INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
Log #1041681/U #10-042
OFFICER
INVOVLED:

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 31 years old;
On Duty; In Uniform; Year of Appointment 2004

OFFICERS
INJURIES:

Non-Fatal-Minor injury (Bruises/swelling/minor abrasions).

VICTIM/
OFFENDER:

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 23 years

VICTIM/
OFFENDER’S
INJURIES:

One gunshot wound to the chest (through-and-through)-Fatal.

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Traffic Stop

DATE/ TIME/
LOCATION:

24 November 2010, 0123 hours, at 5256 W. Kamerling Ave.
BEAT #2532

Page 1

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
On 24 November 2010, at approximately 0123 hours, Beat 4470B Officer A and
Officer B in a marked squad car attempted to pull over a van, which was traveling
northbound on north Lockwood Ave. The driver of the van refused to stop and the
officers observed objects being thrown from the van as it continued to drive. The van
turned eastbound onto west Kamerling Ave, northbound onto Latrobe Ave, westbound
onto west Hirsch St. and then southbound into the east alley of North Lockwood Ave.
Officers A and B continued to follow the van.
The van exited the alley and turned westbound onto west Kamerling Ave. As the
van made its turn, the passenger’s side of the van swiped the driver’s side of a parked
vehicle. The van then came to a stop, and the officers observed 6-8 people exiting the
van. Officer A approached the passenger’s side of the van and observed a black male
subject, now known as Subject 1, coming toward him. Subject 1 lunged at Officer A,
grabbed his legs, punched him in the knee, and attempted to tackle Officer A to the
ground. With his left hand, Subject 1 then attempted to grab Officer A’s holster. Officer
A, after gaining control, drew his firearm, and fired three shots at Subject 1.
Meanwhile, Officer B, who was at the driver’s side of the van, observed a male
coming toward him. Officer B backed up and fired two rounds at the male, who then
turned and fled on foot. Hearing the gunshots that were fired by Officer A, Officer B
went to check on Officer A, who was still at the passenger side of the van. Upon learning
that Officer A was not shot, Officer B got back into his squad car and chased the
remaining occupants of the van, who all fled on foot. Officer A stayed at the scene.
Eventually, approximately five individuals believed to have been inside the van at the
time of the incident, were apprehended. Additional officers responded to the scene and
Officers A and B were transported to a hospital. Subject 1 was pronounced dead at 0204
hours at Mount Sinai Hospital.

Page 2

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
INVESTIGATION:
In statements to IPRA on 24 November 2010 and 08 December 2010, Witness 1
stated that on 24 November 2010 she was at home located at XXXX W. Kamerling Ave
looking out of her bedroom window when she observed a police vehicle pull over a van
across the street from her house at 5256 W. Kamerling Ave. Witness 1 stated that she
believed the officers ordered the van to stop and pull over using the speaker in their
vehicle. The squad car stopped behind the van in the middle of the street. 1 When the van
stopped, two officers exited the squad car. 2 Witness 1 could clearly see the driver officer of
the squad car and could see the passenger officer partially. Witness 1 stated that the driver
officer did not have a gun in his hand when he exited the squad car. The officers
approached the van from the driver’s side and five to six black males exited the van and
began running west on Kamerling Ave 3 . The driver of the van is the only individual that
exited the van through the driver’s side the other individuals exited the van through the
passenger side. Witness 1 stated that the driver of the van ran in front of the van headed
towards Lockwood Ave. Witness 1 stated that she could only see the heads of the other
individuals that ran from the van. The driver officer then “opened fire” 4 and Witness 1
heard approximately five to six “shots.” 5 Witness 1 dropped to the floor. Witness 1 stated
that she really did not pay attention to the passenger officer because she was focused on
the driver officer whom she could see well from her window. Witness 1 then recanted
and stated that the passenger officer was also shooting at the males that were inside the
van and that she could see both the driver and passenger officer before and during the
shooting. Witness 1 stated that the driver officer shot first, and then the passenger officer
followed. Witness 1 stated that she did not see any of the males that were in the van run
towards either officer. Witness 1 stated that she never saw the driver officer go to the
passenger side of the van where his partner was. Witness 1 believes that the passenger
officer ran after the individuals in the van because when she stood back up from her
window, he was running back to his partner from Lockwood Ave. The driver officer was
walking around back and forth. 6 She exited her house and saw a male on the ground on
the sidewalk of an apartment building at 5256 W. Kamerling Ave. Witness 1 did not see
the male when he was shot but she assumes he was shot when he exited the van. Witness
1 assumes the passenger officer shot at the male because he was on the passenger side of
the van. A short time later, numerous officers and an ambulance arrived to the scene.
In a statement to IPRA on 11 August 2011, Witness 2 stated that on 24 November
2010 he and his friends were celebrating one their friends birthday. Witness 2 indicated
they were drinking alcohol (Tangueray) inside of his friend’s (“Nickname” he did not

