INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
LOG# 1027233 / U# 09-19

OFFICER
INVOLVED#1:

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/White; 34 years
old; On-Duty; In Uniform; Year of Appointment – 2006

OFFICER’S
INJURIES:

None Reported

SUBJECT:

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 22 years old

SUBJECT
INJURIES:

Gunshot wound to head (Fatal)

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Traffic violations

DATE/TIME
OF INCIDENT:

11 June 2009 at 1828 Hours

LOCATION:

Vicinity of 7007 S. Eggleston Avenue
Beat 732

Page 1 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
INVESTIGATION:
In the Roundtable Report Detective A summarized the incident. On 11 Jun 09,
at approximately 1825 hours, Officer C and Officer D Beat #744 observed a vehicle, a
2001 Chrysler Sebring, traveling at a high rate of speed. The officers curbed the vehicle
on the 7000 block of South Normal Street for traffic violations. When the officers exited
their vehicle to approach the Sebring, the vehicle drove away. The officers entered their
vehicle, radioed The Office of Emergency Communications (“OEMC”) and pursued the
Sebring.
Officer C and Officer D curbed the Sebring at 7031 S. Eggleston and the
unknown driver exited the vehicle and ran eastbound through a vacant lot. Officer D
chased the driver on foot. The driver held his side as he ran and Officer D believed that
he was armed with a firearm. Officer C was with the passenger, now known to be
Subject 1, who was still seated in the Sebring. Officer C gave him verbal commands to
show his hands. Shortly after the Sebring was stopped, Officer A and Officer B Beat
#731 arrived on the scene. Subject 1 jumped into the driver’s side of the Sebring and
exited out of the open driver’s side door.
Subject 1 ran northbound on the sidewalk of Eggleston St. with Officer A chasing
on foot. Officer B pursued Subject 1 in the police Tahoe SUV and went through a vacant
lot near 7031 S. Eggleston in an effort to obstruct Subject 1’s path. Officer A observed
Subject 1 with a gun as he ran northbound on Eggleston. Subject 1 ran through the
gangway at 7007 S. Eggleston and Officer A lost sight of him. When Officer A reached
the gangway, he felt a sudden impact from a strike delivered by Subject 1. Officer A’s
firearm discharged as he was knocked backwards from the force of the impact. Officer A
radioed and reported that he fired shots. Officer C came to Officer A’s aide and observed
Subject 1 lying on the ground.
Officer D reported to the Roundtable panel that he was working Beat #744 with
Officer C. Officer D was driving when they observed a Chrysler Sebring driving at a
high rate of speed. They curbed the vehicle in the vicinity of 7000 South Normal.
Officer D related that when he and Officer C approached the vehicle, the vehicle fled.
Officer D radioed OEMC and gave a description of the vehicle. Officer D related that
they successfully stopped the vehicle at 7031 S. Eggleston. The driver exited the vehicle
and fled, dropping his cell phone to the ground as he ran eastbound through a vacant lot.
Officer D stated that he observed this subject holding his waistband and radioed OEMC
with this information. Officer B, who arrived on the scene, assisted in the search for the
driver of the vehicle. While searching for the driver at 7015 S. Eggelston, Officer D
heard a gunshot.
Officer C related to the Roundtable panel that after the traffic stop, she remained
with the vehicle and the passenger, now known as Subject 1. Officer C explained that
she drew her weapon because she could not see Subject 1’s hands. She ordered Subject 1
to show his hands but Subject 1 continued to turn towards his left side. At this time
Officer A and Officer B arrived on the scene. Officer C said that Subject 1 jumped into

