Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
Log# 1026942 / U# 09-17
INVOLVED
OFFICERS:

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/White; 34 years old;
On-Duty; Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 2000
“Officer B” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Hispanic; 34 years old;
On-Duty; Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 1997
“Officer C” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Hispanic; 38 years old;
On-Duty; Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 2006

INVOLVED
OFFICERS’
INJURIES:
INVOLVED
SUBJECT:

Officer B – laceration to right knee
Officer C – fracture to left foot

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 29 years old

INVOLVED
SUBJECT’S
INJURIES:

One (1) graze wound to left side of head
One (1) GSW to forehead
One (1) GSW to left jaw
One (1) GSW to right wrist
Fatal.

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Controlled Narcotic Delivery.

DATE/TIME:
LOCATION:

02 June 2009/2042 hours
2340 West Madison – street
Beat 1332

Page 1 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
Summary of Incident:
On 02 June 2009, Officers from Unit 189 Narcotics Division (teams 6215, 6215A,
6215B, 6215C, 6215E, 6215F, 6260A, 6260F) were conducting an ongoing narcotics
investigation relative to a controlled narcotic delivery. The investigation involved a
predetermined agreed delivery of a large amount of MDMA (ecstasy). The delivery was
arranged with the cooperation of a Confidential Informant (C/I) and the location of the
delivery was 2340 West Madison Avenue (Walgreen’s Parking Lot). The C/I provided
the description of the vehicle and physical description (including clothing) of the “target”
of the delivery, now identified as Subject 1. The members of the team were assigned as
Enforcement Officers and Surveillance Officers. Once the vehicle of Subject 1 entered
the location, the Enforcement officers were notified and instructed to conduct a traffic
stop. Officers A and C approached Subject 1’s vehicle.1 Subject 1 put his vehicle in
reverse in an attempt to flee and ran over the left foot of Officer C in the process. Subject
1’s vehicle continued in reverse at a high rate of speed and struck the vehicle of Officers
B and D. 2 Officer D, who had exited his vehicle to assist the members of his team, was
forced to “dive” back into his vehicle to avoid being struck by Subject 1’s vehicle.
Subject 1’s vehicle continued in reverse until it (Subject 1’s vehicle) struck a pole.
Officers A and C, who continued their foot pursuit of Subject 1 announced their office,
gave Subject 1 verbal commands to exit the vehicle, with their weapons drawn. At this
point, Subject 1 “revved” the engine of his vehicle and drove his vehicle in the direct path
of Officers A, C, and D, who had no means of escape. 3 At this point, in fear of the death
or great bodily harm to Officers A, B, C, and D discharged his weapon one (1) time.
Officers A and C in fear of their own life, the safety of each other, the safety of their
teammates and the safety of citizens in the parking lot, to stop the threat discharged their
weapons, seven (7) and nine (9) times respectively. Subject 1’s vehicle continued
forward, striking the vehicle of Officers B and D and a pole. The officers approached
Subject 1’s vehicle and removed the key from the ignition. Medical assistance was
requested for Subject 1 who appeared to be injured. The scene was secured and proper
notifications were made.
It should be noted that no Roundtable Panel was conducted post incident as the
incident required further investigation prior to taking any compelled statements.

1

During the course of this investigation, Officer A was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. Based on Officer
A’s rank at the time of this incident and for the purposes of this report Officer A will be identified as
“Officer A.”
2
During the course of this investigation, Officer B was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. Based on Officer
B’s rank at the time of this incident and for the purposes of this report Officer B will be identified as
“Officer B.”
3
Officer D was able to “dive” back into his police vehicle a second time to avoid being struck by Subject
1’s vehicle. Subject 1’s vehicle struck the police vehicle of Officers Andaverde and Elstner before it struck
a second pole and came to stop.

