INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
PUBLIC REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
OFFICER(S)
INVOLVED:

C.R. #314618; (Previously recorded as U #06-12)

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer) — Male/White; 30 years old;
On-duty; Civilian clothes; Year of Appointment — 2000
“Officer B” (Chicago Police Officer) — Male/White; 27 years old;
On-duty; Civilian clothes; Year of Appointment — 2001
“Officer C” (Chicago Police Officer) — Female/White; 35 years
old; On-duty; Civilian clothes; Year of Appointment — 2000

OFFICER
INJURIES:

“Officer A” — minor injury to leg

SUBJECT(S)
INVOLVED:

Subject 1 — Male/Black; 21 years old

SUBJECT
INJURIES:

One gunshot wound to the upper left chest; one gunshot wound to
the left side of the face; multiple lacerations/abrasions to the left
side of the face; one small abrasion to the back of the left ring
finger. Subject’s wounds were fatal.

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

Investigation of Armed Robbery/Hijacking

DATE/ TIME:

30 April 2006, 0138 hours

LOCATION:

10011 South Wallace Street
Beat 2232

Page 1 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION:
In his report dated 30 April 2006, an Assistant Deputy Superintendent (ADS) assigned to
the Bureau of Operational Services, summarized the incident under investigation. On 30 April
2006, at approximately 0138 hours, Officers A, B, and C were working in civilian dress.
The officers were conducting an investigation into a previously reported Armed
Robbery/Hijacking incident. As a result of their investigation, the officers had obtained a photo
identification of a suspect who was identified as Subject 1. A short time before the above
captioned incident occurred Officer A received information from an informant.
The informant stated that Subject 1 had been observed in the area of 10000 South Lowe
and might be armed. The officers responded to the location and observed Subject 1 walking
north on Wallace and beginning to enter a vehicle at approximately 10011 South Wallace in
which there was a female occupant (nka Witness 1). Officer A drove the officers’ vehicle into a
blocking position in front of Subject 1’s vehicle.
Officer A exited the police vehicle and took a position by the front driver’s door. Officer
B, the front passenger, exited and took a position behind Subject 1’s vehicle and to the left of
center. Officer C exited the rear of the police vehicle and took a position on the right side of
Subject 1’s vehicle, focusing on Witness 1.

Officer A identified himself as a police officer and ordered Subject 1 to show his hands.
Subject 1 did not comply and Officer A could see a silver colored object in Subject 1’s left hand.
Officer A repeated his order to Subject 1 numerous times but he ignored them. Subject 1
suddenly grabbed the gear shift, placed the vehicle in reverse and accelerated quickly.
Officer B yelled that he had been struck as Subject 1’s vehicle traveled backward.
Fearing for Officer B’s safety, Officer A fired his weapon at Subject 1 seven times. Subject 1’s
vehicle continued in reverse, north on Wallace, then east on 100th Street until coming to rest on a
parkway near 556 West 100th Street. Officer A pursued the vehicle on foot while Officer C
reentered the police vehicle and followed.
Once Subject 1’s vehicle stopped on the parkway, Officers A and C approached it.
Officer C removed Witness 1 from the vehicle while Officer A approached Subject 1, who was
still in the vehicle and observed that Subject 1 had sustained injuries and was unresponsive.
Medical assistance for Subject 1 and Officer B was requested.
Notifications were made and Witness 1 was transported to Area 2. Paramedics arrived
and determined that Subject 1 was beyond medical attention. Officer B was transported to a
hospital for treatment of his injuries. An examination of Subject 1’s vehicle determined that
seven rounds had been fired into it through the driver’s side door, door frame, and roof. Six
expended cartridge casings were found at the location.

