Skip to main content

Full text of "CRID 1079288 CR COPA Summary Report"

See other formats


CIVILIAN OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 


LOG #1079288 


SUMMARY REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 1 


Date/Time/Location of Incident: 

September 24, 2014/Approximately 5 PM/7900 S. 

Ingleside Avenue 

Date/Time of COPA Notification: 

February 17, 2016/12:58 PM 

Involved Officer #1: 

Star Employee Date 


of Appointment: 2013, Police Officer, Unit of 

Assignment: Date of Birth: 1986, 

Male, White 

Involved Officer #2: 

tar Employee #|^^^| Date of 


Appointment: 2013, Police Officer, Unit of 

Assignment: Date of Birth: 1984, Male, 

Hispanic 

Involved Officer #3: 

tar Employee #^^^| Date of 

Involved Officer #4: 

Appointment: 2013, Police Officer, Unit of 

Assignment: Date of Birth: 1988, Male, 

White 

HIS liBBMM*- Star #HBHEmployee Date 


of Appointment: 2013, Police Officer, Unit of 

Assignment: Date of Birth: 1988, Female, 

White 

Involved Individual #1: 

^^^^^^^^PDate of Birth: 1959, Male, Black 

Case Type: 

Excessive Force 


I. ALLEGATIONS 


Officer Allegation Finding 


Officer 

1. Used excessive force when he grabbed HHBH 

Unfounded 


I^Babout the body, in violation of Rules 2, 3, 6, 8, 
and 9 



1 On September 15, 2017, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) replaced the Independent Police 
Review Authority (IPRA) as the civilian oversight agency of the Chicago Police Department. Therefore, this 
investigation, which began under IPRA, was transferred to COPA on September 15, 2017, and the recommendation(s) 
set forth herein are the recommendation(s) of COPA. 

2 Officer since been promoted to detective with star number 

3 Formerly known as 


1 











CIVILIAN OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 


LOG #1079288 



1. Used excessive force when he grabbed Not 

Hfc^about the body, in violation of Rules 2, 3, 6, 8, Sustained 
and 9 


Used excessive force: 
1. when he grabbed 


Not 

about the body; Sustained 


2. when he performed a take down on 

3. when he used open hand strikes on ^^|and 

4. when he performed knee strikes on 
violation of Rules 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 


1. Used excessive force when she grabbed Not 

IHBabout the body, in violation of Rules 2, 3, 6, 8, Sustained 
and 9 


II. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 4 

COPA’s investigation included interviews of the accused officers, Officer 
Officer Officer and Officer ^^B 

*| the complainant, and a civilian, 

Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) reports, RD #^^^^^B documenting the incident were also 
collected, which included summaries of the officers’ account. COPA also received depositions 11 
related to ^^^|civil suit, 16 C alleging misconduct and ^^^|criminal case transcripts 12 , 
BHH M— ■ There was no video evidence or independent witnesses available. 

Upon a review of the compiled evidence, COPA finds the following narrative occurred by 
a preponderance of the evidence. On September 24, 2014, at approximately 5 PM around 7900 S. 
Ingleside Avenue, the officers were stopped by a civilian stating a white Hummer was driving 
erratically. The officers observed the Hummer violating traffic laws and subsequently stopped it. 


4 COPA conducted a full and complete investigation of this matter, including the interview of all pertinent civilian 
and officer witnesses, and the collection and review of digital, documentary, and forensic evidence. As part of 
COPA’s ongoing efforts to increase case closure capacity, certain cases opened under IPRA are summarized more 
succinctly in a Modified Summary Report of Investigation, pursuant to COPA Guideline Modified Summary Report 
of Investigation Template and Approvals, effective February 13, 2019. 

5 Attachment 40 

6 Attachment 45 

7 Attachment 50 

8 Attachment 56 

9 Attachment 71 

10 Attachment 24 

11 Attachment 30 

12 Attachment 29 


2 

















CIVILIAN OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 


LOG #1079288 


After ^H was unable to produce his driver’s license, Officer ^^^^|askcd ^Hto exit his vehicle 
and ^^complied. After ^^exited his vehicle and as Officer ^^^^attempted to place 
custody, there are conflicting accounts as to what occurred next. There are further conflicting 
accounts about ^^^|aclions and whether he resisted. 

M slnlcd he did not resist at any point during his interaction with the officers. Contrarily, the 
officers stated that ^^continued to resist, did not comply with their verbal direction, attempted 
to walk away, attempted to avoid physical control, and reached towards his waistband making 
them believe that ^|P ossesse( l a weapon. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

For each Allegation COPA must make one of the following findings: 

1. Sustained - where it is determined the allegation is supported by a preponderance of the evidence; 

2. Not Sustained - where it is determined there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegations 
by a preponderance of the evidence; 

3. Unfounded - where it is determined by clear and convincing evidence that an allegation is false 
or not factual; or 

4. Exonerated - where it is determined by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct 
described in the allegation occurred, but it is lawful and proper. 

A preponderance of evidence can be described as evidence indicating that it is more 
likely than not that the conduct occurred and violated Department policy. See Avery v. State Farm 
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 191 (2005), (a proposition is proved by a 
preponderance of the evidence when it has found to be more probably true than not). If the evidence 
gathered in an investigation establishes that it is more likely that the misconduct occurred, even if 
by a narrow margin, then the preponderance of the evidence standard is met. 

Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence 
but lower than the "beyond-a-reasonable doubt" standard required to convict a person of a criminal 
offense. See e.g.. People v. Coan, 2016 IL App (2d) 151036 (2016). Clear and Convincing can be 
defined as a “degree of proof, which, considering all the evidence in the case, produces the firm 
and abiding belief that it is highly probable that the proposition ... is true.” Id. at ‘Jl 28. 

IY. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 

COPA finds that the allegations against Officers ^^^^|^^^^|and ^^^^|are Not 
Sustained. CPD policy 13 permits officers to use force against individuals based on the individual’s 
actions. The officers stated based on ^^B ac1aons they used an appropriate level of force to place 
custody. ^^statcd he was compliant and never resisted. While it is clear that the officers 
used force, it is not clear by a preponderance of the evidence that it was excessive. Due to the lack 


13 General Order G03-02-02: Force Options (Effective Date May 16, 2012) 


3 





CIVILIAN OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 


LOG #1079288 


of evidence and an independent witness to corroborate or refute anyone’s statements, COPA could 
not determine whether the force used was excessive. Therefore, COPA finds that the allegations 
against Officers nd ^^^^|are Not Sustained. 

COPA finds that the allegation against Officer Unfounded. Officer ^^^|said he 

did not have physical contact with I^^^The other officers corroborate Officer ^^^^statement, 
stating Officer ^^^^iid not assist in placing ^^|into custody as he remained on the passenger 
side of the vehicle while the incident occurred on the driver’s side. Additionally, ^^did not know 
if Officer ^^^|had physical contact with him. Considering all the evidence, COPA firmly 
believes that Officer ^^^^iid not make contact with ^^|and the allegation is not factual. 
Therefore, COPA finds that the allegation against Officer Unfounded. 


Approved: 


Angela Hearts-Glass Date 

Deputy Chief Administrator - Chief Investigator 


4 




CIVILIAN OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 


LOG #1079288 


Assigned Investigative Staff 


Squad#: 

■ 

Investigator: 


Supervising Investigator: 


Deputy Chief Administrator: 

Angela Hearts-Glass 


5