Page 2 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
Investigation:
During the course of this investigation, [Female Person] as Special Administrator
of the Estate of Subject 1 filed Civil Suit 2009 L 13075. On 12 October 2012, the Civil
Suit was Voluntarily Dismissed. 4
Attempts to interview Involved Subject 1 post incident were met with negative
results. Medical Personnel from Stroger Hospital related that Subject 1 sustained multiple
gun shot wounds and that his prognosis for recovery was poor. Subject 1 had minimal
brain wave activity and was unable to communicate/breathe of his own accord as he was
on a ventilator. Subject 1 expired on 05 September 2009.
The Chicago Fire Department (CFD) Ambulance Report for Subject 1
indicates that he was transported to Stroger Hospital for treatment of multiple gunshot
wounds. Advanced Life Support (ALS) efforts were initiated, and Cardio Pulmonary
Resuscitation (CPR) started.
In her Report of Postmortem Examination of Subject 1 (58 Sep 2009)
Assistant Medical Examiner Doctor A. opined that Subject 1’s cause of death on 05
September 2009, was sepsis due to anoxic encephalopathy due to multiple gunshot
wounds. Doctor A ruled the Manner of Death as Homicide.
The Department Reports relative to Subject 1 (CB 17583694/RD HR354694)
indicate that during a narcotics investigation information was received that identified a
black male subject driving a four (4) door Ford Taurus now known to be Subject 1 was
to deliver three hundred (300) Ecstasy pills to the location of 2340 West Madison
Avenue. Surveillance was established by the members of the 6215 Narcotics Team.
When Subject 1’s vehicle was observed at the location, the officers assigned to
enforcement broke surveillance by approaching Subject 1 and announcing their office.
Subject 1 upon observing Officer C approach placed his vehicle in reverse and
struck/drove over the foot of Officer C. Subject 1 continued his attempt to flee (in
reverse) and struck the vehicle of Officers B and D. 5 Subject 1 then placed his vehicle in
drive and purposely drove in the path of Officers A and C at which time Officers A, B,
and C discharged their weapons. The proper notifications were made. Emergency
Medical Services were requested. The scene was secured. The involved officers’
weapons were turned over to the forensic services division, inventoried and sent to the
Illinois State Police (ISP) Forensic Laboratory for testing. The fired cartridge cases and
fired bullets recovered from the scene as well as the suspect narcotics recovered from
Subject 1’s vehicle were inventoried and sent to ISP for testing. Photographs were taken
of the scene, involved vehicles, involved parties, and recovered evidence

4

There is no evidence to suggest that Civil Suit 2009 L13075 was settled by the Department of Law and/or
any monies paid by the City of Chicago. Based on the facts of this investigation, the claims by [Female
Person] are without merit. (Att. 86).
5
Officer B sustained an injury to his knee and Officer D sustained an injury to his neck/shoulder.

Page 3 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
Detective Division Personnel went to Stroger Hospital to ascertain the injuries
sustained by Subject 1. Medical Personnel reported that Subject 1 sustained a graze
wound to the left side of the head, a gun shot wound to the left ear, gun shot wound to the
left side of the jaw and a gun shot wound to the right wrist. 6
Detective Division Personnel canvassed the area and interviewed multiple civilian
witnesses, who heard gun shots but did not witness the incident. 7

Multiple canvasses were conducted by IPRA, in the vicinity of the incident for
the purpose of identifying witnesses. The canvasses were met with negative results.

Walgreen’s Employees working on the date and time of the incident were
contacted by IPRA, for the purpose of identifying witnesses. None of the employees
observed the incident.
Attempts to identify additional witnesses i.e. tenants in the 2237 and 2240 West
Madison Avenue Buildings, employees of McDonald’s Restaurant located at 23 North
Western Avenue, and Walgreen’s Drug Store located at 2340 West Madison Avenue,
were met with negative results.
The Evidence Technician (E.T.) Photographs, Video of the Scene and Related
Crime Scene Processing Reports generated under RD # HR354932 were obtained.
The Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) Radio
transmissions and related Event Queries for this incident were obtained. OEMC was
notified of the weapons discharge and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) was requested
to the location. 8
The Security Video footage from Walgreen’s located at 2340 West Madison
Avenue was obtained but provides no evidentiary value. The video footage is for the
interior of the store as there are no exterior cameras.
The Security Video footage from McDonald’s Restaurant (23 North Western
Avenue was obtained but contains no evidentiary value. The video footage for the south
parking lot area captures the McDonald’s property only.
On 12 August 2009, a Trajectory Analysis was performed on the vehicle driven
by Subject 1 on the date of this incident. The purpose of the analysis was to ascertain if
there was a violation of the Department’s use of Deadly Force relative to firing at or into
a moving vehicle. The trajectory rods were placed in the impact locations as allowed. A
6

Two (2) fired bullets were recovered one (1) from Subject 1’s outer clothing and one from the ambulance
floor.
7
The citizens were contacted by IPRA to verify the accounts provided to Detective Division Personnel.
8
Attempts made by IPRA to contact OEMC callers were met with negative results.