1

Squad car was approximately 15 feet behind the van.
Witness 1 identified the offices as two white uniformed males, “low” haircuts
3
Witness 1 could not identify any of the males inside the van.
4
Pgs. 2, line, 24, pg. 5, line 24
5
Witness 1 later changed her account and stated that the driver officer was a “car length,” which as in front
of the squad car when he shot at the individuals that were inside the van.
6
The investigation revealed that Witness 1 confused the driver and passenger officer. Officer A, the
passenger officer, discharged his weapon at Subject 1 and Officer B, the driver officer, shot at the driver of
the van and ran after the individuals inside the van.
2

Page 3

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
know his real name) 7 van. Witness 2 related that as they were riding around, one of his
friends exited the van to use the bathroom. At this time, the police pulled up behind them.
Witness 2 informed “Nickname” to pull over, but he didn’t and drove off. The officers
pursued them and activated their sirens, as “Nickname” drove in the wrong direction on a
one-way street.
Witness 2 stated that at one point during the pursuit, everyone inside exited the
vehicle and began running. Witness 2 never exited the vehicle. Witness 2 believed that
“Nickname” was the last person to exit the vehicle. As everybody is exiting the vehicle,
Witness 2 heard several gunshots right outside of the van. Witness 2 then heard
“Nickname” say, “Officer, you just shot me” and then fell to the ground. Witness 2
remained inside of the van and the officers did not know he was inside of the vehicle.
Witness 2 attempted to call his fiancé on his cell phone, during which time the officers
observed him inside of the van and he immediately dropped his phone. The officers had
their weapons out and pointed at Witness 2 and they ordered him to get down.
Witness 2 complied, during which time he observed “Nickname” lying on the
ground with his eyes closed. The officers began searching the area with canine dogs. The
officers never found anything and Witness 2 and his friends were taken to the police
station for further questioning.
The canvass conducted in the vicinity of 5256 W. Kamerling Ave produced one
Witness 1, previously summarized.
The related Department Reports, including Arrest Reports of Subject 2,
Subject 3, Original Case Incident Report, Tactical Response Reports (TRR), and
Officer’s Battery Report, include an account of the incident that is consistent with the
summary of the incident. The arrest reports indicate that they were arrested for resisting
arrest by Officer C and Office D. The narrative section indicates that Subject 2 and
Subject 3 were arrested on signed complaints after the arresting officers observed them
crossing a crime scene tape and after directed to leave the area and refusing to leave the
area. The incident and supplementary reports related the same information as in the arrest
report.
Officer A’s TRR indicates that Subject 1 was an “Assailant: Battery” that
charged/struck Officer A and attempted to disarm him. Officer A responded by pivoting
away and discharging his firearm at Subject 1. Officer A sustained minor injuries from
the incident.
Officer B’s TRR indicates that an unknown offender who fled from the scene was
an “imminent threat of battery,” and Officer B responded with discharging his firearm.
Officer B sustained minor injuries from the incident.
The Case Supplementary Reports indicates that detectives responded to the
location of incident at 5256 W. Kamerling Ave. The reports essentially reiterate the same
7

The investigation revealed that “Nickname” is Subject 1.