Page 2 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
the driver side of the vehicle and exited out of the open driver’s side door. Subject 1 ran
onto the east sidewalk of Eggleston and ran north. Officer A ran after Subject 1 while
Officer B drove into a vacant lot. Officer C grabbed the ignition keys out of the Sebring
and got into her squad car. Officer C reversed the squad car and observed Subject 1 run
into a gangway at 7007 S. Eggleston. Officer C exited the squad car and entered the
gangway of 7007 S. Eggleston when she heard “shuffling” and “noises” coming from
behind the building at this address. Officer C stated that a “second later” she heard one
gunshot. When Officer C approached Officer A she saw Subject 1 lying on the ground
with a gunshot wound to his head.
Officer B related to the Roundtable panel that he was working Beat #731 with
Officer A. Officer B stated that they responded to assist Officer D and Officer C.
Officer B was the driver of the Tahoe police vehicle. When Officer B arrived at 7031 S.
Eggleston he observed Officer C with her weapon drawn and pointed at Subject 1 who
was seated in a Chrysler Sebring. Officer B heard Officer C saying “let me see your
hands.” Subject 1 jumped into the driver’s side of the vehicle and exited out the opened
driver’s side door. Subject 1 ran northbound on foot and Officer A pursued him on foot.
Officer B pursued Subject 1 in the police vehicle. He drove through a vacant lot next to
7031 S. Eggleston, then went eastbound and into an alley, going northbound. Officer B
related that he anticipated that Subject 1 would run out into the alley. Officer B heard
over the radio that Officer D was searching for the driver of the Sebring, who Officer D
said was possibly armed. Officer B assisted Officer D and at this time heard one gunshot.
Officer A related to the Roundtable panel, that when they when he and Officer B
arrived at 7301 S. Eggleston he observed the Sebring with the drivers side door open and
Officer C with her weapon drawn on the passenger, Subject 1. Subject 1 jumped out of
the driver’s side door and fled northbound on Eggleston. Officer A chased Subject 1 and
observed Subject 1 with a black steel gun in his right hand. Officer A estimated that
Subject 1 was five houses ahead of him when, at 7007 S. Eggleston, Subject 1 turned
right and ran through a gangway. When Officer A approached 7007 S. Eggelston, he did
not see Subject 1. Officer A entered the gangway and had his weapon drawn. At the
corner in the gangway Subject 1 jumped out and lunged at Officer A. Officer A
described what happened next as a “sudden impact” between him and Subject 1 in his
chest area. Officer A stated that his gun simultaneously discharged as he fell backwards
about two feet. Officer A could not recall if his finger was on the trigger but he did recall
that both of his hands were on his weapon. Subject 1 fell to the ground with a gunshot
wound to his head. (Att. 30)
In a statement with the IPRA on 12 Jun 09, Witness 1 stated that he lives on the
7000 block of south Eggleston and was cleaning his porch when he observed a gray car
on 70th St. He also observed a marked squad car with the flashing lights activated behind
the gray car. Witness 1 observed the gray car turn onto Eggleston and continue to travel
about half a block. One of the officers in the marked squad car honked the horn and over
the loud speaker instructed the occupants of the gray car to pull over. The gray car
stopped and the male black driver of the gray car jumped out of the car and ran. The
black male driver ran east through a vacant lot. The two officers in the squad car, now

Page 3 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
known to be Officer C and Officer D, got out of the car. Officer D ran after the black
male driver. Officer C pointed her gun at the passenger, Subject 1. Subject 1 moved to
the driver’s side of the car and out of the open driver’s door and ran away. Officer C was
holding her gun as she ran after Subject 1 who was outrunning her.
Witness 1 then observed Subject 1 run in his direction and into the gangway of
7007 S. Eggleston. A white male officer, Officer A, then ran past Officer C and into the
gangway. Officer C stopped running and stood on the sidewalk in front of 7007 S.
Eggleston. Witness 1 heard a gunshot about a minute after Officer A ran in the gangway.
Shortly thereafter, several squad cars arrived on the scene and blocked off the street.
Witness 1 stated that the gangway Subject 1 and Officer A ran in leads to a dead
end, there is no way to exit. Witness 1 further stated that if Subject 1 had been from the
area, he would have known that the gangway he ran into was a dead end. Witness 1 was
not a witness to the actual shooting and only saw the event leading up to the shooting.
(Att. 5)
The Original Case Incident Report, the TRR and the Officer’s Battery Report
gave essentially a similar account of the incident as indicated in the Roundtable
Summary. In addition, the reports indicated that when Officer A reached the rear of the
building, Subject 1 charged into him, striking him. At that time, Officer A was knocked
backwards and his firearm discharged one time. Subject 1 fell to the ground with a
gunshot wound to the head. When Officer C arrived at the rear of the building, she found
Subject 1 on the ground and Officer A radioing for help. (Atts. 16-18)
The Crime Scene Processing Report indicates that no weapons were discovered
during the crime scene investigation. (Att#13)
The Detective Case Supplementary Report indicated that there were no
witnesses to the police-involved shooting. There were witnesses who saw parts of the
initial incident by the Sebring and also saw Subject 1 run into a gangway then
subsequently heard one gunshot.
The Detective Case Supplementary Report also indicated that the registered
owner of the gray Sebring, now known to be [Unnamed Female], was contacted.
[Unnamed Female] told detectives that her boyfriend, [Unnamed Male], had dropped her
off at work and drove off with his seven year old son. According to [Unnamed Female],
she did not know what [Unnamed Male’s] plans were after he dropped her off at work.
Also, [Unnamed Female] had not seen or talked with [Unnamed Male] since he dropped
her off at work. [Unnamed Female] provided contact information for [Unnamed Male].
The Detective Case Supplementary further indicated that Officer A related
essentially the same as in the Roundtable summary adding that as he pursued Subject 1,
he observed Subject 1 to be holding a dark object in his hand. Officer A related to the
detectives that he believed this dark object was a weapon. Officer A had his weapon
drawn as he entered the gangway at 7007 S. Eggleston and as he moved toward the rear