Page 4 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
Leica Scan of the vehicle was conducted after the trajectory rod placement. The
measurements of the trajectory rods were taken. The analysis results established no
evidence to prove the Involved Officers fired at Subject 1’s vehicle after the imminent
threat of death or great bodily harm had passed. The analysis results did not establish the
specific location of each of the Involved Officers when they fired and/or if there was a
means of escape. While it is important to note that the angle measurements are +/- 7º,
none of the analysis results indicate that the Involved Officers fired at the vehicle after it
passed.
The Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of Forensic Services Laboratory
Reports indicate that the fired evidence recovered came from the weapons of Officers A,
B, and C. The weapons were examined; test fired and found to be in firing condition.
The ISP Reports further indicate that the narcotics recovered from Subject 1’s
vehicle (11688645) were tested and found to Methamphetamine, Methorphan and
Benzylpiperazine. 9
The following accounts reflect information discerned to Detective Division
Personnel and IPRA.
CPD Sergeant 1 provided an account which was consistent with the Summary of
Incident, Department Reports and Department Members on scene. CPD Sergeant 1, who
was the Supervisor of the controlled narcotic delivery, detailed the positioning of the
vehicles, surveillance officers and enforcement officers. CPD Sergeant 1 related that
upon seeing Subject 1’s vehicle enter the lot, the surveillance team alerted the
enforcement team units. At this point, CPD Sergeant 1 drove his vehicle into the
Walgreen’s parking lot through the entrance near Western Avenue. Subject 1 was
attempting to exit the parking lot through the same Western Avenue entrance. Subject
1’s vehicle was now directly in front of CPD Sergeant 1’s vehicle. Officer C, who was
wearing a black vest with his Chicago Police Star clearly visible, approached the driver’s
side of Subject 1’s vehicle on foot. Officer C repeatedly announced his office and gave
Subject 1 verbal commands. Subject 1 did not comply. Subject 1 put his vehicle in
reverse and drives southeastern at a high rate of speed. Officers A and C pursued Subject
1 on foot as they gave verbal commands. CPD Sergeant 1 drove his vehicle eastbound in
the Walgreen’s parking lot then turned southbound. CPD Sergeant 1 exited his vehicle
and began to go in the direction of Officers A and C. CPD Sergeant 1 heard loud noises
followed by gunshots. CPD Sergeant 1 observed Officers A and C standing in front of
Subject 1’s vehicle with their guns drawn and directing verbal commands. CPD Sergeant
1 observed that Subject 1 was wounded and attempted to render aid. CPD Sergeant 1
was informed that CFD has been notified and that assist units were en route. CPD
Sergeant 1 observed damage to the vehicle of Officers B and D on the front passenger
fender and passenger door. Officers A, B, and C informed CPD Sergeant 1 that they
discharged their weapons. CPD Sergeant 1 secured the crime scene and ensured that the
proper notifications were made.
9

Benzylpiperazine is a Federally controlled Schedule I substance.

