INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
Log# 1031792/U# 09-45

OFFICERS
INVOLVED:

“Sergeant A” (Chicago Police Sergeant); Female/Black; 45 years
old; On-Duty; In uniform; Year of Appointment – 1999
“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 40 years old;
On-Duty; In uniform; Year of Appointment – 1994

OFFICERS’
INJURIES:

None reported

SUBJECT:

“Subject 1”; Male/black; 44 years old

SUBJECT
INJURIES:

Leg abrasion.

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Department members responded to a call of dog attack.

DATE/TIME:

12 November 2009, at 1530 hours

LOCATION:

6100 Block of S. Eberhart
Beat 313

1

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
On 12 November 2009, at approximately 1530 hours, several calls were made to
911 in regards to a vicious dog in the area of XXXX S. Eberhart. Callers also related that
the dog had attacked an unknown woman on the street. 1 Sergeant A responded to the
scene and observed a pit bull attack several individuals. Officer A also responded to the
scene and observed that the dog was loosely tied to a fence. Subsequently, the dog got
loose and attacked two males, Witness 1 and Witness 2. As the dog pulled Witness 2 by
his pant leg, Sergeant A tased the dog, but the taser had no effect. Officer A then fired
four shots in a downward direction at the dog, striking the dog. However, after Officer A
fired at the dog, Witness 1 told officers on the scene that he believed that a bullet had
possibly struck him during the incident. Chicago Fire Department personnel arrived on
the scene and treated Witness 1, who initially refused transport to the hospital. Witness 1
exited the ambulance and handed Sergeant A what appeared to be a piece of a bullet
jacket. Sergeant A then turned the fragment over to Forensic Service Division personnel.
Later in the evening, while still on the scene, Witness 1 requested medical attention and
Bt 323 transported Witness 1 to University of Chicago Hospital.

INVESTIGATION:
On 12 November 2009, at 2116 hours, Area Detectives convened a Roundtable at
Area Two Headquarters. Officer A related an account consistent with facts submitted in
Department reports. Officer A further related that he monitored a radio broadcast of a
dog attacking citizens on Eberhart. Officer A drove to the scene to assist Sergeant A
.Upon his arrival, Officer A observed the dog on the sidewalk. Officer A instructed
people on the street to clear the area. In an attempt to block the dog’s path, Officer A
drove onto the west side of the sidewalk. Officer A exited his vehicle and observed that
Sergeant A tased the dog with no effect. Two males working construction in the area
attempted to restrain the dog with a rope and a 2-by-4 board. One of the males was able

1

Officers were unable to identify the woman on the street. The Chicago Fire Dept treated the woman, but
no one obtained personal identifying information.

2

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
to place a rope around the dog’s hind legs, but the dog became enraged and attacked the
male. Sergeant A deployed her taser a second time, but the
taser was again ineffective and only made the dog more aggressive. Moments later, a
person now known as Witness 2 exited the building and stated that he was familiar with
the dog from the neighborhood and he could handle the dog. As Witness 2 approached
the dog, it attacked him, causing him to fall to the ground. Officer A stood on the
sidewalk approximately 2 ½ feet from the dog. Officer A again instructed people on the
street, including Witness 2, to clear the area. Once the area was clear, Officer A
discharged his weapon four times at the dog’s stomach. (Att# 4)

Sergeant A related to the Roundtable panel that she was in the area of 6100 S.
Eberhart when she heard a radio a call about a dog attacking a woman. Once on location,
Sergeant A exited her vehicle and observed three to four males struggling with a dog in
an attempt to control it. Two of the males sat on the dog and two other males placed a 2by-4 board across the dog’s neck. One of the males attempted to tie a rope around the
dog’s hind legs, but the dog managed to get free. Another male on the scene attempted to
calm the dog, but the dog attacked the male and grabbed his leg in response. Sergeant A
deployed her taser, striking the dog, but it had no effect. 2 Officer A, who was standing to
the right of Sergeant A and approximately two feet from the dog yelled, “Get back!”,
drew his weapon and fired at the dog. Witness 2 was able to move away from the dog
before Sergeant A tased the dog and before Officer A discharged his weapon. Sergeant A
elated that she did not know the location of Witness 1 at the time of the shooting. (Att# 4)

