.06
51 AIRPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT SECTION - SOUTH 42|999|4.8% 0.05
171 CENTRAL DETENTION UNIT 42|999|4.8% 0.05
16 DISTRICT 16 ¦' 223 10 11 4.5% 0.05
192 VICE & ASSET FORFEITURE DIVISION 47|999|4.3% 0.04
115 OFFICE OF CRIME CONTROL STRATEGIES 24|999|4.2% 0;04
19 DISTRICT 19 374 15 15 . 4.0% 0.04
610 DETECTIVE AREA - CENTRAL 280 11 11 , 3.9% 0.04 |109|DISTRICT 7 431 16 17 3.7% 0.04^ |10 9|DISTRICT 9 353 13 15 . 3.7% 0.04
608 MAJOR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION UNIT , 28|999|3.6% 0.04
630 DETECTIVE AREA - NORTH 256 9 9 3.5% 0.04
17 DISTRICT 17 223|999|3.1% 0.03
193 GANG INVESTIGATION DIVISION 163|999|3.1% 0.03
24 DISTRICT 24 283|999|2.8% 0.03
166 FIELD SERVICES SECTION 114|999|2.6% 0.03
114 LEGAL AFFAIRS SECTION 39|999|2.6% 0.03
701 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECTION 119|999|2.5% 0.03
167 EVIDENCE AND RECOVERED PROPERTY SECTION 40|999|2.5% 0.03
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Unit • Number Unit Name!;"1 Assigned : Officers , Officers with' j- Complaints p. Total .,; ': ' Complaints % of Officers •with • Complaints Complaints : per Officer
59 MARINE OPERATIONS UNIT 42|999|2.4% 0.02
121 BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS 89|999|2.2% . 0.02
12 DISTRICT 12 337|999|2.1% 0.02
620 DETECTIVE AREA - SOUTH 241|999|2.1% 0.02
543 DETACHED SERVICES -MISCELLANEOUS DETAIL 49|999|2.0% 0.02
191 INTELLIGENCE SECTION 50 50|999|2.0% 0.02
261 COURT SECTION 4 51|999|2.0% 0.02
177 FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION 54 i|99|1.9% 0.02
123 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION 58 l|99|1.7% 0.02
116 DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONS CENTER 64 l|99|1.6% 0.02
125 INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION 71 l|99|1.4% 0.01
124 EDUCATION AND TRAINING DIVISION 158|999|1.3% 0.01
277 FORENSIC SERVICES EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN SECTION . 84\|999|1.2% 0.01
714 SUMMER MOBILE PATROL 104|999|1.0% 0.01
44 RECRUIT TRAINING SECTION 227|999|0.9% 0.01
45 DISTRICT REINSTATEMENT UNIT 10|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
55 MOUNTED UNIT 26 28|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
60 HELICOPTER OPERATIONS UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
102 OFFICE OF NEWS.' 14|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
111 OFFICE OF THE 18|9 9 9|0.0%.' 0.00
120 BUREAU OF SUPPORT SERVICES 9|9 9 9|0.0% o;oo
126 INSPECTION DIVISION 10 13|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
127 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 33|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
129 MANAGEMENT AND LABOR AFFAIRS SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
130 TECHNOLOGY AND RECORDS GROUP|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
133 INFORMATION AND STRATEGIC SERVICES|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
135 CHICAGO ALTERNATIVE POLICING STRATEGY (CAPS) DIVISION 16|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
136 SPECIAL EVENTS UNIT 11|9 9 9|0.0%. 0.00
140 OFFICE'OF THE FIRST DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 10|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
142 BUREAU OF PATROL 18|9 9 9|0:0% 0.00
148 TRAFFIC COURT UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
153 SPECIAL FUNCTIONS SUPPORT UNIT 17|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
161 GENERAL SUPPORT DIVISION 10|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
163 RECORDS INQUIRY SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
169 POLICE DOCUMENTS SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
172 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
2Q 2016 Report Page 35 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Unit . Number' Unit Name. Assigned -Officers Officers with Complaints Total ¦ Complaints %of Officers: with' ' Complaints Complaints per Officer
179 REPRODUCTION AND GRAPHIC ARTS SECTION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
180 BUREAU OF DETECTIVES 27|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
184 YOUTH INVESTIGATION DIVISION|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
188 BUREAU OF ORGANIZED CRIME 9|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
196 ASSET FORFEITURE SECTION 33|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
353 SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS (SWAT) UNIT 66|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
384 JUVENILE INTERVENTION SUPPORT CENTER (JISC) 41|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
441 SPECIAL ACTIVITIES SECTION 16|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
442 BOMB SQUAD 15 15|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
541 FOP DETAIL 5|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
542 DETACHED SERVICES - GOVERMENT SECURITY 18|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
545 PBPA SERGEANT 0|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
549 INSPECTOR GENERAL DETAIL UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
603 ARSON SECTION 17 21|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
702 CTA SECURITY UNIT|99 9 9|0.0% 0.00
704 TRANSIT SECURITY UNIT 41|9 9 9|0.0% 0.00
26 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS UNIT|9 9|n/a n/a n/a n/a
214 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION|9 9|n/a n/a n/a n/a
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appendix C
CPD's General Order 03^02-03, "Deadly Force"
Chicago Police Department General Order G03-02-03
DEADLY FORCE
10February2015 : EFFECTIVE DATE: ! 10February 2015
1-October 2002 Version
INDEX CATEGORY: I Field Operations
PURPOSE
This directive'
sets forth Department policy regarding a sworn member's use of deadly force
establishes guidelines controlling the use of deadly force by sworn members.