Page 5 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17

In his statement with IPRA on 16 October 2013, Officer E related an account of
the incident consistent with the Summary of Incident, Department Reports and
Department Members on the scene. Officers Shavers related that he did not witness the
incident in its entirety. Officer E, who was assigned as the surveillance officer, observed
Subject 1’s vehicle traveling in reverse and Officer C running towards Subject 1’s
vehicle. Officer E heard several shots but did not know who fired the shots. Officer E
then personally observed Officers A and C fire their weapons but could not provide the
number of times fired by either. Officer E did not see what caused Officers A and C to
fire their weapons as he was approximately forty to fifty (40-50) feet away when they
(Officers A and C fired). Officer E did not fire his weapon.
In his statement with IPRA on 16 October 2013, Officer D related an account of
the incident consistent with the Summary of Incident, Department Reports, Department
Members on scene and his deposition. 10 Officers B and D, who were assigned as an
enforcement unit positioned their vehicle east on Madison Avenue a short distance from
the Walgreen’s parking lot. Upon receiving notification that Subject 1 had arrived at the
parking lot, Officer B drove the vehicle westbound on Madison Avenue and positioned
the vehicle facing westbound on Madison Avenue, just short of the Walgreen’s parking
lot. Officer D observed Subject 1’s vehicle driving in reverse in a southeastern direction
as Officers A and C ran on foot in the direction of Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer D exited
his vehicle in an attempt to assist Officers A and C. Officer D heard one of the team
members state words to the effect of “he’s running,” as he exited the vehicle. Upon
exiting, Officer D observed that Subject 1’s vehicle, which was in reverse, was coming
directly towards him. Officer D, who described Subject 1’s actions as “intentional,” was
forced to “dive” right back into the police vehicle on the passenger side to avoid being
struck. Subject 1’s vehicle struck the passenger door of the police vehicle. Officer D
exited his vehicle and observed Officers A and C in front of Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer
D looked in the direction of Subject 1’s vehicle, heard “loud engine noises” and observed
Subject 1’s vehicle was now headed forward towards him. Officer D, who was in fear of
being struck by Subject 1’s vehicle “dove” in his vehicle a second time, to avoid being
struck. It was at that time that Officer D heard several gunshots but could not recall the
number of rounds he heard. Officer D heard Officers A and C, who were in front of
Subject 1’s vehicle, shouting verbal commands. Officer D exited the police vehicle and
went to the location of Subject 1’s vehicle, which was against a light pole. Officer D
observed Subject 1 to be injured. Officer D recalled that medical treatment was requested
for Subject 1. Officer D sustained a neck injury as a result of this incident and was
transported to Rush Medical Center via CFD Ambulance. Officer D related that Subject
1’s actions led him to believe that he was going to be killed. Officer D related that the
officers who fired their weapons did so for the safety of Officers A, C, and himself.
Officer D did not fire his weapon.

10

Officer D was deposed on 04 October 2011 in regards to a civil lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County , Law Division Number 09 L 13075.

Page 6 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
The Chicago Fire Department (CFD) Ambulance Report for Officer D
indicates that he was transported to Rush Hospital with a complaint of low back pain.
The Tactical Response Report (TRR) of Officer A identified Subject 1 as a
Passive Resister (did not follow verbal direction), who progressed to an Active Resister
(fled), escalated to an Assailant/Assault (imminent threat of battery), Assailant/Battery
(attack with weapon) and Assailant/Deadly Force (use of force likely to cause death or
great bodily harm/ weapon/vehicle). Officer A utilized member presence, verbal
commands and firearm to subdue Subject 1. Officer A indicated that Subject 1 attempted
to run him over with his vehicle. Officer A fired his Sig Sauer 228 seven (7) times and
estimated his distance from Subject 1 to be five to seven (5-7) feet at time of discharge.
The Officer’s Battery Report (OBR) of Officer A indicates that Subject 1
attempted to strike him with his vehicle.
In his statement with IPRA on 16 October 2013, Involved Officer A related an
account of the incident consistent with the Summary of Incident, Department Reports,
Department Members on scene and his deposition. 11 Officer A, who was assigned as an
enforcement officer, related that during the controlled buy, Subject 1 “started to move,”
(i.e. make good his escape). Officer A related that Officer C announced his office,
ordered Subject 1 to exit the vehicle and advised Subject 1 that he was under arrest.
Subject 1 put his vehicle in reverse and at a high rate of speed attempted to flee, striking
Officer C in the process. Subject 1 then drove his vehicle backwards at a high rate of
speed and struck the police vehicle of Officers B and D. Subject 1’s vehicle continued
backward and struck a large pole. Officers A and C, who began to approach the location
of Subject 1 with the intent of placing Subject 1 into custody, were now in front of
Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer A heard Subject 1 “gun” the engine, as the vehicle “lunged”
towards Officers A and C. Officer A estimated the distance of Officer C and himself to
be within five (5) feet. Officer A recalled that he announced his office and ordered
Subject 1 to stop the vehicle numerous times, but Subject 1 did not comply. 12 It was at
this point, that Officer A in fear of the safety of both Officer C and himself fired his
weapon. Officer A did not recall the specific number of times he fired his weapon, but
stated that he fired his weapon until he stopped the threat. Officer A described the
positioning of Officer C and himself as that of a “fatal funnel,” in that neither had any
means of escape. Officer A recalled that during this incident his focus was on Subject 1.
Officer A opined that Subject 1 was using his vehicle as weapon against Officer C and
himself. Once Subject 1’s vehicle came to a stop, Officer A approached. Officer A
stated that his weapon was out when he approached the vehicle as felt the members of his
team and himself were still in danger. Once it was determined that the threat of danger
was eliminated and Subject 1 was observed to be injured, medical assistance was
requested. Officer A was not injured as a result of this incident.

