INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
SUBJECT:
OFFICER
INVOLVED:

OFFICER
INJURIES:
OFFICER
INVOLVED:

OFFICER
INJURIES:

ACCUSED
OFFICER:

OFFICER
INJURIES:
ACCUSED
OFFICER:

OFFICER
INJURIES:
WITNESS
OFFICER:

LOG #1038595 / U#10-28

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 34 years old;
On- Duty; In Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 2004

None reported.

“Officer B” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 40 years old;
On- Duty; In Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 1995

Struck by car and fractured left leg and sustained an abrasion to the
left cheek. Treated at Christ Hospital.

“Officer C” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 27 years old;
On- Duty; In Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 2007

None reported.

“Officer D” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 43 years old;
On- Duty; In Uniform; Year of Appointment – 2007

None reported.

“Officer E” (Chicago Police Sergeant); Male/Black; 41 years old;
On- Duty; In Uniform; Year of Appointment – 1994

OFFICER’S
INJURIES:

None reported.

SUBJECT:

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 20 years old

SUBJECT’S
INJURIES:

OFFENDER:

One gunshot wound to the right arm. Treated and released at
Roseland Community Hospital.
Subject 2”; Male/Black; 22 years old

Page 1 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
OFFENDER’S
INJURIES:

None reported.

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Traffic Stop.

DATE/TIME/
LOCATION OF
INCIDENT:

04 AUG 2010, 0112 hours, 7900 S. South Chicago Ave., (outside).
Beat 411.

Page 2 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
On 04 August 2010, at 0112 hours, Chicago Police Officers A and B observed a
silver Chevy Monte Carlo that had been broadcast over OEMC as stolen. Via police
radio, they announced their intention to apprehend the stolen Monte Carlo. At
approximately 7900 South Chicago Avenue, Officer B parked their unmarked squad car
in front of the Monte Carlo at an angle to curb it. The officers exited their vehicle; as
they walked towards the Monte Carlo, the driver, Subject 2, accelerated towards the
officers. Officers A and B both discharged their weapons at the Monte Carlo as it
approached. The front end of the Monte Carlo struck Officer B, who landed on the hood
of the car and rolled onto the ground; Officer B obtained a fractured knee. The Monte
Carlo continued driving away.
Meanwhile Officers C and D heard over the radio that officers intended to
apprehend the stolen Monte Carlo. Officers C and D activated their emergency lights and
drove toward the location to assist. While driving west on 79th Street, they heard multiple
gunshots. Upon their arrival to the scene, Officers C and D both leaned out the respective
windows of their police Tahoe and discharged their weapons at the Monte Carlo.
Officers C and D pursued the Monte Carlo until they lost sight of it on the I-57
Expressway near Halsted Street.
Officer E, who had monitored the pursuit on his radio and had parked on the I-57
Expressway near 119th Street, observed the Monte Carlo pass him, traveling southbound;
Sergeant Casey pursued it until he lost the Monte Carlo on Thornton Road. The Monte
Carlo was found abandoned and inoperable at 13300 S. Ashland Avenue at
approximately 0141 hours. Sergeant Casey secured the vehicle, which had three bullet
holes in the windshield and blood in the front passenger area.
The passenger from the Monte Carlo, Subject 1, was arrested several hours later;
he sustained a gunshot wound to his right forearm. After his apprehension, Subject 1
identified the driver of the Monte Carlo as Subject 2. Subject 2 was arrested a week later
and a jury subsequently found him guilty of two counts of Attempted Murder, for which
he was sentenced to twenty years for each count. Neither Subject 2 nor Subject 1
cooperated with this investigation.