DEPARTMENT POLICY
A. A sworn member is justified In using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary.
to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person, or:
to.prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
has committed or has attempted to commil a forcible felony which involves the infliction, threatened infliction, or threatened-use of physical force,likely to cause death orgreat bodily harm or; '
is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or;
otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
8. Sworn members who discharge a firearm will comply with the procedures detailed in the Department directive entitled "Firearms Discharge Incidents Involving Swom Members."
DEPARTMENT PROHIBITIONS FOR USE OF DEADLY FORCE
Use of firearms in the following ways is prohibited.
Firing into crowds.
Firing warning shots.
C Firing into buildings or through doors, windows, or other openings when the person lawfully fired at is not clearly visible.
Firing at a subject whose action is only a threat to the subject himself (e.g., attempted suicide)
Firing at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle is fhe onfy force used against the swom member or another person
AFFIRMATION OF PROTECTION OF LIFE POUCY
Swom members will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the restrictions of this directive
GO3-O2-03 Deadly Forco Current as of 05 Juno 2015.1502 hrs
C Chicago Police Department, February 2015 Pago l of 2
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
(Items indicated by italics/double underline have been added or revised)
Garry F. McCarthy Superintendent of Police
15-025 MWK
GLOSSARY TERMS:|109|Deadly Force (720 ILCS 5/7-8)
Deadly force is force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes
The Tiring of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
A peace officer's discharge of;a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm (i.e , impact munitions) shall not be considered force likely to cause death or bodily harm
Use of Force to Prevent Escape (720 ILCS 5/7-9)
A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as he would be justified in using if he were arresting the person.
Forcible Felony (720 ILCS 5/2-8)
A forcible felony means any treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
G03-02-03 Deadly Force Current as of 05 June 2015 1502 hrs
© Chicago Police Department, February 2015 Page 2 of 2
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appendix D Secondary Sources
"Baltimore's New Police Use of Force Policy Goes Into Effect Today" Colorlines, Kenrya Rankin, July 1, 2016.
"Changes to be made to HPD use of force policy" Click2Houston, Gianna Caserta, September 30, 2015.
"Collaborative Reform Initiative: An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department" George Fachner, Steven Carter, Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, CNA,
"Deadly Force: Police Use of Lethal Force in the United States," Amnesty International, June 2015.
"Emerging Use of Force Issues: Balancing Public and Officer Safety," Report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, COPS Office Use of Force Symposium, March 2012.
"Examining Less Lethal Force Policy and the Force Continuum: Results From a National Use-of-Force Study," William Terrill and Eugene A. Paoline, III, Police Quarterly, Sage Publications, July 2012.
"Final Technical Report Draft: Assessing PoNce Use of Force Policy and Outcomes," William Terrill, Eugene A. Paoline III, Jason Ingram, National Institute of Justice; Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2011.
"Follow-up Report On Non-Categorical Use of Force Investigations," Los Angeles Police Commission, Office of the Inspector General, December 30, 2013.
"Key Considerations for Good Use-of-Force Policies," PoliceOne.com , January 14, 2012.
"Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect and Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis," Charlie Mesloh, Mark, Henych, and Ross Wolf, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2008.
"Philadelphia Officer-Involved Shootings Drop Drastoically as Police Implement DOJ Recommendations," NBC Philadelphia, Morgan Zalot, Sean Carlin, Michael Sisak, December 22, 2015.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
"Police Use of Force in New York City: Findings and Recommendations on NYPD's Policies and Practices," New York City Department of Investigation, Officer of the Inspector General, October 1, 2015.
"Police Use of Force: A Review of the Literature," Portland State University, Criminology and Criminal Justice Senior Capstone Project, Paper 6, Fall 2012.
"Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics" Philip Bulman, NIJ Journal, No. 267, pp. 4-10, 2010.
"Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons," Eric H. Holder, Jr., Laurie O. Robinson, John H. Laub, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2011.
"Policy Statement: Use of Deadly Force" Attorney General, 1995 Memorandum on Resolution 14, October 17, 1995.
"Review of Categorical Use of Force Policy," Los Angeles Police Commission, Office of the Inspector General, February 12, 2014.
"Use of Force Year-end Review, Executive Summary," Los Angeles Police Department, 2015.
"Use of Force Investigations & Review Policy: Summary Report & Initial Recommendations," Cleveland Community Police Commission, May 10, 2016.
"When Should Cops Be Able to Use Deadly Force?" The Atlantic, August 27, 2015. Use of Force Policies
Baltimore Police Department, "Use of Force," General Order, September 18, 2003.