Page 2 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
Upon observation, it was determined that Subject 1 had a gunshot wound to his left cheek
and a gunshot wound to his chest. A silver colored CD player was by Subject 1’s left hand as he
was removed from the vehicle. A search of his person resulted in the recovery of a seven shot
.22 caliber silver colored revolver. It appeared to be rusty with the cylinder held in place by a
common screw.
The revolver bore no manufacturer information or serial numbers. It contained five
rounds of live ammunition. The crime scene was processed by Mobile Crime Lab personnel who
inventoried evidence and photographed the scene. Upon completion of the ADS’ initial
assessment of the incident and crime scene processing, a Round Table was conducted at Area 2
Headquarters.
A sketch of the shooting scene, prepared by the Office of Professional Standards, and a
Polaroid photograph, depict Subject 1’s vehicle parked facing southbound on the east side of
Wallace Street (600W). It is positioned just north of the walkway at 10011 South Wallace. The
position of the officers’ vehicle is indicated as in front of Subject 1’s vehicle facing east toward
the sidewalk.
The driver’s side of the squad car is facing the front of Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer A’s
initial position is indicated as on the parkway near the front fender on the driver’s side of Subject
1’s vehicle. Officer B’s initial position is indicated as in the street north of, and behind, Subject
1’s vehicle to the left of center.
Officer C’s initial position is indicated as in the street west of, and beside Subject 1’s
vehicle near the front passenger side fender. A symbol representing a flashlight is depicted on
the parkway just to rear of the initial position of Subject 1’s vehicle (east). The path of Subject
1’s vehicle is traced backward (northbound) to a position around a corner east of Wallace on
100th Street.
During a Round Table convened after the incident Witness 1 related that she met Subject
1 on 29 April 2006 when he picked her up from her home in Des Plaines. She stated that the two
met in a chat room earlier in the day and decided to meet in person. They went to the home of
Subject 1’s mother where Subject 1 consumed alcoholic beverages.
Subject 1 then drove Witness 1 to the home of one his friends. Subject 1 exited the
vehicle but Witness 1 did not. When Subject 1 returned he looked “strange”. At that time an
unmarked squad car pulled in front of Subject 1’s vehicle. A “detective” exited the squad car,
announced his office, and ordered Subject 1 and Witness 1 to put their hands up several times.
Witness 1 complied with the officer’s orders. Subject 1 did not but rather started the
vehicle and shifted into reverse quickly. Witness 1 then heard gunshots and felt broken glass
strike her.
Subject 1’s vehicle traveled backward, northbound, to 100th Street and then
eastbound on that street where it struck a tree and stopped.

Page 3 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
Subject 1 began to wheeze and officers ordered Witness 1 out of a vehicle. Witness 1
used a table and chair to demonstrate the position of the officer who fired in relation to Subject
1’s vehicle. That demonstration indicated that the officer was in very close proximity of Subject
1’s vehicle when he fired his weapon.
Officer B stated during the Round Table that Officer A received a call from an informant
who notified him that Subject 1 was armed and at 100th and Lowe Avenue (632W). The officers
did not see Subject 1 at 100th and Lowe so they drove in the area looking for him. They had
photographs of Subject 1 so they could identify him.
The officers saw Subject 1 walking at approximately 10011 South Wallace and feeling
for something at his waist. Officer A stopped the officers’ vehicle in front of Subject 1’s vehicle.
The officers exited and moved to surround Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer B stated that Subject 1’s
vehicle was running as they approached. Officer B walked behind Subject 1’s vehicle. At the
same time Officer A announced his office and issued verbal commands to the occupants of
Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer B stood behind the middle of Subject 1’s vehicle toward the driver’s
side. He saw the vehicle’s reverse lights illuminate and tried to move from behind the vehicle.
Subject 1’s vehicle accelerated backward very quickly.
Subject 1’s vehicle struck Officer B who fell onto the grass of the parkway on the east
side of Wallace, very close to the street. Officer B yelled words to the effect of “I’m down, I’m
hit.” He then saw Subject 1’s vehicle traveling in reverse north on Wallace to 100th Street then
east around the corner of 100th Street and out of sight.
Officer B saw Officer A and Officer C run to Subject 1’s vehicle. He then “struggled” to
his feet and walked to the location of Subject 1’s vehicle. Officer B further related that he was
subsequently treated and released from a hospital where he was diagnosed with a contusion.
Officer C gave a Round Table account that was consistent with those the others
interviewed at that time. She estimated that Officer A fired from a distance of approximately
five feet. She stated the engine of Subject 1’s vehicle was not running when the officers
approached and that no vehicles were parked behind Subject 1’s vehicle.
During the Round Table Officer A related he received a telephone call from an
informant. The informant stated that Subject 1 was armed and at 100th and Wallace. Officer A,
Officer B, and Officer C went to that location where they saw Subject 1 walking to and entering
a vehicle. Officer A parked the vehicle he and the others occupied in front of the vehicle Subject
1 entered and exited the squad car with his weapon drawn. Subject 1 started his vehicle as
Officer A exited the squad car. Officer A approached the driver’s door, announced his office,
and ordered Subject 1 and a second individual in Subject 1’s vehicle to put up their hands.
The windows of Subject 1’s vehicle were up. Officer B went to the rear of Subject 1’s
vehicle and Officer C went to the passenger side respectively. Officer A observed a shiny object,
which he could not identify, in Subject 1’s left hand. Subject 1 used his right hand to shift his
vehicle into reverse and the vehicle then moved backwards.