Witness 2 related to the Roundtable panel that he was at the rear of his residence,
XXXX S. Eberhart, when he heard his wife yell, “Get the dog!” Witness 2 ran to the front
of his residence and tied the dog up. The dog attempted to free itself so Witness 2
grabbed the dog by the neck and collar. Sergeant A drew her taser, and tased the dog
without warning others. The taser was ineffective in that it failed to incapacitate and the
dog became further enraged. The dog turned on Witness 2 and bit into his pant leg and
2

Sergeant A related in her Roundtable testimony that she did not give warning of the taser. She did not
yell, “Taser”

3

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
sock. Witness 2 jumped away from the dog and sprained his ankle. Officer A then shot
the dog with his service weapon. Witness 2 was approximately four feet from the dog at
the time of the shooting.

Detective A related to the Roundtable Panel that the victim, Witness 1, refused to
provide an account to the Roundtable Panel. Detective A reported that, while on the
scene, Witness 1 related that he was working on the second floor of XXXX S. Eberhart
when he heard a commotion outside. Witness 1 looked outside and saw a crowd of people
with a dog. He then went outside and heard a male officer ask if there was anyone who
could control the dog. Witness 1 informed the officer that he would be able to place a
leash on the dog and placed a leash around dog’s neck. After doing so, Witness 1 heard
four gunshots and said, “I’m hit.” Witness 1 was transported to the hospital. While at the
hospital, Doctor W informed Detective A that he could not determine if the wounds on
Witness 1’s right leg, above the knee, and on his right shin were the result of a gunshot or
a dog bite. Witness 1 was treated and released. (Att# 4)

In an in-person interview on 12 November 2009, at 1730 hours at the University
of Chicago Hospital, taken by IPRA Investigator A, the victim, Witness 1 related in
essence the account as he gave to Detective A. Witness 1 related that while working on
the second floor of XXXX S. Eberhart, he heard loud voices yelling, “You don’t have to
shoot the dog” coming from the outside and in front of the building. Witness 1 looked out
the front window and observed officers and neighbors on the street. He also observed a
dog on the ground whose front legs and hind legs appeared to be tied together. Witness 1
observed a black male officer with his weapon drawn and pointed at the dog, and a black
female officer pointing a taser at the dog. The officers were standing approximately 7-8
feet from the dog. The black male officer yelled, “Can anyone restrain this dog?” In
response, Witness 1, who said he was familiar with the dog and thought the dog was
friendly, came forward, took the dog by the collar with his right hand and hooked the
leash to the collar. However, Witness 1 then heard several gunshots and Witness 1 then
felt a “hot sting” on his leg above his knee. In response, Witness 1 dropped the leash and
stumbled away. Witness 1 claimed that one bullet grazed him on the leg and another

4

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
bullet was caught in his thermal underwear; Witness 1 gave the bullet to Sergeant A.
Chicago Fire Department personnel arrived on the scene and treated Witness 1 on the
scene. Although he refused to go to the hospital with EMS, Officers later transported
Witness 1 to the University of Chicago Hospital for treatment. (Att# 5)

Sergeant B, Area Two Detectives related that Witness 3 told him that, due to an
inspection by the city on the building he was working on, he would not be able to provide
a statement to the Roundtable panel. In an interview with Sergeant B, Witness 3 related
that at the time of the incident, he was working inside a building on 6200 block of South
Eberhart when he heard people yelling for help. Witness 3 went outside and observed
people attempting to subdue a dog. The dog’s front and hind legs were bound and a board
was placed over the dog to pin it to the ground. Witness 3 heard people say that they
could handle the dog. Two males said that they knew the dog and untied the dog. Witness
3 saw the dog bite people on the scene,
who then screamed for help. Witness 3 stepped back and did not have a clear view of
where the dog was positioned. While he heard gunshots, Witness 3 did not see who fired
the weapon or who tased the dog. Witness 3 related that the dog had bitten an unknown
female and some children on the block. (Att# 4)