Baltimore Police Department, "Use of Force," Policy 1115, September 18, 2003.
Cincinnati Police Department, "Use of Force" September 17, 2015.
Houston Police Department, "Use of Force," General Order, January 4, 2008.
Los Angeles Police Department, "Use of Force" Policy, n.d.
Metropolitan Police, "Use of Force," General Order, October 7, 2002.
New Orleans Police Department, "Use of Force," Operations Manual, December 6, 2015.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
New York Police Department, "Deadly Physical Force," August 1, 2013.
New York Police Department, "Use of Force: Revised NYPD Policy," June 2016.
New York Police Department, "Use of Force - Investigative Responsibility and Reporting Guide," Patrol Guide 221 Tactical Operations, May 27, 2016.
San Francisco Police Department, "Use of Firearms and Lethal Force," Draft General Order, March 21, 2016.
Seattle Police Department, "Use of Force Core Principals," September 1, 2015. U.C. Riverside Police Department, "Use of Force" Policy Manual, August 15, 2012. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, May 2014.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appendix E
IPRA's letter to OIG requesting an audit of CPD Use of Force reports.
IPRA
INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
¦J^C 3^6"
IMIttUHTY • TUNirUENCY ¦ UCXKWHNOI ¦ WlUXUt
Joseph Ferguson
Inspector General, City of Chicago 740 N. Sedgwick St, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654
March 30, 2016
Re: 2016 OIG Audit Plan
Pursuant to the OIG APR 2016 Annual Plan, OIG has identified three potential program audit topics for the Chicago Police Department in 2016:
CPD's Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
CPD's management and maintenance of dashboard cameras and footage
CPD's early intervention system
I am writing to request that you consider adding an audit of CPD's Use of Force Reporting and that you prioritize this potential program audit above the others on your 2016 plan.
As you arc aware, in the courscof IPRA investigations into allegations of excessive force and incidents involving the use of force by CPD department members (e.g. officer-involved shootings), we review the Tactical Response Reports, commonly referred to as 'TRR's" that are completed by the involved officers. Pursuant to CPD Special Order S03-02-04, involved members arc required to complete the report and review the report for completeness and accuracy. Moreover, Field Supervisors are required to ensure that the involved members complete the reports. Field Supervisors are permitted to complete a TRR on behalf of an involved officer if the olliccr is "incapacitated." In the context of our investigations, we at IPRA have observed several instances in which the information in the TRR is either incomplete or inaccurate. In addition, we have observed several TRR's that were completed by a Field Supervisor rather than the involved member, where there was no indication that the involved member was incapacitated.
1615 WESI CHICAGO AVLNUC, 4TH TL0OR, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60622 312.746 359*1 (COMPLAINT LINE) | 312.746.3609(MA1II LIKE) I 31 i./lb 3593 (TTY) | wmv U'RACIIICAGO ORG
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
IPRA
INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
—^ * ^
INHCarV • TflAMlMBEMCV » WDEPf KOIMCf • riMCUMtll
The accuracy and integrity of Use of Force reporting is essential to understanding how and under what circumstances officers are using lurce, which is an important policy issue facing the department and an area of great concern to the community. As you know, earlier this year, the department issued new guidance around dash cam use and maintenance, so an audit of this topic would not necessarily yield accurate information as the new policy is just getting underway. Regarding the early intervention system, it is my understanding that the Police Accountability Task Force and the DOJ arc likely to be making recommendations about this. Therefore, the department's approach to early intervention is likely to undergo substantial change in the very near future.
For these reasons, we believe an audit of CPD's Use of Force Reporting is more pressing than the other topics currently on the 2016 Audit plan.
We hope you will consider initialing an audit of CPD's Use of Force reporting as soon as is practicable this year.
1615 WEST CHICAGO AVEHUE, 41H FLOOR, CHICAGO, 111 IHOIS 60622 312.746.3594 (COMPLAINT HUE) | 312 /46.3609
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appendix F
Abstracts of Sustained Cases for 2Q 2016. Logtt 300039
Notification Date: August 17, 2004
Location: 17th District
Complaint Type: Excessive Force
Officer A: Chicago Police Sergeant, Male/Hispanic, 44, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of
Appointment - 2000
Officer B: Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 42, On-Duty, In Uniform,
Year of Appointment - 2000
Subject 1: Hispanic/Female, 17
Summary: In an incident involving Officer A, Officer B, it was alleged that Officer A
and Officer B were involved in an unauthorized high-speed pursuit of a van. During their pursuit, the van they were following struck the Subject's vehicle, and the Subject, was ejected from her vehicle. After the traffic accident, it was alleged that Officer A and Officer B failed to remain at the scene of the accident and engaged in a foot pursuit of the drive of the van. It was also alleged that in several written and oral reports made after the incident. Officer A and Officer B made false statements by stating that the accident did not occur while they were in pursuit of the van, but that Officers A and B were nearby and heard the noise from a traffic accident and then approached the scene. Officers A and B made several other inconsistent reports regarding the incident in depositions and testimony in the civil suit filed as a result of this incident.