Page 3 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
INVESTIGATION:
The Department Reports documented an account of the incident that is
consistent with the “Summary of Incident” section of this report. 1 The reports further
documented the steps the detectives took while conducting their investigation into the
shooting.
Subject 2, Subject 1 and the witness, Witness 2, did not cooperate with this
investigation. 2
Court Records documented that Subject 2 was subsequently tried by a jury and
found guilty of two counts of Attempted Murder and one count of Aggravated Battery
and sentenced to 20 years for each count.
The Office of Emergency Management and Communications Event Queries
(PCAD) and OEMC Recordings of relevant transmissions made by both citizens and
Department Personnel provided information consistent with the Summary of Incident,
including the reporting of the traffic stop, shots fired, Officer B being injured, the high
speed chase and Subject 1’s arrest.
The Medical Records from Christ Hospital reported that Officers A and B were
approaching a car when the driver tried to drive off, striking Officer B on the left knee.
Officer B was diagnosed with a tibia-fibia fracture to his left leg and an abrasion to his
face. Officer B was treated and released.
The Medical Records from Roseland Community Hospital reported that Subject
1 sustained a gunshot wound to his right forearm. Subject 1 was treated, given a referral
to Stroger Hospital and then released into police custody with the bullet still lodged in his
arm. 3
The Evidence Technician Photographs and Video Tapes captured the location
of the incident, the location of Subject 1’s arrest, the Monte Carlo and the area where it
was recovered. The photographs further showed Officer B’s left leg in a cast and
abrasions to his left cheek and left knee and Subject 1’s right arm in a cast. 4
The Illinois State Police Leica Scan depicted a drawing of a car with the
demographics of the recovered Monte Carlo.
The POD videos did not capture the shooting.
1

A Ballistics Analysis could not determine which officer shot Subject 1 or which officer(s)’ bullets struck
the Monte Carlo. Also, the traffic pursuit of the Monte Carlo was investigated by CPD’s Traffic Pursuit
Board under Pursuit #10-180 and was deemed “In Compliance.”
2
A canvass was conducted and Witness 2 was identified as a possible witness to the shooting. The canvass
produced no additional witnesses or information.
3
Subject 1 was transferred to Roseland Hospital by Chicago Fire Department EMS #4.
4
The Crime Scene Processing Reports reported essentially the same information that was depicted in the
photos and videos.

Page 4 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
The In-Car video for Beat 631R (Officers C and D) had no audio and captured
the silhouette of a person running with their hands clasped together in front of their body
pointed at a silver Monte Carlo as it sped from a northbound lane on South Chicago
Avenue to a southbound lane on Stony Island Avenue. 5 Beat 631R pursued the car on
Stony Island Avenue, down several side streets and onto the expressway.
In a statement to IPRA, Witness 1 stated that he was in an outside line at
Maxwell’s Restaurant on 7900 S. Stony Island Avenue when he observed an unmarked
squad car occupied by two black, male, plainclothes officers, now known as Officers A
and B, traveling southbound on South Chicago Avenue. The squad car did a U-Turn onto
Stony Island Avenue and blocked a silver-colored Monte Carlo that was heading
northbound on Stony Island Avenue. 6 Officers A and B exited the squad car with their
guns drawn and the Monte Carlo accelerated forward. Witness 1 related that at this time,
he observed a marked Chicago Police Tahoe Truck heading westbound on 79th Street.
Witness 1 heard eight-to-fifteen shots and ran to the back of Maxwell’s. When Witness 1
returned to the front of the restaurant, he observed the Tahoe Truck increase its speed and
the Monte Carlo drive forward. Witness 1 related that he then observed one of the
plainclothes officers, now known as Officer B, on his knees and his gun flying out of his
hand onto the curb. The Monte Carlo drove onto the sidewalk on Stony Island Avenue,
did a U-Turn and headed northbound on Stony Island Avenue as two-to-three officers
fired at it. 7 Witness 1 related that the Tahoe pursued the Monte Carlo. Witness 1 added
that he did not observe the initial gunfire or the Monte Carlo striking the officer. He
further added that the driver of the Monte Carlo was a male black and that the Monte
Carlo had a donut (temporary tire) on the back driver’s side.
In a statement to IPRA, Witness Officer E related that he was at 115th and South
Marshfield Avenue when he heard the radio transmission regarding an officer down and
the outbound I-57 vehicle pursuit of the silver-colored Chevy Monte Carlo with
temporary license plates. Officer E went down the 119th Street ramp, parked and
monitored the southbound I-57 Expressway traffic. Officer E related that about 45
seconds later, he saw the Monte Carlo weaving through traffic doing over a hundred
miles an hour. Officer E activated his emergency equipment and notified the dispatcher
that he had the car in sight and was pursuing it. The car exited at 147th Street and went
eastbound. The car turned left onto Loomis St. and made another left turn onto Thornton
Road Officer E lost the car on Thornton Road as the street goes through a forest preserve
and has curves. Officer E heard an officer on the radio stating that the car was located and
unoccupied at 13300 S. Ashland Avenue; he went to the location and observed that the
car had front end damage, bullet holes across the windshield and blood on the passenger
side door and arm rest. Officer E added that he secured the car and allowed no one to go