Page 4 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
Officer A heard Officer B say, “[Officer A], I got hit.” Officer A lost sight of Officer B
at that time. Officer A fired his weapon at Subject 1 4-6 times. He estimated his distance from
Subject 1 as two to four feet when he began firing. Subject 1’s vehicle continued to move
backward. Officer A still could not see Officer B. Officer A thought that Subject 1’s vehicle
was dragging Officer B. Officer A ran northbound on the parkway to the spot at which Subject
1’s vehicle stopped. The second occupant of Subject 1’s vehicle, a female, put her hands up and
Officer A saw that Subject 1 had been shot. Officer A stated he saw Officer B when Subject 1’s
vehicle struck him.
According to Officer A he next saw Officer B when they both arrived at the spot where
Subject 1’s vehicle stopped. Officer A did not see Officer B at any point between. Officer A
further indicated that he never saw Officer B lying on the parkway during the incident.
In Tactical Response Reports for Officers A and B, dated 30 April 2006, the ADS’
finding was that Officer A’s actions were in compliance with Department procedures and
directives. The rationale provided relates basically the same account of the incident as that in his
To/From/Subject report and that Officer A believed Officer B was being dragged under Subject
1’s vehicle.
Officer’s Battery Reports completed by Officers A and B indicate that an officer was
struck with a vehicle.
The Case Reports, RD HM-287-787, HM-321-168, and HM-321-631, include basically
the same information as the Tactical Response Reports.
A Case Supplementary Report, RD HM-287-787, relates basically the same account of
how the officers identified Subject 1 as the offender. It indicates that the original
Robbery/Vehicular Hijacking case was closed as the result of Subject 1’s death.
A Case Supplementary Report, RD HM-321-168, dated 10 May 2006, indicates that case
(Aggravated Battery/Police Officer: Other Dangerous Weapon) was closed as a result of Subject
1’s death. It also refers the reader to the Justifiable Homicide Case Report (RD HM-321-631)
for all pertinent facts relative to the Aggravated Battery investigation.
A Case Supplementary Report, RD HM-321-631, dated 03 July 2006, indicates that
Officer A, provided detectives an account of the incident that was consistent with his Tactical
Response Report. In addition, Officer A told the detectives that as he approached Subject 1’s
vehicle while ordering him to put up his hands, Subject 1 was reaching for something with his
left hand.
Officer A could tell that the object was shiny as Subject 1 raised it up, but he could not
make out what it was. Subject 1 then used his right hand and shifted the vehicle into ‘Reverse’.
Subject 1 accelerated backward, striking Officer B. After he fired at the vehicle because he

Page 5 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
thought Officer B was still under it, Officer A saw Officer B standing on the street, in pain from
his knee being struck.
In the Supplementary Report, an account by Officer B indicates that he was at the rear of
Subject 1’s vehicle when the reverse lights illuminated and the vehicle sped backwards. The
vehicle struck Officer B knocking him to the ground. He managed to get to the curb before the
vehicle completely ran over him. Officer B yelled that he had been hit and saw Officer A, on
foot, chase Subject 1’s vehicle past Officer B as he lay on the ground.
The Supplementary Report also indicated that a Witness 2 stated that she was a witness to
the shooting and gave an interview to CLTV news. The detectives’ attempt to interview Witness
2 was unsuccessful.
The CPD evidence photographs show: the scene at 10011 South Wallace, including the
vehicle driven by Subject 1 [exterior and interior], Subject 1 inside the vehicle, Subject 1’s
wounds, bullet holes in the vehicle, a compact disc player on Subject 1’s lap, a revolver, and
marked evidence (including a black flashlight) on the ground.
Canvassing produced circumstantial witnesses.
In an interview with OPS on 30 April 2006, Witness 1 stated that she had spoken with
Subject 1 the first time, via telephone, on the previous day. The two ‘chatted’ on a ‘party-line’
and decided to meet. Subject 1 picked up Witness 1 at her residence in Des Plaines at
approximately 1900 hours on 30 April 2006. The two talked for approximately one hour in
Subject 1’s vehicle outside Witness 1’s apartment.
After visiting with Subject 1’s mother and stepfather, Subject 1 drove to 10000 block of
South Wallace to the residence of his friend. Subject 1 drove to an alley approximately two
blocks away, exited the vehicle alone and went into a house. He returned and drove back to his
friend’s block, parking on the opposite side of the street. Subject 1 and his friend exited the
vehicle.
The two men talked at the rear of the vehicle for approximately 2/3 minutes but Witness
1 could not hear any of the conversation. Subject 1’s friend then walked to his residence and
Subject 1 walked to the backyard of 10011 South Wallace. He remained there for approximately
ten minutes, out of sight of Witness 1 who remained in the vehicle. When Subject 1 returned to
the vehicle, he looked frustrated, angry and upset.
Witness 1 asked him what was wrong and he replied, “Nothing.” At that time a dark,
unmarked squad car pulled up and stopped in front of Subject 1’s vehicle. A male white officer
in casual dress and a protective vest exited the squad car with his weapon drawn. That officer
shouted, more than once, for Subject 1 and Witness 1 to put their hands up. She then saw a red
dot, as if from a laser sight, on Subject 1’s chest.