Finding(s): Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the
accused officers and witness officers, and statements from the accused officers and witness officers in depositions taken in a civil suit against the accused officers, IPRA recommends the following:
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Officer A: • Allegation #1: Disobeyed of an order or directive, whether written or
oral when he became involved in an unauthorized vehicle pursuit o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #2: Left his duty assignment without being properly relieved or without proper authorization
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #3: Failed to perform his duty when he failed to immediately notify OEMC of a traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #4: Failed to perform his duty when he failed to immediately request medical attention for Subject 1 who was injured in the traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation US: Made a false oral report regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #6: Made a false written report regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #7: Gave false oral testimony in a sworn deposition regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #8: Gave false oral testimony in a sworn deposition regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident . .
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #9: Made a false oral report of his actions, regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #10: Made a false written report of his actions regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer B: • Allegation #1: Disobeyed of an order or directive, whether written or
oral when he became involved in an unauthorized vehicle pursuit o A finding of Sustained • Allegation #2: Left his duty assignment without being properly relieved or without proper authorization o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Allegation #3: Failed to perform his duty when he failed to immediately notify OEMC of a traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #4: Failed to perform his duty when he failed to immediately request medical attention for Subject 1 who was injured in the traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #5: Made a false oral report regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #6: Made a false written report regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #7: Gave false oral testimony in a sworn deposition regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #8: Gave false oral testimony in a sworn deposition regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #9: Made a false oral report of his actions regarding his involvement in the vehicle pursuit and resulting traffic accident
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Log# 1041278
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
November 7, 2010
7th District
Excessive Force
Detention Aide, Male/Black, 52, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of Appointment - 2005
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
White/Male, 48
Summary: In an incident involving Officer A, it was alleged that Officer A punched
Subject 1 in the face while searching Subject 1 before placing him in lockup.
Finding(s): Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the
accused officers, witness officers, and the subject; and video footage, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Use of excessive force by punching subject
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of an 11 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegation.
Logft 1045896 Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
June 5, 2011 12th District Excessive Force
Officer A: Chicago Police Officer, Female/Hispanic, 38, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of
Appointment -1999
Officer B: Chicago Police Officer, Female/White, 31, On-Duty, In Uniform,
Year of Appointment - 2006
Subject 1: Male/Black, 38
Summary: In an incident involving Officer A and Officer B, it was alleged that Officer
A and Officer B were in violation of Department Directives regarding the use of deadly force after Officer A and Officer B were engaged in a pursuit of Subject 1 and both officers discharged weapons at Subject 1. During the subsequent investigation, it was discovered and alleged that Officer A failed to properly secure he firearm and discharged a weapon not registered to her during the police involved shooting.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Finding(s): Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the
accused officers and involved officers; and department reports IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Violated Department Directives in relation to the use of
deadly force when she discharged a weapon at subject o A finding of Unfounded
• Allegation 2: Failure to properly secure her weapon and subsequently obtaining a weapon which was not registered to Officer A
o During mediation. Officer A agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "Sustained"
• Allegation 3: Discharging a weapon which was not registered to
; Officer A during a police involved shooting
o During mediation, Officer A agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "Sustained"
During mediation. Officer A agreed to accept IPRA's penalty of a 10 DAY SUSPENSION for the Sustained allegations.
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Violated Department Directives in relation to the use of
deadly force when she discharged a weapon at subject
o A finding of Unfounded
Log# 1045950
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 30, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of Appointment - 2002
Male/Black, 29
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Summary: In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A violated
Department policy regarding the use of deadly force when he shot Subject 1, without justification, while Officer A was responding to a domestic disturbance call. It was alleged that three shots fired by Officer A were not in compliance with Department policy.
Finding(s): Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the
accused officer, involved officers, and witness officers; deposition testimony from the accused officer in-car camera footage; and department reports, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Disobeyed an order or directive, whether written or oral
when he violated Department police regarding the use of deadly force when he shot Subject 1 o A finding of Sustained
Additional Count: Engaged in an action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department when he violated Department policy regarding the use of deadly force when he shot Subject 1
o A finding of Sustained
Additional Count 2: Unlawfully and unnecessarily used or displayed a weapon when he violated Department policy regarding the use of deadly force when he shot Subject 1
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Logft 1050142
Notification Date: November 20, 2011
Location: 5th District
Complaint Type: Extraordinary Occurrence
Officer A: Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 36, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Appointment - 2004
Officer B:
Subject 1: Summary:
Finding(s):
Officer A:
Detention Aide, Male/Black, 40, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of Appointment -1998
Male/Black, 66
In an incident involving Officers A and B, it was alleged that failed to follow Department policies and procedures by failing to report to a Sergeant and to a watch commander that Subject 1 was at an emotional risk at the time of his arrival at the lockup facility. It was also alleged that Officers A and B failed to follow Department policies and procedures when they failed to monitor Subject 1 who was at an emotional risk, and failed to send Subject 1 to the hospital.