5

The R/I believed that the person, now known as Officer A, was holding and/or firing a weapon into the
Monte Carlo as demonstrated by evidence gathered in this investigation. Also, the investigation revealed
that there were no in-car videos for Beats 6721D and 6721E (Officers A and B).
6
The investigation revealed that the Monte Carlo was in a northbound lane at 7900 S. South Chicago Ave.
7
The investigation revealed that the Monte Carlo fled southbound on Stony Island Ave.

Page 5 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
inside of it. He further added that, during his pursuit of the car, he could not tell how
many people occupied the car as he was never within a block of the car.
In a statement to IPRA, Witness Officer A stated that Officer F called him and
his partner, Officer B, on a cell phone and related that he was following behind a stolen
silver-colored, two-door Monte Carlo at 7900 S. Essex Avenue. Officer A stated that he
and Officer B were turning from Stony Island Avenue onto 79th Street and heading
eastbound when they observed the northbound-facing Monte Carlo at the light at 7900 S.
South Chicago Avenue. Officer B drove the police vehicle, cut across South Chicago
Avenue, and circled the Monte Carlo to verify its license plate matched the reported
stolen vehicle. After the officers verified the plate number, Officer B notified the
dispatcher that they were behind the stolen Monte Carlo and that they were going to curb
it.
Officer A related that there was a black car behind the Monte Carlo so Officer B
parked the unmarked squad car five-to-seven feet in front of the Monte Carlo at an angle,
blocking it in. It was at this time that Officer A observed two black males inside of the
Monte Carlo. Officers A and B exited their vehicle with their guns drawn and approached
the Monte Carlo’s driver side. Officer B was behind Officer A as Officer A told the
driver to turn the car off and to show him his hands. Officer A related that neither the
driver nor his passenger showed their hands, and when Officers A and B reached the
front of the Monte Carlo, the driver reversed, drove about a foot and then immediately
drove forward towards him and Officer B. Officer A fired six rounds at the driver,
leaving several holes in the Monte Carlo’s windshield. After Officer A fired his weapon,
he jumped out of the Monte Carlo’s path as it continued to accelerate in speed. Officer A
related that after the Monte Carlo passed him and was about a car-length away, he
observed Officer B on the hood of the Monte Carlo and then fall from the car, causing his
gun to fall in the street about two to three feet from him. The Monte Carlo continued into
the intersection and fled southbound onto Stony Island Avenue. Officer A added that
after Officer B fell from the Monte Carlo, he observed a marked CPD Tahoe follow the
car; he heard gunshots but did not know where they were coming from as he went to the
aide of Officer B. Officer A related that Officer B had blood on his face and had suffered
broken bones to his knee. Officer B radioed that an officer was down and requested an
ambulance.
In a statement to IPRA, Witness Officer B provided an account of the incident
that was consistent with the Summary of Incident and the statement of his partner,
Officer A. Officer B added that, when he exited the police car, his partner was heading to
the driver’s side of the stolen Monte Carlo when it reversed, hit the car behind it, and
attempted to pull around the police vehicle. The Monte Carlo was headed towards Officer
B when he froze and yelled for it to stop. Officer B then pulled his gun and shot twice at
the driver, but the Monte Carlo struck him and knocked him onto its hood. Officer B then
rolled off of the moving car, causing his gun, radio and other possessions to fall to the
street. The Monte Carlo continued onto South Chicago Avenue and then went
southbound onto Stony Island Avenue. Officer B tried to stand up several times but fell
down. Officer A asked Officer B if he was okay and then radioed that Officer B had been

