INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
LOG #1031830 / U#09-46
OFFICER
INVOLVED:

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 46 years old; On Duty;
In Uniform; Year of Appointment – 2006

OFFICER(1)’S
INJURIES:

None

SUBJECT:

“Subject 1”; Male/White Hispanic; 25 years old

SUBJECT’S
INJURIES:

Right foot, left shoulder – treated at Stroger Hospital

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Search Warrant

DATE/TIME
OF INCIDENT:

14 November 2009, 0611 hours.

LOCATION:

XXXX S. Bishop
Beat 933

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log#1031830/U#09-46
INVESTIGATION:
In a Walk Through of a police-involved shooting at the location of XXXX S. Bishop,
IPRA Investigator A learned the Special Weapons and Tactics Team (“SWAT”) were serving a
high risk search warrant at the same address. While serving the search warrant, the SWAT
officers encountered the subject, Subject 1 and his dog, a Rottweiler, in the first floor apartment.
The dog exited the residence via the front door as the officers entered. Officers used flex
handcuffs on Subject 1 to handcuff his hands behind his back. The dog reentered the residence
and walked over to Subject 1, who was seated on the couch in the living room. The dog began to
growl at officers, causing Subject 1 to try to cover the dog with his torso while yelling at the
officers not to shoot the dog. The dog lunged at the officers, at which time, Officer A, fired once,
striking the dog on the head. The dog exited the residence and ran north. Subject 1 appeared to
have been struck by a bullet fragment or ricochet on his right toe and left shoulder when the dog
was shot. He was transported to Stroger Hospital for treatment.
In the Preliminary Investigation, IPRA Investigator B responded to Stroger Hospital to
interview Subject 1 at approximately 0800 hours on 14 November 2009. The treating physician
was Doctor A. Subject 1’s attending nurse stated that he was in stable condition and in the
process of being released. Subject 1 had one bullet fragment lodged in the bottom of his foot,
two abrasions to the front area of his right shoulder and two to the back area of his right
shoulder. The nurse would not expound on the nature of the injuries.
In a statement with IPRA, victim Subject 1, related that on 14 November 2009, at
approximately 0600 hours, he was in his apartment asleep. Also in the apartment was his
girlfriend, Witness 1, and his two sons, (Son #1) and (Son #2) Subject 1 heard a loud bang, that
sounded like a battering ram breaking open the front door. Subject 1 related that he went into the
living room first and told the police that he had his family in the bedroom. The officers stated,
“Come towards us motherfucker!” Subject 1 went back into the bedroom to get his family and
brought them into the living room to sit them on the couch. Subject 1 did this because he did not
want the officers to be surprised and accidentally shoot his family members. Subject 1 was
placed in plastic restraints by a black male officer wearing a green colored uniform and a helmet.
Subject 1 was seated on the floor near the couch next to his family. Subject 1 was leaning over
due to a pre-existing back injury. Subject 1 told the officers before they searched the apartment
that he had three dogs. During this time, one of his dogs, a Rottwieler, walked into the living
room very calmly. The officer appeared to be agitated by the dog’s presence as they started
cursing and yelling, and the dog barked once. The black male officer, that has cuffed him (now
known as Officer A), shot the dog once in the face with a black .9mm handgun. At this time (Son
#1) told him that his foot was bleeding. Subject 1 tried to stand up, but he fell onto the couch.
Subject 1 realized that he was grazed with a bullet in his right shoulder and that the bullet was
lodged in his right foot. Officer A immediately started apologizing to him and the officers called
for an ambulance. Subject 1 was subsequently taken to Stroger Hospital.
Subject 1 was seated between the dog and the officer. Subject 1 stated that he was two
feet away from the officer and three feet away from the dog and that the officer was about five
feet away from the dog. Subject 1 did not know he was shot until his son told him. Subject 1
stated that there were over ten officers in the apartment, but he could not describe each one in