11

Officer A was deposed on 27 September 2011 in regards to a civil lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of
Cook County , Law Division Number 09 L 13075.
12
Officer A related that while he and the members of his team were dressed in tactical gear, their attire
contained multiple readily identifiable visible markers which established their identities as police officers.

Page 7 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
The Tactical Response Report (TRR) of Officer B identified Subject 1 as a
Passive Resister (did not follow verbal direction), who progressed to an Active Resister
(fled), escalated to an Assailant/Assault (imminent threat of battery), Assailant/Battery
(attack with weapon) and Assailant/Deadly Force (use of force likely to cause death or
great bodily harm/ weapon/vehicle). Officer B utilized member presence, verbal
commands and firearm to subdue Subject 1. Officer B indicated that Subject 1 attempted
to run three (3) officers over with his vehicle. Officer B fired his Smith and Wesson
4583TSW one (1) time and estimated his distance from Subject 1 to be five to ten (5-10)
feet at time of discharge.
The Officer’s Battery Report (OBR) of Officer B indicates that while Officer B
was pursuing an offender he sustained a non-fatal major injury (broken bones/serious
lacerations/internal injuries). Officer B sustained his injury when the Department vehicle
that Officer B was seated in was struck by Subject 1’s vehicle.
In a statement with IPRA on 05 November 2013, Involved Officer B related an
account of the incident which was consistent with the Summary of Incident, Department
Reports and Department Members on the scene. Officer B related that on the date and
time of this incident, he and Officer D were in their predetermined location awaiting the
takedown signal when words to the effect of “he’s running,” came over the radio. Officer
B, who was the driver officer, remained in the car while Officer D exited. At that point,
Officer B observed Subject 1’s vehicle driving in reverse at a fast speed in the direction
of his vehicle with Officers A and C giving chase on foot. Officer D was able to get back
in the vehicle before Subject 1’s vehicle struck the Department vehicle of Officers B and
D. After striking the vehicle of Officers B and D, Subject 1’s vehicle struck a pole.
Officers B and D exited their vehicle and attempted to approach Subject 1’s vehicle. As
Officer B approached Subject 1’s vehicle, he (Officer B) heard the engine. Subject 1’s
vehicle then “screeched forward” in the direction of Officers A, C, and D. Upon seeing
Subject 1’s vehicle headed in the direction of Officers A, C, and D, Officer B related that
he fired one (1) shot at Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer B then heard several more gunshots.
Officer B “ducked down” to remove himself from the line of fire. At that point, Officer
B believed that Officer D was “crushed” between the two (2) vehicles as he (Officer B)
did not know that Officer D was able to get back inside the vehicle and was out of harms
way. Officer B fired one (1) shot as he was in fear of the safety of Officer D, who did not
have a path of escape from Subject 1’s vehicle from the location where Officer B was
positioned. Officer B estimated the speed of Subject 1’s vehicle to be approximately
fifteen (15) miles per hour, with engine revving, and tires screeching. After Subject 1’s
vehicle struck the Department vehicle of Officers B and D a second time, it (Subject 1’s
vehicle) struck the pole for a second time. When Subject 1’s vehicle stopped, several
officers approached Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer B recalled that when he put Subject 1’s
vehicle in park, he (Officer B) observed Subject 1 to be injured. One of the officers on
the scene removed the keys from the ignition. An ambulance was requested to the scene.
After firing his weapon, Officer B made the required notifications. 13
13

It should be noted that Officer B identified an error relative to the account of the narrative he provided to
the Detectives post incident. The Case Report indicates that Officer D fired his weapon one (1) time.
Officer B clarified that he fired one (1) shot not Officer D.

