Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
SUBJECT:
OFFICER
INVOLVED:

U# 06-27

“Detective A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 40 years old;
Off-Duty; In civilian dress; Year of Appointment – 2000

OFFICER’S
INJURIES:

None reported

SUBJECT #1:

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 22 years old

SUBJECT #1
INJURIES:

Gunshot wound to the right center back

SUBJECT #2:

“Subject 2”; Male/Black; 18 years old

SUBJECT #2
INJURIES:

Gunshot wound to the right calf, fragment in rear shoulder

DATE/TIME
OF INCIDENT:

16 July 2006, 0323 hours

LOCATION:

7100 block of S. Champlain, in the alley
Beat 323

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
In the morning of 16 July 2006, Detective A went to J & J Fish at 75th and Martin
Luther King Jr. Drive and then went home. He drove into the alley to park on the
concrete pad behind his house. While backing into his parking spot, he observed an
unfamiliar green van drive southbound in the alley past him. The driver of the van looked
at him as he passed. As the van drove down the alley out of his sight, Detective A saw the
van’s brake lights reflect off nearby garages across the alley. Detective A then retrieved
his gun and food and began to exit his car. He saw two black males (now known to be
Subject 1 and Subject 2) run toward him from the direction of the brake lights. Subject 1
ran toward the driver’s side of Detective A’s car and Subject 2 ran towards the passenger
side. Both Subject 1 and Subject 2 had guns in their hands.
Detective A leaned back and kicked open his driver’s side door, pointed his
weapon at Subject 1, announced his office, and then hit Subject 1 with his car door.
Subject 1 fell to the ground. Subject 1 got up and he and Subject 2 turned and ran
southbound into the alley. Detective A followed them. When he got to the garage behind
71XX S. Champlain, Detective A saw Subject 1 on the east side of the alley near 71XX
S. Champlain and Subject 2 on the west side of the alley near 71XX St. Lawrence.
Detective A continued yelling commands at Subject 1 and Subject 2 who turned and
pointed their weapons at him. Detective A fired his weapon at Subject 1, who turned east
into a yard. Detective A then fired at Subject 2, who continued running southbound in the
alley. Detective A observed the green minivan at the south end of the alley make a left
turn onto 72nd Street going east. Detective A ran through his own yard to catch Subject 1
because he thought Subject 1 was heading east to Champlain. Detective A did not see
Subject 1 when he reached the front of his house, so he entered his residence, called 911
and waited for on-duty officers to arrive.
Responding officers found Subject 1 partially concealed under a vehicle behind
71XX S. Champlain, incoherent and suffering from a gunshot would to the side of his
back. Detective A identified Subject 1 as the individual who approached his driver’s side
door and later fled. A semi-automatic handgun was later found inside the front bumper of
the car under which Subject 1 was hiding. Further investigation revealed that Subject 2
had arrived at St. Bernard Hospital suffering from a gunshot wound to the right calf and a
bullet fragment to the back.

Page 2 of 8

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
INVESTIGATION:
Detective A 1 related to the Roundtable panel on 16 July 2006 that he went to J&J
Fish at 75th and King Drive and then drove home and parked in the alley behind his
house. While backing into his parking spot, Detective A observed a green van drive past
him. Detective A did not recognize the van. The van left Detective A’s line of sight, but
he saw the reflection of brake lights on the garage across the alley. Detective A picked up
his gun from the center console of his car and saw two black males (subjects Subject 1
and Subject 2), both carrying handguns, approaching him from the direction of the brake
lights. Subject 1 approached Detective A’s driver’s side door. Detective A announced his
office and hit Subject 1 with his car door, knocking him to the ground. Detective A
pointed his gun at Subject 1 and Subject 2. Subject 2 ran into the alley and Subject 1 got
up and followed. Detective A ran after them, announced his office, and ordered them to
stop. Subject 2 was on the west side of the alley and Subject 1 was on the east. Detective
A was standing in the middle of the alley behind 71XX S. Champlain when Subject 1,
who was closer to him, turned and pointed his gun at Detective A. Detective A fired his
weapon at Subject 1. Subject 2 looked at Subject 1 and then turned and pointed his gun at
Detective A. Detective A yelled at Subject 2 to drop his gun and fired his own weapon at
Subject 2. Subject 1 ran behind some bushes in the direction of Champlain and Subject 2
continued south in the alley heading for the green van, which turned east on 72nd Street.
Detective A ran through his own yard to Champlain but did not see Subject 1. Detective
A entered his residence, called 911 and waited for responding officers to arrive. Detective
A directed responding officers to the alley and provided descriptions of Subject 1 and
Subject 2. Subject 1 was located under a car and Detective A positively identified him as
the individual who ran up to his car.
Detective B related to the Roundtable panel on 16 July 2006 that he was at Christ
Hospital when Subject 1 was brought into the emergency room suffering from a gunshot
wound to the front torso. Subject 1 was unable to speak and never regained
consciousness. Subject 1 was pronounced dead at 0916 hours. (Attachment 3)
In an interview with the Office of Professional Standards (now known as the
Independent Police Review Authority, “IPRA”) on 16 July 2006, Subject 2 stated that on
16 July 2006, he and Subject 1 were riding around when they spotted a car with nice
rims. Subject 1 stated that he wanted to take the rims and that he had a gun. Subject 2 and
Subject 1 followed the car that eventually stopped in an alley. Subject 2 and Subject 1
approached the man driving the car (Detective A). Subject 1 had a gun in his hand at this
point. They got about two or three feet from Detective A when they saw Detective A had
a gun. Subject 2 and Subject 1 ran when they saw the gun. Subject 2 heard approximately
fifteen gunshots and he got hit once on his right leg. Subject 2 did not know what
happened to Subject 1. A friend brought Subject 2 to St. Bernard Hospital after he fled
the area. Subject 2 and Subject 1 were not aware that Detective A was a Police Officer
when they approached him. Subject 2 and Subject 1 did not say anything to Detective A
1