Page 4

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
account of the incident as in the Summary of Incident section. The Case Supplementary
Reports added that the detectives were unable to identify the unknown black male that
committed an Aggravated Assault to Officer B.
On 27 November 2010, CPD Detective 1 and CPD Detective 2 interviewed
Subject 4. Subject 4 stated that on 24 November 2010, it was his birthday and Subject 1
picked him up on the evening of 23 November 2010. Subject 4 stated that Subject 1 was
driving a black colored van. Subject 3 was in the front passenger seat and [Alleged
Passenger # 2] was in the rear passenger behind Subject 3. Subject 4 related to the
detectives that they went to a liquor store near North Ave and Central to buy some liquor.
While inside the liquor store purchasing a large bottle of Tanqueray Gin, they met with
another friend, Witness 2 who got into the van with the others. Witness 2 was seated in
the rear seat behind Subject 1. They drove around for a while and on Lockwood Ave.
Subject 3 got out of the van. Subject 4 did not know why Subject 3 got out of the van.
The police pulled up behind Subject 1’s van and Subject 1 sped off. In the east alley of
Lockwood Ave. near Kamerling Ave, Subject 4 threw the gin bottle out of the window.
When Subject 1 approached Lockwood Ave., he struck a parked vehicle. Subject 4
immediately fled from the van northbound on Lockwood Ave. Subject 4 related that
while he was running, he heard numerous gunshots, but never turned around to see what
was happening. Subject 4 ran northbound to Lockwood Ave. west to Hirsch, and north on
Lorel and hid in a gangway. Subject 4 later learned from an unknown person who called
his cell phone that the police shot Subject 1. Subject 4 later when to Mount Sinai Hospital
and learned that Subject 1 was dead.
On 30 November 2010, at 1130 hours, CPD Detective 3 interviewed [Alleged
Passenger], another passenger inside Subject 1’s van prior to the police shooting.
[Alleged Passenger] related that he did not have any knowledge of the above incident and
he was not an occupant of the van.
The Evidence Technician (E.T.) photographs depict pictures of the scene,
recovered evidence, Subject 1’s body, and clothing, and photographs of Officers A and
B.
The Chicago Fire Department (CFD) Ambulance Report indicates that a John
Doe patient was found to be in traumatic arrest caused by gunshot. The patient had one
entrance wound to the right side and one exit wound to the left side. The patient never
responded to treatment.
8

The OEMC Event Query, tape transmission, and telephone conversation with
911 callers report indicates that shots were fired at and by the police by Beat 4470D at
5256 W. Kamerling Ave. Six males jumped out of a van and ran from 5256 W.
Kamerling Ave north between Lockwood Ave and Latrobe Ave. The offenders tried to
disarm two police officers and one offender was placed in custody. Numerous officers
responded to the scene of incident.
8

The investigation revealed that John Doe is Subject 1.