Page 6 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
hit by a car. Officer B related that his left knee had been fractured in two places. He
added that although he did not observe Officer A fire his weapon, as he was
concentrating on the Monte Carlo, he did recall hearing gun shots at the same time that he
was shooting but did not observe any officers discharge their weapon. Officer B stated
that officers and an ambulance arrived at the scene and he was taken to Christ Hospital
for treatment.
In a statement to IPRA, Accused Officer C stated that he and his partner, Officer
D, were on patrol in a marked Tahoe when they heard another unit broadcast they were
stopping a stolen vehicle at 7900 S. South Chicago Avenue. Officer C related that he and
Officer D, who was the driver, drove westbound on 79th Street to assist the unit. As they
approached South Chicago Avenue., they heard gunshots. Officer C unholstered his
weapon with his left (strong) hand and passed the weapon to his right (weak) hand.
Officer C stated that he observed an officer, now known as Officer B, lying motionless in
the street as another officer, now known as Officer A, stood over him while a silvercolored Monte Carlo drove away. Officer C stuck his head and right hand out of his
passenger side window and discharged his weapon seven times at the Monte Carlo’s male
driver. The silver Monte Carlo accelerated its speed, made a U-Turn and headed
southbound onto Stony Island Avenue as Officers C and D gave chase. The officers
pursued the Monte Carlo onto the Bishop Ford Expressway and then onto the I-57
Expressway where they lost it at Halsted Street. After losing the Monte Carlo, Officers C
and D went back to 7900 S. South Chicago Avenue.
Officer C stated that he fired his weapon at the Monte Carlo to eliminate the
threat. Officer C reported that he considered the Monte Carlo to pose a threat to
everyone on the scene, including himself. Officer C added that because he heard shots
and observed Officer B on the ground, he was in fear of his safety when he discharged his
weapon. Officer C also conceded that the Monte Carlo posed no threat to him or Officer
D because they were still driving to the scene when he discharged his weapon. He said
that he did not see the Monte Carlo strike Officer B and he did not know where the shots
that he initially heard came from. Officer C said that he observed Officer D fire his
weapon but he did not know at what point Officer D discharged his weapon, or if Officer
D placed his gun out of the window to discharge it.
Officer C further added that he was not trained to fire at a moving vehicle, he did
not recall if there were citizens on the street or if there were any cars at the scene when he
shot, and he did not observe injuries to Officer B, but he believed he had been shot.
In a statement to IPRA, Accused Officer D stated that he and his partner, Officer
C, were on patrol in a marked Chicago Police Tahoe when he heard a unit on the radio
state that they were following three vehicles that were driving at a high rate of speed. The
unit then radioed that they had stopped one of the vehicles and learned that the graycolored Monte Carlo that they were following was stolen and that they had lost sight of it.
Officer D stated that as he was driving westbound on 79th Street, a unit radioed they had
spotted the stolen Monte Carlo and were stopping it at 7900 S. South Chicago Avenue.