Page 6 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
Subject 1 started the vehicle and shifted into ‘Reverse’. Immediately after, Witness 1 felt
the vehicle accelerate ‘very fast’ in reverse. She heard approximately three gunshots and felt
broken glass strike her body. The vehicle continued in reverse crossing 100th Street to the north
and stopped when it struck a tree on the lot located at 9959 South Wallace.
Witness 1 heard Subject 1 wheezing. A second male white officer in casual dress and
vest approached the vehicle. The second officer told Witness 1 that he had been struck by the
vehicle and told her to exit. After Witness 1 placed the vehicle into ‘Park’ a female white officer
opened the front passenger door and Witness 1 exited. The female officer conducted a protective
‘pat-down’ search of Witness 1.
The female officer handcuffed Witness 1. Another officer, who had just arrived, placed
Witness 1 into another squad car. Witness 1 never saw Subject 1 in possession of a firearm
during the incident nor heard him discuss firearm(s) or illegal activities. An ambulance arrived
less than five minutes after Subject 1’s vehicle came to a stop.
In an interview with the State’s Attorney Office, Witness 1 related basically the same
account of the incident as that which appears in her interview with OPS. Witness 1 related that
when the first officer repeatedly [for approximately 30 seconds] ordered her and Subject 1 to put
up their hands, she complied but Subject 1 did not. During that time, he stated, “Shit”, locked
the doors to the vehicle, and then placed it in ‘Reverse’. Witness 1 stated that Subject 1 did not
say anything to her after the police first arrived.
Efforts to identify Subject 1’s friend were successful.
Efforts to obtain Witness 2’s
interview or a transcript of same from CLTV News were unsuccessful.
The Chicago Fire Department Run Sheet, #061200123, reflects that Paramedics Witness
3 and Witness 4 responded to the scene at 0149 hours and found Officer B sitting on the curb.
Officer B told the paramedics that he had struck on his left leg by the rear end of an auto trying
to flee the scene.
The paramedics noted minor swelling and applied an ice pack and bandage. Officer B
was ambulatory with assistance. The paramedics departed the scene at 0209 hours to transport
Officer B to the hospital.
The Run Report also reflects that Paramedics Witness 3 and 4 found an unknown male
sitting behind the steering wheel with a gunshot wound to his chest and a gunshot wound to his
head. They were told by police that the male was trying to get away from the police, hitting one
officer with the rear of the vehicle. CPD personnel designated the scene a crime scene. The
paramedics placed the male on a monitor using leads, with negative results. Their finding was
DOA.
In an interview with OPS on 11 May 2006, Paramedic in Charge Witness 3 related that
personnel from a Chicago Fire Department engine were standing around a vehicle when he and