In an audio interview, Witness 4, related, that on the date of the incident, he and a
day laborer he hired (Witness 4 was unable recall the name, but described him as a
Hispanic male) were working in his building, located at XXXX S. Eberhart, when he
heard a female yelling. Witness 4 and the male Hispanic exited the building and ran
northbound toward 6100 S. Eberhart. Witness 4 observed an unknown black female being
attacked by a large dog. The Hispanic male grabbed a piece of wood (2x4) and ran
northbound on Eberhart. According to Witness 4, the Hispanic male struck the dog in an
attempt to have the dog release the female’s leg while Witness 4 grabbed the unknown
female, dragged her across the street, and contacted 911. An unknown black male youth
then grabbed the dog and attempted to control it, however, the dog continued to growl
and make aggressive movements. A few moments later a black female sergeant, now
known as Sergeant A, arrived on the scene and tasered the dog, which had no effect other

5

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
than to further enrage the dog. An unknown black male, now known as Witness 2,
attempted to take control of the dog, but the dog lunged and growled at everyone in its
path until the dog finally took hold of the pant leg of Witness 2 causing him to fall to the
ground. At approximately 1530 hours, according to Witness 4, Officer A arrived on the
scene and as he approached the dog, he fired numerous rounds at the dog. The dog
released Witness 2’s pant leg and other civilians on the street were finally able to subdue
the dog. The Chicago Fire Department EMS arrived on the scene and Witness 4 assisted
Witness 2 into the rear of the ambulance. (Att# 28).

Attempts to contact Witness 3 for a comprehensive interview by postal service
and in-person visit were unsuccessful. (Att# 35)

A canvass of the area produced no witnesses or additional information. (Att# 17)

Chicago Fire Department EMS records reflect that Witness 1 sustained a
laceration to the upper right knee and a self-described gunshot wound to the upper right
knee. (Att# 31)

Medical records obtained from the University of Chicago Hospital indicated
that Witness 1 arrived at the Emergency Room and reported to Doctor W that a police
officer shot him. Doctor W related that Witness 1 could have sustained his wound,
described by Doctor W as a “graze,” either from a projectile or from a dog bite. Doctor
W noted that his first guess would be a dog bite. Doctor W also related that the injury
above Witness 1’s knee, which was described as a short, horizontal, wound, whereas the
injury below the knee was a single point puncture. Doctor W related that the wound
above the knee could have been from a dog bite if either Witness 1 or the dog moved
suddenly once the bite had broken the skin. Doctor W gave Witness 1 a tetanus shot and
cleaned his wounds. (Att# 8,36)

6

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
Office of Emergency Management Communications printouts reflect that
several calls were made to 911 in reference to a woman being attacked by a dog. (Att#
15)

The General Offense Case report reflects that Sergeant A responded to a call of a
woman being attacked by a dog. Sergeant A deployed her taser with no effect and failed
to subdue the dog. Officer A responded to the area and observed the dog’s vicious and
uncontrollable behavior. In fear for the citizens on the street, Officer A fired his weapon
four times in a downward position striking the dog. Witness 1 informed Officer A that
one of the bullets possibly grazed him. Chicago Fire Department EMS arrived on the
scene, treated, and released Witness 1, who initially refused to go the hospital. Later in
the evening, Bt 323 transported Witness 1 to the University of Chicago Hospital where he
was treated by Doctor W and released. (Att # 9)

A Supplemental Report reflects that Witness 1 retrieved a piece of metal from
inside of his thermal underwear and gave it to Sergeant A. Sergeant A did not witness
Witness 1 retrieve the metal. Sergeant A turned the metal over to the Crime Lab. (Att#9)

Tactical Response Report submitted by Sergeant A, # 1536, reflects that she
discharged her taser at an attacking dog. (Att# 10)

Tactical Response Report submitted by Officer A, # 11621, reflects that he
discharged his weapon four times at an attacking dog. (Att # 11).
Illinois State Police Lab Report reflects that Officer A’s weapon 3 was in good
firing condition. The lab also examined the metal fragment given to Sergeant A by
Witness 1. However, due to the extent of mutilation to the bullet fragment its caliber and
characteristics could not be determined. Therefore, it could not be determined whether
the fragment came from Officer A’s weapon. (Att# 32)