Page 4 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
of this address. While approaching the corner of the building, Subject 1, attempting to
defeat arrest, charged and lunged at Officer A. Officer A was struck on his front and was
knocked backward due to the sudden impact between him and Subject 1. At this time
Officer A’s weapon discharged, striking Subject 1 in the head. The detectives indicated
that the rear yard of 7007 S. Eggelston is fenced in and there is no easy exit to the alley.
The Supplementary report summarizes interviews with Officer D, Officer C and
Officer B who all provide essentially the same accounts to detectives as they did to the
Roundtable panel. (Att. 74)
A Canvass of the vicinity of 7007 S. Eggleston was conducted and the only
witness who provided an interview was Witness 1. There were no witnesses to the actual
shooting. (Att. 9)
The Chicago Fire Department Ambulance Report indicated that when
paramedics arrived on the scene of 7007 S. Eggleston Ave., they found Subject 1 with a
gunshot wound to the top of his head and brain matter was observed on the top of the
skull. Subject 1 was unresponsive but was breathing on his own. Subject 1 remained
unresponsive and had spontaneous respirations entire time they were en route to the
hospital. Subject 1 transported to Stroger Hospital without incident. (Att. 43)
The Postmortem Examination of Subject 1 was conducted on 15 June 2009 by
Doctor A. One gunshot was identified on the left side of Subject 1’s head, involving the
skull and brain. The bullet entrance was determined to be the front left side of Subject
1’s head and a medium caliber, copper jacketed, lead bullet was recovered in the soft
tissues of the back left side of the scalp. The wound coursed from front to back. There
was no evidence of close range firing. 1 The diagnosis was gunshot wound of the head. It
was the opinion of Doctor A that Subject 1 died as a result of a gunshot to his head and
the manner of death is homicide. (Att. #65)
The PDT Transmissions did not provide any additional information. (Att. 31)
A search for In-Car Video for both Beat #’s 744 and 731 was conducted,
however, no in-car video footage was located. (Att. #41)
A report from the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services, dated 10
Aug 09, indicates that Officer A’s weapon were examined, found to be in firing condition
and test fired. One fired cartridge case recovered and one fired bullet recovered were
found to have been fired from Officer A’s weapon. Officer A’s weapon is a Sig Arms
model P226, 9mm semiautomatic pistol with a 16 round capacity. His weapon was found
to have a total of 15 rounds when it was recovered. (Att. # 13, 63)

1

In a phone conversation with Doctor B on 18 October 2012, The Medical Examiner’s Office defines
“close range” as close contact with the skin resulting in soot and stippling.