Page 7 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
Paramedic Witness 4 arrived at the scene. The medic from the Chicago Fire Department engine,
a male white whose name Witness 3 did not know, informed him that one person had been shot.
A police officer was sitting on the curb. There was a male black inside the vehicle, alone.
Efforts to determine if the male had any life signs were negative. The male had a gunshot wound
to the left temporal area and a gunshot wound to his chest. Witness 3 spoke with officers from
the Chicago Police Department and all agreed that scene should be classified a crime scene.
A second ambulance arrived and Witness 3 informed those paramedics that their services
were not required. Witness 3 returned to his ambulance where the officer who had been sitting
on the curb told him that he had been struck by the rear of the vehicle containing the male black
as he attempted to leave the scene. Witnesses 3 and 4 transported that officer to a hospital.
PIC Witness 3 did not recall seeing a compact disc player or shiny object inside the
vehicle. His attention was focused on the male black’s injuries. He did not see a firearm inside
the vehicle or on the male black’s person. He could not recall if he assisted in placing electrodes
on the male black, and if so, that would have been the only physical contact Witness 3 had with
the male black.
In an interview with OPS on 11 May 2006, Paramedic Witness 4 related basically the
same account of the incident as that of PIC Witness 3 regarding receipt of the assignment and
response to the location. Paramedic Witness 4 stated that upon their arrival, he observed an
officer sitting on the ground injured. Witness 4 focused his attention on that officer and did not
go to the vehicle or see the individual who had been shot.
In an interview with OPS on 23 May 2006, Firefighter/Paramedic Witness 5 related that
he was assigned to a Chicago Fire Department engine and received an assignment at 100th and
Wallace. He observed a vehicle possibly on the sidewalk/grass area. There was a police officer
sitting on the curb. Someone, Witness 5 did not recall whom, stated that the officer had been hit
by the vehicle.
Witness 5 told the EMTs from the engine to attend to the officer then approached the
vehicle and saw that the driver’s window had been shattered. He did not recall if the driver’s
door was open or if he opened the door. There was a male in the driver’s seat and Witness 5
observed a hole in the left side of the male’s face in the cheek area. Witness 5 checked for an
exit wound but did not find one.
He then cut open the male’s shirt to attach a monitor. At that time Witness 5 observed a
hole in the male’s upper left chest area near his heart. Witness 5 attached the monitor and
received no signs of life. He removed the monitor as a Chicago Fire Department ambulance
arrived. Witness 5 told the Paramedic In Charge of the ambulance what he knew about the
situation and had determined about the male’s condition.
Witness 5 started his paperwork for the assignment. He went into the ambulance where
the police officer had been taken where he remained for a short period of time. The paramedics

Page 8 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
were on the radio determining to which hospital the officer should be taken. Witness 5 gave the
paramedics his paperwork and left the scene because he received another, unrelated, assignment.
According to Witness 5 he was focused on caring for the male in the vehicle while he
was at the scene. He was concentrating on the wounds and the male’s condition. He did recall
seeing what appeared to be a bullet hole in the vehicle – possibly near the roof. Witness 5 did
not recall any of the contents of the vehicle including a compact disc player or a handgun.
The initial Illinois State Police (ISP) Laboratory Report for Officers A’s weapon
indicates that it was found to be in firing condition and test fired. Fired bullets, jackets, a jacket
fragment, and cartridge casings also submitted were determined to have been fired from Officer
A’s weapon. Two metal fragments were unsuitable for further microscopic comparisons.
A conversation with an ISP Forensic Scientist regarding a laser sighting device on
Officer A’s weapon resulted in a Supplemental Laboratory Report. That report indicates that the
weapon was equipped with a single laser sight that was examined and found to be in proper
operating condition as received.
CPD General Order 92-03-02A, III., E., and IV, D., Department Authorized Firearms and
Ammunition for Sworn Members Hired After 01 December 1991, prohibits electrical or optical
sights on Prescribed Semi-Automatic Pistols and/or Alternate Prescribed Semi-Automatic
Pistols.
ISP photographs and Polaroid photographs show the location of the laser sight on Officer
A’s weapon.
An ISP Laboratory Report indicates that the .22 caliber revolver that was recovered was
inoperable as received. It was reassembled and test fired. All of the unfired cartridges were
examined and determined to be five Federal .22 Long Rifle. One wood screw that was recovered
was used to test fire the revolver.
An ISP Laboratory Report indicated that examination of the .22 caliber revolver that was
recovered revealed no latent fingerprint impressions that were suitable for comparison.
An ISP Laboratory Report indicates that one fragment of questioned glass recovered from
the curb area was examined and determined to be the same color, type, thickness, density, and
refractive index as a glass standard recovered from the “driver’s seat”. The results indicate a
good probability of common origin.
The Cook County Medical Examiner’s Report of Postmortem Examination indicates that
Subject 1 died of multiple gunshot wounds, and that the manner was Homicide, generally
defined as the killing of one human being by another. The wounds included one on the upper
left chest which coursed downward and caused massive bleeding into the left chest cavity. A
deformed copper jacketed bullet was recovered from within the left chest cavity. An atypical