2

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log#1031830/U#09-46
detail. Subject 1 stated that no one else was injured in the incident, but his son, (Son #1), was
seated inches away from him. Subject 1 did not know if he or the dog was shot first.
The Original Case Incident Report documented that after having executed the search
warrant, Officer A, was guarding subjects in the living room. A large Rottweiler dog ran in from
outside, growled at the officers, and charged Officer A. Officer A, in fear for his safety,
discharged his weapon one time striking the dog. Subject 1 sustained an injury to his right foot.
A/O’s requested immediate medical attention. Subject 1 was transported to Stroger Hospital.
The Tactical Response Report documented that Officer A, was executing a high risk
search warrant. Officer A was guarding subjects in the living room, at which time, a large
Rottweiler ran in from outside. The dog growled and charged the officer. Officer A, in fear for
his safety, discharged his weapon to prevent the attack. The weapon used was a Glock, Model
17, .9mm. The report documents that the officer was defending himself from an attack by an
animal.
A canvass conducted in the area of the incident was met with negative results.
The Crime Scene Processing Report documented items inventoried and photographs
obtained by the Evidence Technicians at the scene. The report also documented that Officer A’s
firearm was recovered and swabbed. During the search warrant, Officer A, was attacked by a dog
and fired one shot, striking the dog, which then ran away from the house. The fired bullet
ricocheted and struck suspect Subject 1 in the right foot and right shoulder. The PFI’s videotaped
and photographed the scene and searched the area for physical and biological evidence that was
recovered and is listed in this report.
A Crime Scene Videotape (DVD) of the scene following the police involved shooting
displayed the interior and exterior of the residence, blood on the floor of the residence, and one
bullet casing.
Evidence Technician photographs show Subject 1 in the hospital with injuries from the
incident, blood on the floor of the residence, the interior of the residence, one bullet casing, the
broken basement windows of the residence, and the surrounding area of the residence.
Pod #130 displays emergency vehicles, police responding units and personnel.
Efforts were made to contact Witness 1. However, the R/I had no success.
The Medical Records from Stroger Hospital indicated that Subject 1 was presented to
the hospital via CFD with a Gun Shot Wound to the right foot. Subject 1 stated to medical
personnel that he had been holding his dog and the police shot it in the head. The bullet exited
and hit his right shoulder and went into his right foot.
The O.E.M.C Event Query documented that Subject 1 was shot in the foot by a SWAT
officer. A dog had been hit. An officer reported that citizens might call concerning flash bangs
and shots fired. An officer requested that if anyone reported an injured dog within a mile radius

3

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log#1031830/U#09-46
of the location to hold onto it. Animal Control was notified and requested to keep an eye out for
any calls of an injured dog in the area.
In a statement with IPRA, Accused Officer A related that the Special Weapons and
Tactics Team (“SWAT”) were serving a high risk search warrant. Officer A was assigned as a
breech officer and had been informed prior by radio that the officers on the scene were having
trouble securing the Rottweiler in the backyard. Shortly after, he heard that the dog had been
secured. At this point the officers entered the residence and Officer A posted guard on the
residents after they were brought into the living room and seated. The Rottweiler walked to the
back of the house, passing Officer A, stopped, turned around, looked at him, growled and
advanced toward him. From this action, Officer A discharged his weapon striking the dog in the
face. Officer A observed blood coming from Subject 1’s foot and shoulder and was taken to
Stroger Hospital. Officer A denied all allegations of misconduct.

4

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log#1031830/U#09-46
CONCLUSION:
Accused:

Officer A

Allegation #1:

Not Sustained - The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Not
Sustained for Allegation #1, against Officer A in that he verbally abused
Subject 1. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

Allegation #2:

Exonerated - The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of
Exonerated for Allegation #2, against Officer A in that
while attempting to shoot a dog he shot Subject 1. Officer A
was told that the dog had been secured and while posting guard over the
residents in the living room the dog advanced toward him, growling and
baring teeth. Officer A, in fear for his safety discharged his weapon one
time striking the dog. Officer A’s act was certainly appropriate based on
the action of the dog. Officer A did not shoot Subject 1. Only one shot was
fired and it was at the approaching dog. Any injuries that Subject 1
sustained were incidental and not negligent on Officer A’s part.

5