Based on department special orders and Guidelines for Arrestee Screening and Monitoring; and statements to IPRA from the accused officers and witness officers; IPRA recommends the following:
Allegation 1: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to notify a Sergeant of an arrestee who was at an emotional risk
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 2: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to notify a watch commander of an arrestee who was at an emotional risk
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to send an arrestee under his care and control who was at an emotional risk to the hospital
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to monitor an arrestee under his care and control who was intoxicated and at an emotional risk for changing or deteriorating conditions by failing to keep subject in sight
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 20 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he
failed to notify a Sergeant of an arrestee who was at an emotional risk
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 2: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to notify a watch commander of an arrestee who was at an emotional risk
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to send an arrestee under his care and control who was at an emotional risk to the hospital
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Failed to follow a Department Special Order when he failed to monitor an arrestee under his care and control who was intoxicated and at an emotional risk for changing or deteriorating conditions by failing to keep subject in sight
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 20 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations. ...
Logff 1051991
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A: Officer B:
February 19, 2012
2nd District
Excessive Force
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 35, On--Duty, In Uniform, Year of Appointment-2000
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 57, On-Duty, In Uniform, Year of Appointment -1990
Male/Black, 33
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Summary: In an incident involving the Officers, it was alleged that Officer A grabbed
and handcuffed Subject 1, as well as transported Subject 1 to the hospital against his will. In addition, it was alleged that Officers A and B released Subject 1 without approval from the watch commander.
Finding(s): Based on video surveillance; statements to IPRA from the accused officers
and subject; medical records; department reports; department special orders and rules; and the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, IPRA recommended the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Detaining subject without justification
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Transporting subject to the hospital against his will o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Slamming the subject against a wall o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 4: Directly profanity towards the subject o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 5: Releasing the subject from custody without approval from the watch commander
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 7 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Releasing the subject from custody without approval
from the watch commander
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 5 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Log# 1053273
Notification Date: April 12, 2012
Location: 22nd District
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Complaint Type: Unnecessary Display of Weapon
Officer A:
Subject 1: Subject 2: Summary:
Finding(s): Officer A:
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 44, Off-Duty, Not in uniform. Year of Appointment - 2002
Male/Black, 48
Female/Black
In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A pointed his weapon, used profanity and a racial slur, and threatened Subject 1, as well as, engaged in a verbal and physical altercation with Subject 2.
Based on department rules; state law; statements to IPRA from the accused officer, subjects, and witnesses; and OEMC transmissions, IPRA recommends the following:
Allegation 1: Pointing his weapon, disrespect or maltreatment, and the unlawful or unnecessary use or display of his weapon at Subject 1 o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 2: Failed to properly secure his weapon inside his vehicle o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Calling and directly profanity at Subject 1 o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Threatening Subject 1 o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 5: Calling Subject 1 names that impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its police and goals or bring discredit upon the Department
o A finding of Sustained . .
Allegation 6-7: Threatening Subject 1 o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 8: Engaging in an unjustified-physical altercation with Subject 2 while on or off duty
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 9: Verbally and physically abused Subject 2 o A finding of Not Sustained
A penalty of a 90 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Logtt 1059216
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type: Officer A:
Officer B:
Subject 1: Summary:
Finding(s):
December 28, 2012
12tn District
Domestic Altercation - Physical Abuse
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 39, Off-Duty, Not in uniform. Year of Appointment - 2004
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 42, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment -1991
Female/Hispanic, 32
In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A engaged in a verbal and physical altercation with Subject 1. As well, it was alleged that Officer B failed to initiate a complaint register number and follow Department procedures.
Based on department rules and general and special orders; statements to IPRA from the accused officers, subject, and witnesses; audio recordings; 911 calls, IPRA recommends the following:
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Engaging in an unjustified verbal altercation with
Subject 1
o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 2: Verbally abusing Subject 1 o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 3: Engaging in an unjustified physical altercation with Subject 1
o A finding of Not Sustained ¦ Allegation 4: Pushing Subject 1 against a door o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 5: Striking Subject 1 on her chest o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 6: Roughly grabbing Subject 1 by the wrist/arm o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 7: Slamming Subject l's phone from her hand when trying to call 911 for assistance
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 8: Stopping Subject 1 from locking the property gate and preventing Subject 1 from entering her property
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 9: Attempting to enter Subject l's house without permission
o A finding of Not Sustained
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Violating a General and Special Orders by failing to
initiate a complaint register number and following procedures outlined in the Department Directive when a Department member was involved in a domestic incident and a crime/misconduct by the Department member was alleged o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 3 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegation.
Log# 1061264
Notification Date: April 9, 2013
Location: 4th District
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Complaint Type: Excessive Force
Officer A:
Subject 1: Subject 2: Summary:
Finding(s):
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 44, Off-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment - 2000
Male/Black, 19
Male/Black, 19
In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A engaged in a verbal altercation with the Subjects that leg to Officer A using excessive force.
Based on department rules and orders; and statements to IPRA from the accused officer, subjects, and witnesses, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Engaging in a verbal altercation with Subject 1 that
included calling Subject 1 profanities o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Threatening Subject 1 o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 3: Engaging in a verbal altercation with Subject 1 that included calling Subject 1 profanities
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Slapping Subject l's hand o A finding.pf Not Sustained
Allegation 5: Slapping Subject l's face o A finding of Not.Sustained
Allegation 6: Putting a taser on Subject 2's back without justification o A finding of Not Sustained.