Page 7 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
Officer D stated that he and Officer C were about three side streets away, so they took out
their guns, sped up and drove to the location to assist with the stop.
Officer D said that as they neared the Maxwell’s Restaurant, which is located on
the corner of 7900 S. South Chicago Avenue, they heard gunshots and he saw a muzzle
flash. Officer D then observed an officer, now known as Officer B, walk around his
vehicle as a silver-colored Monte Carlo accelerated and struck him, causing Officer B to
roll across the hood of the Monte Carlo. He stated that he also observed Officer B’s
police vehicle parked at an angle in front of the Monte Carlo and an officer, now known
as Officer A, running after the Monte Carlo. Officer D said that the Monte Carlo then
paused and was facing northwest when he, while still driving towards the scene, reached
his right hand across his body, pointed his weapon out of his driver’s side window and
fired twice at the Monte Carlo’s driver. The Monte Carlo fled southbound onto Stony
Island Avenue as Officer D pursued it. Officer D radioed that the Monte Carlo drove
southbound on Stony Island Avenue; he pursued it onto the Bishop Ford Expressway and
finally onto the I-57 Expressway where he lost it at Halsted Street.
Officer D said that he did not know who was shooting at the time he neared 7900
S. South Chicago Avenue, but fired his weapon because he believed that if the driver of
the Monte Carlo had shot at Officers A and B, he would shoot at him and Officer C as
well. He added that he also fired his weapon because he did not want the Monte Carlo to
reverse and run over Officer B, who was laying about 10 feet behind it. Officer D further
added that there were no pedestrians or other vehicles at the scene when he fired his
weapon and that he did not observe Officer C fire his weapon.
The applicable portions of the Chicago Police Department’s Deadly Force policy,
General Order No. 03-02-03, II, are as follows:
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 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 only authorized to prevent death or great bodily
harm to the sworn member or another person. When confronted with an oncoming
vehicle and that vehicle is the only force used against them, sworn members will
move out of the vehicle’s path.”

Page 8 of 9

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1038595/U# 10-28
CONCLUSION:
Officers A and B were not identified as accused officers because the discharge of
their firearms was in compliance with the Department Deadly Force policy. Although
both Officers A and B discharged their firearms into an oncoming vehicle, their actions
were justified because they did not both have the opportunity to safely move out of the
path of the threatening vehicle. This vehicle struck and seriously injured Officer B
before he could move out of the way and therefore justified the use of deadly force by
Officer A and Officer B.
The R/I recommends a finding of Exonerated for Allegation #1 that Officer C
fired his weapon at or into a moving vehicle without authorization. The investigation
revealed that Officer C’s use of deadly force was authorized in response to Subject 2’s
actions. En route to the scene, Officer C understood that fellow officers apprehended a
stolen vehicle whose driver evaded officers earlier in their tour. While still approaching
the scene, Officer C heard gunshots coming from the direction of the traffic stop, saw
Officer B lying on the ground and observed the stolen vehicle fleeing the scene. Officer
D’s description of the incident was consistent with the description provided by Officer C.
There is no evidence to refute the description of incident as explained by Officer D and
Officer C. Based on the information he had at the time, it was reasonable, albeit incorrect,
for Officer C to assume that occupants of the stolen vehicle had shot Officer B. In
response to Officer C’s evaluation of the scene, he considered the occupants of the stolen
vehicle to be an ongoing threat to himself and everyone at the scene. Therefore, Officer
C’s discharge of his firearm into a moving vehicle was authorized to prevent further harm
to people on the scene. Furthermore, he was also authorized in his use of deadly force to
prevent the escape of persons who he believed had committed a forcible felony that was
likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
The R/I recommends a finding of Exonerated for Allegation #1 that Officer D
fired his weapon at or into a moving vehicle without authorization. The investigation
revealed that Officer D’s use of deadly force was authorized in response to Subject 2’s
actions. En route to the scene, Officer D understood that fellow officers apprehended a
stolen vehicle whose driver evaded officers earlier in their tour. While still approaching
the scene, Officer D heard gunshots coming from the direction of the traffic stop, saw the
vehicle strike Officer B, causing him to roll over its hood, and Officer A running after the
vehicle as it fled the scene. Officer D’s description of the incident was consistent with
the description provided by Officer C. There is no evidence to refute the description of
incident as explained by Officer D and Officer C. Based on the information he had at the
time, it was reasonable, albeit incorrect, for Officer D to assume that occupants of the
stolen vehicle had shot Officer B. In response to Officer D’s evaluation of the scene, he
considered the occupants of the stolen vehicle to be an ongoing threat to himself and
everyone at the scene. Therefore, Officer D’s discharge of his firearm into a moving
vehicle was authorized to prevent further harm to people on the scene. Furthermore, he
was also authorized in his use of deadly force to prevent the escape of persons who he
believed had committed a forcible felony that was likely to cause death or great bodily
harm.

Page 9 of 9