Page 5 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
A report from the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services, dated 10
Jul 09, indicates that Officer A’s weapon, magazine, one live cartridge, and fourteen live
cartridges, revealed no latent impressions suitable for comparison. (Att#64)
In a statement with the IPRA on 24 Aug 09, witness Officer B stated that he and
his partner Officer A were in uniform and assigned to a marked Chevy Tahoe. While on
routine patrol and at 71st and Stewart, Officer B and Officer A heard a radio transmission
by Beat 744 indicating that they were in a motor vehicle pursuit. Beat 744 further
indicated that they were traveling northbound on Normal. Beat 744 transmitted that they
were traveling east down 70th Street and then south on Eggleston. Officer B then heard
Beat 744 say that the driver “bailed” from the vehicle and was holding his side and he
believed that the offender had a weapon on him. When Officer B and Officer A arrived
where the vehicle stopped in the vicinity of 70th and Eggleston, Officer B observed
Officer C next to the vehicle passenger side with a gun pointed at the occupant, now
known to be Subject 1. Officer C ordered Subject 1 to show her his hands and not to
move. Subject 1 began to make movements and motions when Officer A stated to
Officer B that Subject 1 was going to run.
Officer A then exited the Tahoe as Subject 1 jumped out of the driver’s side door
and ran northbound on Eggleston. Officer B drove the Tahoe in the same direction of the
foot pursuit and turned toward the east alley. Officer B lost sight of Officer A and when
he emerged from the alley and onto a vacant lot, he observed Officer D in an adjacent
vacant lot. Officer D had his weapon drawn and was searching the area. Officer B exited
the vehicle with his weapon drawn and began searching for Officer A and Subject 1. As
Officer D and Officer B stood next to each other, they heard what sounded like a gunshot.
Immediately thereafter, Officer A’s voice was heard over the air saying that shots had
been fired by the police and an ambulance was needed. At that time, several officers ran
in the direction of where Officer A was and Officer B followed. When Officer B reached
the location of Officer A, he observed Subject 1 lying on the ground with blood on the
pavement. Officer B was unable to determine where Subject 1 was shot. Officer B asked
Officer A if he was alright and he responded that he was. Officer B then told Officer A
to go to the front of the residence. Officer B related that it was daylight, clear and he did
not hear any voices prior to hearing the gunshot. (Att. 71)
In a statement with the IPRA on 16 Jul 09, Officer D stated that he and Officer C
observed a vehicle traveling northbound on Stewart at a high rate of speed. The officers
activated the emergency lights and curbed the vehicle. As Officer D and Officer C
approached the curbed vehicle it sped away. The vehicle continued to travel northbound
on Stewart and then turned right on 70th Street and then south on Eggleston. The vehicle
came to a stop at 7031 S. Eggleston and the driver got out after being told to stay in the
vehicle. The driver dropped a cell phone when he got out of the vehicle and ran
eastbound through a vacant lot. Officer D gave chase on foot, but lost sight of the
offender and radioed for help because the offender was holding his waistband. Officer D
began to look for the offender in each yard when he met Officer B in the alley. Officer D
then heard a loud report that he believed to be a gunshot. Several officers ran in the
direction of the gunfire. Officer D heard over the radio that the officer was not hurt and
that the offender was in custody. Officer D and officers from a tactical team continued

Page 6 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
looking for the offender. Officer D stated that he did not go to the scene of the shooting.
Officer D did not hear any voice prior to hearing the gunshot. (Att. 67)
In a statement with the IPRA on 13 Aug 09, Officer C gave in essence a similar
account of the incident as indicated in Officer C’s statement to the Roundtable panel. In
addition, Officer C stated that after Officer D left the scene in foot pursuit of the driver,
she approached the passenger side of the car with her gun out. Officer C ordered the
passenger, now known to be Subject 1, to show her his hands. Subject 1 refused to
comply with Officer C’s commands to show her his hands as he continued to fumble with
his hands. When Officer B and Officer A arrived on the scene Officer A exited the
Tahoe. Officer B drove away to assist Officer D who was in pursuit of the offender
driver. Officer C was still giving Subject 1 orders to show his hands when he rolled over
to the driver’s side of the vehicle. Subject 1 rolled out of the vehicle through the open
driver’s side door and ran. Subject 1 ran northbound on the sidewalk with Officer A in
foot pursuit. Officer C entered her vehicle that was still running and observed through
the rearview mirror Officer A pursuing Subject 1. Subject 1 ran into a gangway with
Officer A behind him. Officer C drove to the location of the gangway and exited the
vehicle. Officer C ran into the north side gangway of the building because she figured
that Subject 1 would run out that way. Officer C could hear shuffling and then a gunshot
as she ran through the gangway. Officer C approached the rear of the building slowly and
holding her gun as she expected someone to jump out at her. Officer C observed Subject
1 on the ground when she reached the rear of the building. Officer C went back around
the front of the building and then through the original gangway where Officer A was.
Officer A was standing next to Subject 1 as he requested an ambulance. Subsequently,
Officer C was informed that Officer D and Officer B had lost the driver offender during
the pursuit. (Att. 69)
In a statement with the IPRA on 29 Jun 11, Officer A stated that he and his
partner, Officer B responded to an assist call by Beat 744. Officer A observed Officer C
pointing her gun at the passenger, now known to be Subject 1, seated in the vehicle.
Officer C ordered Subject 1 to show his hands and not to move. At some point, Subject 1
jumped from the passenger side to the driver’s side and fled out the open driver’s door.
Officer A gave chase on foot. When Officer A reached the sidewalk, Subject 1 had a
five-house lead on him. Officer A yelled at Subject 1, “Police, stop,” but he continued to
run into the houses. Officer A took his gun out because he felt that it was a dangerous
situation. Officer A explained that he had observed something black in Subject 1’s hand
that he believed to be a gun, Officer C had her gun pointed at Subject 1 and Officer D had
radioed information during his pursuit of the driver that he was holding his side. Officer
A was holding his gun in his right hand with his trigger finger on the slide lock as he
continued to run after Subject 1. Officer A lost sight of Subject 1 when he ran in the
gangway. Officer A ran through the gangway and when he was at the end of the
building, Subject 1 lunged at him. Subject 1 struck Officer A causing him to go
backwards. At that time, Officer A’s firearm discharged and fatally struck Subject 1 in
the head. Subject 1 fell to the ground and Officer A called for an ambulance and reported
the shot fired. Officer A stated that when he was struck by Subject 1, his finger
instinctively moved to the trigger; Officer A thought that his instincts and training took