Allegation 7: Directed profanity at Subject 2 o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 8: Wore prescribed CPD attire while working secondary employment '
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 3 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Logft 1061399
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
Subject 1: Subject 2: Summary:
Finding(s):
April 12, 2013
9th District
Firearm Discharge
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 33, Off-Duty, Not in uniform, Year of Appointment - 2001
Female/White, 30
Female/White
In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A created a disturbance while intoxicated. It was alleged that Officer A drove to the residence belonging to Subjects 1 and 2 after consuming alcohol and was approaching the residence when he discharged his firearm. Subject 2 exited the residence and saw Officer A lying on the ground and holding his leg, leading her to believe that Officer A had shot himself, and at which time a neighbor called 911. Officer A then claimed that he accidentally discharged his forearm while trying to re-holster it, and directed profanity at Subject's land 2 and the neighbors. Officer A was not injured. It was alleged that after being transported to the 9th district station, Officer A denied the allegations against him, including causing a disturbance while intoxicated; operating a vehicle while intoxicated; falsely reporting that he accidentally discharged his firearm; directing profanities and the Subjects 1 and 2 and witnesses; and misleading the Subjects 1 and 2 and the witnesses regarding shooting himself in the leg.
Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the accused officer. Subjects 1 and 2, witness officers and witnesses, phone records; involved officers, and witness; and department reports, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Intoxication on or off duty
o A finding of Sustained • Allegation 2: Violated a law or ordinance when he operated his personal vehicle while intoxicated
2Q 2016 Report Page 57 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
o A finding of Sustained ¦ Allegation 3: Disobeyed an order, whether written or oral, when he was in possession of his firearm when there was a likelihood he would be consuming alcohol o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Unlawfully and unnecessarily displayed his firearm o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 5: Unlawfully and unnecessarily discharged his firearm o .A finding of Sustained
Allegation 6: Was inattentive to his duty when he failed to re-holster his firearm after discharging it
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 7: Engaged in unjustified verbal altercation with when he directed profanities at the subjects and witnesses
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 8: Engaged in an action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department when he misled subjects and witnesses regarding shooting himself in the leg
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 9: Made a false oral report when he reported to a Sergeant that he accidentally discharged his firearm while attempting to re-holster it
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 10: Made a false oral report when he stated he did not cause a disturbance while intoxicated
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 11: Made a false oral report when he stated he did not operate his vehicle while intoxicated
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 12: Made a false oral report when he stated he did not discharge his firearm without justification
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 13: Made a false oral report when he stated he did not direct profanities at the subjects and witnesses
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 14: Made a false oral report when he stated that he did not mislead subjects and witnesses into believing he shot himself fin the leg
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 15: Made a false oral report when he reported to a Sergeant that he accidentally discharged his firearm while attempting to re-holster it
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
LogU 1061779
Notification Date: April 26, 2013
Location: 10th District
Complaint Type: Unnecessary Display of Weapon
Officer A: Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 55, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of
Appointment -1986
Officer B: Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 50, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of
Appointment -1988
Subject 1: Male/Black, 31
Summary: . In,an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A yelled
obscenities and held his taser against Subject l's head. Also, it was alleged that Officer B arrived to the incident scene and failed to initiate a log number after Subject 1 reported misconduct on Officer A's part.
Finding(s): Based on department rules and:orders; statements to lPRA from the
accused officers, subject, and witnesses; and in-car camera footage, IPRA recommends the following: ' '
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Verbally abused Subject 1
o A finding of Sustained '
Allegation 2: Holding a taser next to Subject l's head and threatening to deploy the taser
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Issuing vehicle traffic citations to Subject 1 without justification
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 30 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
allegations.
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Failing to initiate a log number after Subject 1 reported
misconduct on the part of Officer 1
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 5 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
LogU 1067362
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
Officer B:
Officer C:
Officer D:
Officer E:
Officer F:
Subject 1: Subject 2:
February 6, 2014 10th District Excessive Force
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 38, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment - 2006
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 37, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment-2001
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 35, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment - 2004
Chicago Police Officer, Male/ White, 37, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment - 2004
Chicago Police Officer, Male/ White, 32, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment - 2005
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 33, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment - 2004
Female/Black, 55
Male/Black, 24
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Subject 3: Female/Black
Summary: In an incident involving Officers it was alleged that the Officers illegally
entered and searched Subject l's residence. In addition, it was alleged that Officers A, C, and D grabbed and handcuffed Subject 1, as well as, unreasonably seized items belonging to Subjects 2 and 3. Furthermore, it was alleged that Officer B coerced Subject 1 by threatening her, and failed to supervise the entire search.