Page 8 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17

The Chicago Fire Department (CFD) Ambulance Report for Officer B
indicates that he was transported to Rush Hospital with a complaint of right knee pain
and laceration. Officer B informed ambulance personnel that a vehicle backed into the
front right side quarter panel as he was attempting to exit from the front passenger side.
Officer B struck his right knee and lower leg on the in car computer.
The Tactical Response Report (TRR) of Officer C identified Subject 1 as a
Passive Resister (did not follow verbal direction), who progressed to an Active Resister
(fled), escalated to an Assailant/Assault (imminent threat of battery), Assailant/Battery
(attack with weapon) and Assailant/Deadly Force (use of force likely to cause death or
great bodily harm/ weapon/vehicle). Officer C utilized member presence, verbal
commands and firearm to subdue Subject 1. Officer C indicated that Subject 1 attempted
to run three (3) officers over with his vehicle. Officer B fired his Sig Sauer P220 nine (9)
times and estimated his distance from Subject 1 to be zero to five (0-5) feet at time of
discharge.
The Officer’s Battery Report (OBR) of Officer C indicates that while Officer B
was pursuing an offender he sustained a non-fatal major injury (broken bones/serious
lacerations/internal injuries). Officer C was struck by Subject 1’s vehicle.
In a statement with IPRA on 16 October 2013, Involved Officer C related an
account of the incident which was consistent with the related Department Reports and
Department Members on the scene. Officer C related that when he approached Subject
1’s vehicle, he (Officer C) ordered him to turn off the vehicle, show his hands and exit
the vehicle. Subject 1 did not comply, rather he put his vehicle reverse and drove over
Officer C’s left foot. Subject 1 continued his attempt to make good his escape by driving
“recklessly” in reverse. Subject 1’s vehicle struck the passenger door of the vehicle of
Officers B and D. Officer D was forced to “jump” back into the vehicle to avoid being
struck. After Subject 1’s vehicle struck the vehicle of Officers B and D, it (Subject 1’s
vehicle) struck a pole. Officers A and C approached Subject 1’s vehicle at which time
Subject 1 drove directly towards Officers A and C. Officer C, who was in fear of his
safety as well as the safety of Officers Elstner and O’Toole, fired his weapon. Officer C
related that Subject 1 was trying to kill him with his vehicle. Officer C did not
independently recall the number of times he discharged his weapon. Upon review of his
TRR, Officer C stated that he discharged his weapon nine (9) times. Officer C stated that
because of his location to Subject 1’s vehicle, he had no means of escape, which is the
reason he fired his weapon. Officer C related that prior to the discharge of his weapon, he
ensured that neither Officer A nor Officer D would be in his line of fire. As a result of
this incident, Officer C sustained a fracture to his left foot.
The Chicago Fire Department (CFD) Ambulance Report for Officer C
indicates that he was transported to Rush Hospital with a complaint of left foot pain.
Officer C informed ambulance personnel that his left foot was run over by the vehicle of
the offender.

Page 9 of 10

 Independent Police Review Authority
Log# 1026942/ U#09-17
CONCLUSION AND FINDING:
This investigation found that Officers A, B, and C’s Use of Deadly Force was in
compliance with Chicago Police Department policy. According to the Chicago Police
Department’s General Order 02-08-03, III:
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:
1.

to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to
another person, or;

2.

to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape
and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be
arrested:
a. has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony
which involved the infliction, threatened infliction, or
threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or great
bodily harm, or;
b. is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or;
c. otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or
inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.”

B. “Firing at or into a moving vehicle is authorized to prevent death or great
bodily harm to the sworn member or another person.”
The actions of Officers A, B, and C were in accordance with the provisions of the
Department’s Use of Deadly Force Policy. Officers A, B, and C discharged their
firearms at Subject 1’s vehicle only after Subject 1 drove his vehicle running over the
foot of Officer C and in the direct pathway of Officers A, C, and D placing them in fear
of their life as well as the safety of the other officers. This investigation revealed that it
was Subject 1’s intention to flee the location by any means necessary. Subject 1
“revved” his vehicle’s engine and drove it in the direct path of Officers A, C, and D.
While Officer D was able to move out of the path of Subject 1’s vehicle, Officers A and
C were not as they had no means of escape. This investigation revealed that Officers
O’Toole, Andaverde or Martinez fired their weapons to prevent death or great bodily
harm to themselves and/or their teammates. The actions of Officers A, B, and C were
within the Department’s Use of Deadly Force Policy.

Page 10 of 10