Page 9 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
entry wound, it indicated that the bullet may have struck an intermediate target before entering
the body. There was no evidence of close range firing.
A second wound was on the left side of Subject 1’s face, coursing left to right and
slightly downward. A deformed copper jacketed bullet was recovered from the soft tissues of the
upper right neck. This wound was also atypical, indicating that the bullet may have struck an
intermediate target before entering the body. There was no evidence of close range firing.
Additionally, there multiple red lacerations and abrasions on the left side of Subject 1’s face in
the chin and jaw area. Within these wounds, small bits of glass were present. On the back of the
left ring finger there was a small red abrasion.
Toxicological analysis of Subject 1’s blood resulted in positive findings for carbon
monoxide (7% saturation) and ethanol (64 milligrams per deciliter). Analysis of his vitreous
humor resulted in a positive finding for ethanol (88 milligrams per deciliter).
A standard conversion formula for the ethanol findings gives a result of .064 BAC for the
vitreous humor sample and .088 for the blood sample.
Medical Examiner’s photographs show: Subject 1’s clothing (including two shirts with
what appear to be blood and gunshot defects), two deformed copper jacketed bullets, overall
photographs of the front and rear of Subject 1’s body, and the wounds described in the
postmortem report, with the exception of the abrasion on the back of the left ring finger.
In a statement given at OPS, Officer C related basically the same account of the incident
as that which appears in police reports. She stated that Officer A received a phone call that the
person he was looking for in regard to an aggravated vehicular hijacking was in the vicinity of
100th and Wallace. Officer C rode to the location with Officer A and Officer B.
Upon arrival Officer C observed Subject 1 (whom she recognized from previous contact)
entering a vehicle. There was an individual whom Officer C later determined to be a female in
the front passenger. Officer A stopped the squad car “kind of” positioned in front of the vehicle
Subject 1 had entered. Officer C exited the squad car and approached the passenger side of the
other vehicle to act as guard officer watching the passenger.
Officer A went to the driver’s side of the other vehicle and Officer B went to the back of
the other vehicle. Officer C heard Officer A tell Subject 1 “at least four or five times” to show
his hands and not move. Officer A had his weapon pointed at the other vehicle. In her
peripheral vision Officer C observed motion inside the other vehicle on the driver’s side. She
then saw Subject 1 place a hand on the center console shifter.
Officer C attempted to open the front passenger door. The vehicle began to move in
reverse. Officer B said that he was hit by the vehicle and a shot rang out. After the first shot
Officer C then heard “two or three more.” Officer C did not know from where the shot emanated
at that time. She crouched and returned to the squad car because the other vehicle was still
traveling in reverse.

Page 10 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
INVESTIGATION (Continued):
Officer C drove the squad car in reverse following the other vehicle. When she reached
the corner of 100th and Wallace she observed that the other vehicle had stopped. She exited the
squad car again and took cover behind the driver’s door while drawing her weapon. After a
period of inactivity Officer A and Officer C approached the other vehicle. Officer C removed
the passenger and took control of her.
After the shooting, Officer C observed Subject 1 motionless in the driver’s seat of the
other vehicle. Officer B was sitting on a curb and complaining of pain in his leg. Officer C did
not observe a handgun in the other vehicle and could not recall observing a silver colored
compact disc player inside the other vehicle. She did not observe anyone recover a handgun
from Subject 1 at the scene of the shooting.
Efforts to obtain statements from Officer A and Officer B were unsuccessful. Attempts
were made to notify them through their unit and their places of residence. Subsequently both
officers resigned from the Department.