Page 7 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
over. Officer A admitted that his finger would have to have been on the trigger in order
for the firearm to discharge. (Att. 79)
General Order 03-02 and 03-02-01: Use of Force Guidelines and Use of Force
Model reads in part a peace officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a
lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in
the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and
of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another
from bodily harm while making the arrest. The Use of Force Model primary objective is
to ensure control of a subject with the reasonable force necessary based on the totality of
the circumstances. The model provides guidance on the appropriate amount of force to be
used to affect a lawful purpose. (Att. 81, 82)
General Order 02-08-03 Section 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 involves 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.
(Att. 87)
CONCLUSION:
The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Unfounded for Allegation
#1 against Officer A, that he mishandled his firearm. It was reasonable for Officer A to
believe that Subject 1 was armed. Officer A reported that he had heard another officer
report that he was chasing an offender who was possibly armed. When he first arrived on
the scene, Officer A observed Officer C pointing her weapon at Subject 1, who refused to
comply with her instructions to show his hands. Witness Officer C and Officer B
observed Subject 1 make movements with hands instead of showing them as directed by
Officer C. Despite being held at gunpoint by an officer, Subject 1 fled the scene. Officer

Page 8 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1027233/ U# 09-19
A reported that he saw Subject 1 holding something black that Officer A believed to be a
gun.
Officer A was in foot pursuit of Subject 1 during the daylight hours with his
firearm in his hand because he was in fear for his safety, due to his reasonable belief that
Subject 1, or the other offender, were armed. Officer A reported in his statement to IPRA
that his finger was on the slide lock of his weapon prior to Subject 1 lunging at him and
knocking him backwards. Officer A admitted that his weapon would not have discharged
without his finger having been on the trigger. Officer A opined that his training and
instincts took over, causing him to place his finger on the trigger when Subject 1
“lunged” at him.
The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Unfounded for Allegation
#2 against Officer A, that he discharged his firearm without justification, striking Subject
1. It is undisputed that Officer A discharged his weapon and fatally shot Subject 1.
However, Officer A’s discharge of his firearm was not unjustified when he shot
Subject 1. It was reasonable for Officer A to believe that Subject 1 was armed. When he
first arrived on the scene, Officer A observed Officer C pointing her weapon at Subject 1,
who refused to comply with her instructions to show his hands. Witness Officer C and
Officer B observed Subject 1 make movements with hands instead of showing them as
directed by Officer C. Despite being held at gunpoint by an officer, Subject 1 fled the
scene. Officer A reported that he saw Subject 1 holding something black that Officer A
believed to be a gun. Officer A engaged in a foot pursuit of Subject 1, but then lost sight
of him when he entered a gangway. Officer A reported that he held his weapon because
he was felt the situation was dangerous and he feared for his safety. Officer A’s next
interaction with Subject 1 occurred in the gangway when Subject 1 lunged at Officer A
and knocked him backwards. This aggressive action by Subject 1 classified him as an
assailant to Officer A, who reasonably believed that Subject 1 was armed. It was at this
time that Officer A discharged his weapon, striking Subject 1. According to the
Department’s policy on Deadly Force, Officer A was justified in using deadly force to
prevent death or great bodily harm because he was confronted by Subject 1, a subject
who was classified as an assailant, whom he reasonably believed to be armed.

Page 9 of 12