Page 5

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
Several citizens called the police regarding the police shooting. Some of the
callers stated that they heard gunshots outside their homes and when they looked outside
their windows, they saw police officers and male lying on the ground. The callers did not
witness the police shooting. An ambulance was summoned to the location of incident and
transported Subject 1 to Mount Sinai Hospital.
Reports from the Illinois State Police (ISP), Division of Forensic Services,
indicate that a black jacket was examined and there was no blood found. The GSR kit
was not examined. Subject 1’s fingerprints were compared to Officer A’s firearm and no
latent impressions suitable for comparison. Officer B’s weapon, a Sig Sauer, model P226,
9mm Luger, semi-automatic pistol, serial #U 568 401, was examined, found to be in
firing condition and test fired. Officer A’s weapon, a Glock, model 21, 45 Auto, semiautomatic pistol, serial #NEN763, was examined, found to be in firing condition and test
fired.
A report from the Office of the Medical Examiner County of Cook, Illinois,
Postmortem Examination, indicates that an autopsy was performed on Subject 1 on 24
November 2010 by Doctor A. The examination revealed a gunshot wound to the left
anterior axillary area. There is an entrance wound of a gunshot over the right side of the
chest and several scars noted over the upper quadrant of the abdomen. Subject 1’s hands
are covered with gloves and show evidence of fingerprint ink. Lividity is noted over the
back.
Subject 1’s clothing consisted of one leather coat, which appeared to be a navy
blue with a red trim, a brown hooded sweatshirt, a Seattle Seahawks jersey, a pair of blue
jeans and belt, a pair of plaid boxer shorts, one pair of white socks and one pair of shoes.
Doctor A identified tears on the jacket, which appear to be related to the gunshot wound
entrance. The report indicates that Subject 1’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the
chest and the manner was homicide.
The medical examiner’s photographs depict Subject 1’s body during the
postmortem examination.
A Breathalyzer Test taken on 24 November 2010, at 0600 hours, revealed that
Officer B blood alcohol count (B.A.C) was .000. At 0605 hours, Officer B submitted to
urine specimen test, which revealed negative results.
A Breathalyzer Test taken on 24 November 2010, at 0635 hours, revealed that
Officer A blood alcohol count (B.A.C) was .000. At 0710 hours, Officer A submitted to
urine specimen test, which revealed negative results.
In a statement to IPRA on 13 December 2011, Involved Officer A stated that on
24 November 2010 he was working with Officer B assigned to Beat 4470D. Officer B
was the driver of the squad car and Officer A was the passenger. While driving, Officer A
stated that they observed a black male flee from a van at Lockwood Ave. and Kamerling
Ave. The van then made a right turn going eastbound on Kamerling Ave. The officers

Page 6

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
followed the van with their emergency lights activated through different streets until it
came to a stop at 5256 W. Kamerling Ave. Officer A stated that prior to the van coming
to a stop, the occupants inside the van threw out a green colored bottle of alcoholic
beverage outside the window. Another beat car containing Officers E and F, who were
following Officers A and B, collected the bottle from the ground. Officer A stated that
Officer B stopped the squad car behind the van, within five feet. Officers A and B exited
the squad car, Officer B began to approach the van on the driver’s side, and Officer A
approached the van on the passenger side. Officer A stated that when he stepped onto the
curb on the passenger side of the van, he observed approximately six to eight individuals
already out of the van. The individuals were “scrambling” looking for somewhere to run.
Officer A could not clearly see the individuals’ faces.
Officer A stated that two of the individuals ran towards him and another
individual, (Subject 1) who he did not see approach, attempted to tackle Officer A to the
ground. Officer A instructs Subject 1 to “Get back” and Subject 1 grabbed Officer A’s
leg with his arm and struck Officer A in right knee. Subject 1 then grabbed Officer A’s
holster with his left hand and began to tug on it. Officer A pivoted back after being struck
in the knee, drew his firearm 9 and shot at Subject 1 three times in rapid succession.
Subject 1 went down to the ground and the two other individuals that were running
towards Officer A, turned the opposite direction and ran away westbound on Kamerling
Ave. Officer A stated that Subject 1 looked up at him and stated, “You shot me.”
According to Officer A, Officer B who was on the driver’s side of the van fired
his weapon after Officer A discharged his. Officer A stated that he does not know what
occurred that caused Officer B to discharge his weapon twice. Officer A composed
himself, called for police assistance, and made notifications to the Department via the
police radio. Officer B approached Officer A and asked him if he was okay. Officer B
then ran off to locate the males that were inside the van.
After the police shooting, Officer A found an individual, now known as, Witness
2 inside the van. Witness 2 was escorted out of the van, handcuffed, and transported to
the police station. Witness 2 stated that he did not do anything wrong.
Officer A learned from Officer B that Officer B had shot at an individual who ran
across the van who pulled out a weapon from his waistband and pointed it at Officer B.
Officer B did not strike the individual that he shot at.
Furthermore, Officer A stated that he sustained a “deep bone bruise” to his right
knee. Officer A underwent physical therapy and injections to his knee. Officer A
obtained medical care after the incident at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
In a statement to IPRA on 20 January 2012, Involved Officer B related that on 24
November 2010 he was working with Officer B. Officer A was the driver of the squad
car. While driving, Officer B stated that at Lockwood Ave. he observed a black male
9

Blue Steel Glock 21.