Finding(s): Based on the US Constitution; department rules and orders; statements
to IPRA from the accused officers and subject; department reports; and consent to search sheets, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Entered and searched Subject l's residence without a
search warrant or an exception to the search warrant requirements o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Grabbing and slamming Subject 1 against the wall o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Handcuffing Subject 1 in a rough manner and too tightly o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Unreasonably seizing items belonging to Subjects 2 and 3 during an illegal search
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 5: Making a false report, written or oral o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Entered and searched Subject l's residence without a
search warrant or an exception to the search warrant requirements o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Coercing Subject 1 by threatening to arrest/prosecute her if she did not cooperate with the illegal search by signing a Consent to Search form
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Failing to have a participating member in the search attired in the prescribed seasonal field uniform
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report Page 61 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
Allegation 4: Failing to ensure the Consent to Search form specifically indicated the scope of the search
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 5: Failing to ensure that Subject 1 had authority to give consent to search Subject 2's bedroom
o A finding of Sustained ¦ Allegation 6: Failing to supervise the entire consent to search incident o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 7: Approving an Original Case Incident Report documenting information that he knew was false
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer C: • Allegation 1: Entered and searched Subject l's residence without a
search warrant or an exception to the search warrant requirements o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Grabbing and slamming Subject 1 against the wall o A finding of Sustained :
Allegation 3: Handcuffing Subject 1 in a rough manner and too tightly o A finding of Sustained'
Allegation 4: Unreasonably seizing items belonging to Subjects 2 and 3 during an illegal search
- o A finding of Sustained
• Allegation 5: Making a false report, written or oral
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Officer D: • Allegation 1: Entered and searched Subject l's residence without a
search warrant or an exception to the search warrant requirements o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Grabbing and slamming Subject 1 against the wall o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Handcuffing Subject 1 in a rough manner and too tightly o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Unreasonably seizing items belonging to Subjects 2 and 3 during an illegal search
o A finding of Sustained ¦ Allegation 5: Making a false report, written or oral o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer E: • Allegation 1: Entered and searched Subject l's residence without a
search warrant or an exception to, the search warrant requirements o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 2: Grabbing and slamming Subject 1 against the wall o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 3: Handcuffing Subject 1 in a rough manner and too tightly o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 4: Unreasonably seizing items belonging to Subjects 2 and 3 during an illegal search
o A finding of Unfounded
Officer F: • Allegation 1: Entered and searched Subject l's residence without a
search warrant or an exception to the search warrant requirements o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 2: Grabbing and slamming Subject 1 against the wall o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 3: Handcuffing Subject 1 in a rough manner and too tightly o A finding of Unfounded
Allegation 4: Unreasonably seizing items belonging to Subjects 2 and 3 during an illegal search
o A finding of Unfounded
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
LogU 1068036
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type: Officer A:
Officer B:
Officer C:
Officer D:
Subject 1: Summary:
March 17, 2014
25th District
Improper Search
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 40, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment -1998
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 41, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment -1996
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 58, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment -1982
Chicago Police Officer, Male/ White, 40, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment -1998
Male/White, 31
In an incident involving the Officers it was alleged that the Officers failed to properly search Subject 1, where he later cut himself.
Based on department rules and orders; and statements to IPRA from the accused officers IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Failing to properly search the arrestee
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of REPRIMAND was recommended for the Sustained allegation.
• Allegation 1: Failing to properly search the arrestee
o A finding of Unfounded
Officer C: • Allegation 1: Failing to properly search the arrestee
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
A penalty of VIOLATION NOTED was recommended for the Sustained allegation.
Officer D: • Allegation 1: Failing to properly search the arrestee
o During mediation. Officer D agreed to accept IPRA's finding of "Sustained"
During mediation. Officer D agreed to accept and to not contest a VIOLATION NOTED - NO DISCIPLINE from the CPD for the Sustained finding
Log# 1068324
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
Officer B:
Officer C:
Officer D:
Officer E: Subject 1: Summary:
April 1, 2014
8th District
Sexual Orientation
Chicago Police Officer, Female/White, 37, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment-1999
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 59, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment -1995
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Hispanic, 49, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment -1998
Chicago Police Officer, Male/ Hispanic, 41, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment-2005
Unknown Male/Black, 25
In an incident involving Officers it was alleged that the Officers' actions brought discredit upon the Department, failed to perform any duty, and
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
disrespected Subject 1 by calling him a derogatory name.
Finding(s): Based on department rules and orders; statements to IPRA from the
accused officers, subject, and witnesses; and security camera footage, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Stating to Subject 1 words which impedes the
Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department
o A finding of Unfounded
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Referring to Subject 1 that brings discredit upon the
Department and disrespects Subject 1 o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Engaging in conduct unbecoming of a Chicago Police Officer
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 3: Failing to report misconduct committed by Officer C
o A finding of Not Sustained
A penalty of a 2 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer C: • Allegation 1: Engaging in conduct unbecoming of a Chicago Police
Officer
o A finding of Sustained.
A penalty of a 5 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegation.
Officer D: • Allegation 1: Engaging in conduct unbecoming of a Chicago Police
Officer
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
A penalty of a 1 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegation.
Officer E: • Allegation 1: Dragging Subject 1 out of the seat and pushed him out
of the hospital's front entrance o A finding of Unfounded • Allegation 2: Failing to provide Subject 1 with medical assistance
o A finding of Unfounded
LogU 1068611
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
Subject 1: Subject 2: Summary:
Finding(s):
Officer A:
April 15, 2014 14th District Excessive Force .