3

Ruger, model P89Dao 9mm Luger caliber semiautomatic

7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
In Civil Suit # 10-10-CV-05560, Witness 1 related that on the date of 12
November 2009, Officer A withdrew his service weapon and fired multiple rounds in the
direction of Witness 1. Witness 1 was not arrested, or charged with a crime, therefore, the
actions of Officer A were deemed to be willful, wanton, malicious oppressive and done
with reckless indifference for the safety of Witness 1’s person, adding that there was no
legal cause for Officer A to use force against Witness 1. (Att# 42)

In a digitally recorded interview taken at IPRA by Investigator B, on 12 August
2011, Officer A related, in essence, the same information as reported at the Roundtable
on 12 November 2009. Officer A related that when he arrived on the scene and inquired
as to the ownership of the dog, no one identified himself or herself as the owner of the
dog or as someone having knowledge of the owner of the dog. He said the dog was
behaving in an aggressive manner, jumping up and down and growling. Officer A related
that the dog responded to the taser deployed by Sergeant A by becoming more
aggressive. Officer A instructed everyone, including Sergeant A to move from the area.
There was no one, including officers, in close proximity to the dog when, at a distance of
approximately three to four feet from the dog, he directed his weapon in a downward
direction and at the dog and fired three to four rounds at the dog.

Several moments later, a male black now know identified as Witness 1,
approached the Officer A and stated that he removed a bullet from his pants. Witness 1
showed Officer A what he identified as a bullet. Officer A asked Witness 1 to show him
the injury and asked Witness 1 if he was bleeding and or injured. Witness 1 related that
he was not injured. Officer A then informed Sergeant A of the situation. And she spoke
with Witness 1 and called for an ambulance. Upon the arrival of the ambulance, Witness
1 was treated on the scene and refused to go to the hospital. (Att# 48)

In a digitally recorded interview taken at IPRA by Investigator B on 09 Sept
2011, Sergeant A related in essence the same information as related to the Roundtable
Panel on 12 November 2009. Sergeant A related that at the time of the incident the dog
appeared to be acting in an aggressive manner, growling and barking. Sergeant A

8

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log, # 1031792/U# 09-45
attempted to sedate the dog, by deploying her taser. The dog actually became more
aggressive, barking, growling and jumping. Officer A instructed every one in the area to
stand clear. Officer A drew his weapon and fired at the dog. Sergeant A related that she
had no knowledge of the location of Witness 1 at the time of the shooting.

Moments later, Sergeant A heard a call over the radio of a person being shot
approximately one block from the location of incident. Sergeant A. Sergeant A then
observed Witness 1 in the area of a Chicago Fire Department ambulance. Sergeant A
approached Witness 1 who informed her that he had been shot by Officer A when he
fired at the dog. Witness 1 handed Sergeant A what he identified as a bullet. Sergeant A
requested that Witness 1 have medical attention, but he refused to allow the paramedics
to examine him and he refused to go to the hospital. Sergeant A radioed for supervisors,
informed them of the situation, and possession of the fragment. (Att# 54)

CONCLUSION AND FINDING:
The reporting investigator recommends that the allegation against Officer A,
specifically that he willfully, wantonly, maliciously, oppressively and with reckless
indifference, discharged his weapon striking Witness 1 be UNFOUNDED. Officer A
responded to a call of woman being attacked by a dog. Officer A, in fear for his safety
and the safety of the civilians in the area, discharged his weapon, striking the dog. Officer
A’ actions were within the policy of the Chicago Police Department’s General Order 0208-03, II A-1 in regards to the shooting. Officer A reasonably believed that the force was
necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to another person. Officer A
also followed provisions in General Order G.O. 02-09-02 in that he submitted relevant
Department reports and made all notifications. Even if one were to assume that bullets
fired by Officer A did strike Witness 1, it was not intentional. The medical records
indicate that Witness 1 had a “grazed” wound and the doctors were unable to definitively
identify the injury or its cause.

9