Page 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
standing outside a van that was double-parked talking to the occupants of the van 10 .
When the male saw them, he ran towards the gangway. The van drove off and Officer B
followed with his emergency lights activated. The van drove eastbound on Kamerling
Ave and about Kamerling Ave and Latrobe Ave, things began to be thrown out of the
van. Officers A and B contacted Officers E and F, who were in their squad car behind
Officers A and B to retrieve the items that were thrown from the van. Officer B stated
that the van came to a stop at 5256 W. Kamerling Ave. Officers A and B exited the squad
car, Officer B proceeded to the driver’s side of the van and Officer A proceeded to the
passenger side of the van. Officer B stated that he heard movement inside the van.
Officer B stated that he heard Officer A yell from the passenger side of the van, “Get
back” and then he heard three gunshots.
Officer B stated that he began to walk to the rear of the van to go around the van
to check up on Officer A. Officer B stated that he observed a black male running across
the front of the van from the passenger side of the van. Officer B assumed the male was
inside the van. Officer B ran toward the male at which point, the male pulled out a blue
steel handgun and pointed it at Officer B and Officer B fired his weapon twice. Officer B
stated that he was over 15 feet away from the unidentified male. Officer B believed that
the male stumbled and fell to the ground. Officer B then proceeded to check on Officer
A. Officer B stated that at that time he did not approach the male he shot at because he
was more concerned for Officer A. Officer B stated that Officer A was standing next to
Subject 1 who was on the ground. Officer B stated that he saw individuals running down
Lockwood Ave. towards Hirsch St. and he did not see anyone on the ground in front of
the van. Officer B got in the squad and drove in the direction the males ran. While
driving on Hirsch Street Officer B saw a black male duck in the alley. Officer B reversed
the car and drove into the alley. He then exited the car and withdrew with firearm. The
male told Officer B that he did not do anything. Officer B handcuffed the individual,
placed him inside the squad car, and drove him back to the location of incident. 11 Officer
B stated that other officers removed the male from Officer B’ squad car and put him in
another squad car. Officer B stated that he was not present at the scene when Officer A
found Witness 2 inside the van. Furthermore, Officer B stated that he did not sustain any
injuries from the incident.
Medical Records from the University of Illinois Medical Center indicates that
Officer A received medical care on 24 November 2010 at approximately 0240 hours. The
hospital notes indicate that Officer A informed hospital staff that while on-duty an
individual stuck him [Officer A] on the right knee with his head. Officer A was
diagnosed with a right knee contusion.
Medical Records from the Center for Athletic Medicine indicates that an MRI
of Officer A’s right knee resulted in a focal bone contusion to his right knee, which
required physical therapy. 12
10

Officer B does not know the exact location.
Officer B stated that he does not recall asking the male for his name.
12
27 physical therapy sessions beginning 31 December 2010 to 02 March 2011.
11

Page 8

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
LOG #1041681/U#10-042
CONCLUSION AND FINDING:
This investigation found that the use of deadly force was JUSTIFIED and in
compliance with Chicago Police Department policy and Illinois State statutes. 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;
b. has attempted to escape by use of a deadly weapon or;
c. otherwise indicated that he or she will endanger human life or inflict
great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.”
Officer A’s actions were in accordance with both the conditions of CPD’s policy.
Officer A instructed Subject 1 to stay away from him but Subject 1 refused and attempted
to tackle and disarm Officer A. Officer A, in fear for his life, discharged his firearm three
times striking Subject 1 in the chest. As a result of the incident, Officer A sustained
injuries to his right knee that is required physical therapy. Therefore, based on the totality
of the circumstances, Officer A was reasonably in fear of his life and fired at Subject 1 to
prevent death or great bodily harm.

Page 9