Crossing Guard, Female/Hispanic, 48, Off-Duty, Not in uniform, Year of Appointment - 2000
Female/White, 20
Female/White 46
In an incident involving Officer A,.it .was alleged that Officer A stuck Subject 2 with a hammer during an altercation. Officer A placed under arrest and subsequently convicted of battery.
Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the accused officer, involved officers, and subjects; and medical records, IPRA recommends the following:
Allegation #1: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty when she struck Subject 2 with a hammer
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation #2: Was in violation of any law or ordinance and undertook an action which brought discredit upon the Department by undertaking her actions related to this incident
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report Page 67 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
A penalty of a 15 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
LogU 1069863
Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
Subject 1: Subject 2: Summary:
June 17, 2014 11th District Excessive Force
Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 37, On-Duty, In uniform. Year of Appointment - 2003
Male/Black, 15
Female/Black
In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A directed profanity towards Subject 1, punched Subject 1 on his chest knocking him to the.ground, failed to document his encounter with the Subject 1, and that Officer A made a false report related to this incident.
Finding(s): Based on statements to IPRA from the accused officers; medical records;
and department reports/records, IPRA recommends the following:
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Engaging in an unjustified verbal altercation with
Subject 1 by directing profanity towards him o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Disrespect to or maltreatment by punching Subject 1 o A finding of Sustained .
Allegation 3: Inattention to duty by failing to document the encounter
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
A penalty of SEPARATION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Logtt 1069956 Notification Date: Location: Complaint Type:
Officer A:
Officer B:
Subject 1: Summary:
Finding(s):
Officer A:
June 23, 2014
7th District
Excessive Force
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 33, On-Duty, In uniform, Year of Appointment - 2006
Chicago Police Officer, Male/Black, 34, On-Duty/lhuniform, Year of Appointment - 2007
Male/Black
In an incident involving OfficerA'and Officer B; it was alleged that Officer A physically abused Subject l when he pushed Subject-!; punched Subject 1 in the face, kneed Subject 1, challenged Subject 1 to a fight. It was also alleged that Officer A failed to complete a contact card for his contact with Subject 1. It was alleged that Officer B physically abused Subject 1 by jumping on his back, pacing his.knee on Subject l'sface: It was alleged that Officer. B also failed to complete a contact card related to this incident.
Based on department special orders; statements to IPRA from the accused officers and the subject; witness statements; and surveillance video, IPRA recommends the following:
Allegation 1: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty for pushing Subject 1
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 2: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty for punching Subject 1
2Q2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation3: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty for kneeing Subject 1
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation 4: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty for challenging Subject 1 to a fight
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 5: Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral, for failing to complete a contact card in relation to this incident
o A finding of Sustained ¦ Additional Violation: Engaging in actions or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings disrespect upon the Department
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 35 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
Officer B: • Allegation 1: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or
off duty for jumping on Subject l's back o A finding of Not Sustained ¦.,
Allegation 2: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty for kneeing Subject 1
o A finding of Not Sustained
Allegation3: Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written
or oral, for failing to complete a contact card in relation to this
incident . ¦¦.
o A finding of Sustained .
Additional Violation: Engaging in actions or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings disrespect upon the Department
o A finding of Sustained
A penalty of a 15 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
2Q 2016 Report
Independent Police Review Authority
Logft 1070393
Notification Date: July 17, 2014
Location: 16th District
Complaint Type: Excessive Force
Officer A: Chicago Police Officer, Male/White, 44, Off-Duty, Not in uniform, Year of
Appointment -1994
Subject 1: Female/White
Subject 2: Male/White, 22
Summary: In an incident involving Officer A it was alleged that Officer A hit Subject 1
on the face, used disparaging language to refer to Subject 1, searched Subject 2 without justification, threw Subject 2's belongings on the ground, struck Subject 2 in the face, and pointed his gun at Subject 1 and Subject 2.
Finding(s):. Based on department special orders; department.reports; statements to
IPRA from the accused officer and the subjects; witness statements; evidence technician photos; arid medical records, IPRA recommends the following:
' 1 c
Officer A: • Allegation 1: Engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation
with any person on or off-duty when he struck Subject 1 o A finding of Sustained .
Allegation 2: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty when he verbally disparaged Subject 1
o A finding of Sustained
• Allegation3: Violation of any law or ordinance when he searched \ Subject 2 without justification
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 4: Disrespect or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty when he threw Subject 2's belongings to the ground
o A finding'of Not Sustained
Allegation 5: Engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person on or off-duty when he struck Subject 2
o A finding of Sustained
Allegation 6: Unlawful or unnecessary use or display of a weapon for pointing his weapon at Subjects 1 and 2
o A finding of Sustained
2Q 2016 Report Page 71 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority
A penalty of a 31 DAY SUSPENSION was recommended for the Sustained allegations.
2Q 2016 Report Page 72 of 72
Independent Police Review Authority