Page 11 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS:
The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of SUSTAINED for Allegation #1
against Officer A, that he was in possession of and discharged a semi-automatic pistol equipped
with a laser sight in violation of Department policy. The witness, Witness 1, described “a red dot
(like from a laser sight)”that appeared on Subject 1’s chest prior to the shooting. A
Supplemental Laboratory Report submitted by the ISP laboratory indicate that Officer A’s
weapon was equipped with a single laser sight that was examined and found to be in proper
operating condition as received.
The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of NOT SUSTAINED for Allegation
#2 against Officer A, that he shot Subject 1 without provocation or justification, resulting in his
death. Officer C and Witness 1 both established that Officer A announced his office and ordered
Subject 1 and Witness 1 to raise their hands. They also indicated that Officer A fired after
Subject 1’s vehicle began to move in reverse. Officer C related that Officer A fired after Officer
B stated that he had been hit. The ambulance run sheet indicates that minor swelling to Officer
B’s leg was noted.
During the Round Table Officer B stated that he fell onto the grass of the parkway on the
east side of Wallace very close to the street after he was struck by Subject 1’s vehicle. The
parkway was on the driver’s side of Subject 1’s vehicle. Additionally Officer B’s flashlight was
recovered from the parkway in the same area in which Officer B stated he fell. A supplementary
report indicates Officer B fell to the ground after being struck by Subject 1’s vehicle and then got
to the curb before being run over.
Officer A’s Round Table and supplementary report accounts indicate that he was on the
driver’s side of Subject 1’s vehicle placing him on the parkway on the east side of Wallace.
Subject 1’s vehicle began to move backwards and Officer B stated that he had been hit. Officer
A lost sight of Officer B and fired his weapon because he believed Officer B was being dragged
underneath Subject 1’s vehicle. The accounts place Officer B on the same side of the street on
the parkway after Officer B was struck by Subject 1’s vehicle.
The accounts of Officer B being on the parkway on the same side of the street as Officer
A after he was struck presents the question whether Officer A actually believed Officer B was
being dragged by Subject 1’s vehicle. Additionally five expended cartridge casings from Officer
A’s weapon were recovered from the general area in which he positioned himself at the start of
the incident. Two expended casings from his weapon were recovered from the area in which
Officer B’s flashlight was recovered. That location is near the rear of the initial position of
Subject 1’s vehicle.
Accused #1
Police Officer A
Allegation #1
Count 1 - Sustained – Violation of Rule 6, “Disobedience of an order or
directive, whether written or oral” in that on Sunday, 30 April 2006, at approximately 0138/0140
hours, at/in the vicinity of 10011 South Wallace, Officer A disobeyed General Order 92-03-02A,
III., E., in that he was in possession of and discharged a semi-automatic pistol equipped with a
laser sight in violation of Department policy.

Page 12 of 13

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
C.R. #314618; U #06-12
CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS (Continued):
Count 2 – Sustained – Violation of Rule 2, “Any action or conduct which
impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the
Department” in that on Sunday, 30 April 2006, at approximately 0138/0140 hours, at/in the
vicinity of 10011 South Wallace, Officer A engaged in actions which impeded the Department’s
efforts to achieve its policy and goals and brought discredit upon the Department in that he was
in possession of and discharged a semi-automatic pistol equipped with a laser sight in violation
of Department policy.
Allegation #2

Not Sustained

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS:
Allegation #3
Count 1 – Sustained – Violation of Rule 6, “Disobedience of an order or
directive, whether written or oral” in that subsequent to the shooting of Subject 1 on Sunday, 30
April 2006, at approximately 0138/0140 hours, at/in the vicinity of 10011 South Wallace, Officer
A violated General Order 93-03-02B; Section II; A,2 when he did not cooperate with the
investigation of allegations of misconduct against him.
Count 2 – Sustained - Violation of Rule 2, “Any action or conduct which
impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the
Department” in that subsequent to the shooting of Subject 1 on Sunday, 30 April 2006, at
approximately 0138/0140 hours, at/in the vicinity of 10011 South Wallace, Officer A did not
cooperate with the investigation of allegations of misconduct against him.

Accused #2
Officer B
Allegation #1
Count 1 – Sustained – Violation of Rule 6, “Disobedience of an order or
directive, whether written or oral” in that subsequent to the shooting of Subject 1 on Sunday, 30
April 2006, at approximately 0138/0140 hours, at/in the vicinity of 10011 South Wallace, Officer
B violated General Order 93-03-02B, II., A., 2, in that he did not cooperate with the investigation
of allegations of misconduct against Officer A.
Count 2 – Sustained - Violation of Rule 2, “Any action or conduct which
impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the
Department” in that subsequent to the shooting of Subject 1 on Sunday, 30 April 2006, at
approximately 0138/0140 hours, at/in the vicinity of 10011 South Wallace, Officer B did not
cooperate with the investigation of allegations of misconduct against Officer A.

Page 13 of 13