Detective A was a Police Officer at the time of the incident. He has since been promoted to a Detective.
He will be referred to as “Detective A” throughout this report to reflect his current title.

Page 3 of 8

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
when they approached, but Subject 2 assumed that Detective A saw Subject 1’s gun.
Subject 2 did not think Subject 1 fired the pistol. Detective A did not say anything to
them, he just fired his gun. (Attachment 17)
A canvass of the location of incident produced no additional witnesses. The
incident occurred in the alley where garages obstruct the view to the alley. (Attachment
38)
The related Department Reports, including the report of Assistant Deputy
Superintendent A, the General Offense Case Report, and the Tactical Response and
Officers Battery Reports submitted by Detective A, Subject 2’s Arrest Report and Case
Supplementary Reports provide an account of the incident that is consistent with the
Summary of Incident. (Attachments 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
The Case Supplementary Reports contained further information obtained from
Subject 2, who arrived at St. Bernard Hospital to be treated for his gunshot wound.
Subject 2 initially told detectives that he had been shot by an unknown individual who
tried to obtain cannabis from Subject 2. When the detectives told Subject 2 that Subject 1
was in custody and being treated at Christ Hospital, Subject 2 told them that “[Initials
Withheld]” (later revealed to be [Name Withheld]) picked up Subject 2 and Subject 1 on
15 July 2006 and the three spent the evening driving around and partying. When they
observed Detective A’s vehicle at J & J Fish, Subject 1 decided that he wanted to steal
the rims from the car. After following Detective A home, Subject 1 decided that he
wanted to take the car because it had a Hemi engine. Subject 1 decided that he and
Subject 2 would confront Detective A at gunpoint, take the car, and meet [Name
Withheld] later. They followed Detective A into the alley. Subject 1 and Subject 2 got out
of the van after [Name Withheld] drove out of Detective A’s sight. Subject 2 stated that
he did not have a gun but that Subject 1 had a semiautomatic handgun. They approached
Detective A, but they ran away because he was yelling and had a gun. Subject 2 heard
more yelling and gunshots and then felt a pain and ran out of the alley. Subject 2 saw
[Name Withheld]’s van on 72nd Street and got in the van. Subject 2 told [Name Withheld]
that the robbery went bad and that he needed to go to the hospital. At the time of the
interview, Subject 2 told detectives that he realized that Detective A was a police officer.
Detective A told the detectives essentially the same account of the incident that he told to
the Roundtable panel and to IPRA. Two circumstantial witnesses were interviewed by
detectives, neither of whom actually witnessed the shooting. Witness 1 (son of Detective
A) related that he was on his front porch when he heard multiple gunshots. He heard his
father yelling and saw him run through the gangway to the front yard. Witness 2 related
that he heard multiple gunshots. He then saw a black male (Subject 2) get into a van,
which drove south on Champlain. [Name Withheld] declined to give a statement to
detectives. Subject 1 was unable to provide a statement due to the extent of his injuries.
The Supplementary Reports also documented the search for and discovery of
Subject 1’s weapon. After the ambulance brought Subject 1 to the hospital for treatment,
numerous CPD members conducted a systematic search of the area where Subject 1 was
discovered. Canine units also participated in the search. Officer Cummings eventually

Page 4 of 8

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
discovered that the weapon was hidden in the bumper of the vehicle that Subject 1 had
been hiding underneath. (Attachments 56, 57)
The Evidence Technician (“ET”) Photographs and Videotape depict the
location of the incident and recovered evidence. The photographs include images of the
black gun that was recovered under the car near where Subject 1 was hiding.
(Attachments 43, 45)
ET Photographs taken of Subject 2 at St. Bernard Hospital depict a bandage on
his lower right leg. There is also a laceration on his back (described in medical records as
a gunshot wound) and scratches of unknown origin on his right shoulder. (Attachment
44)
The Major Crime Scene Report contains essentially the same account of the
incident as in the Summary of Incident above. The report also indicates that seven 2
cartridge cases were recovered from the alley. A blood-stained shirt was recovered near a
car parked in the alley behind 71XX S. Champlain. A sealed pellet envelope was
recovered from St. Bernard Hospital, where Subject 2 was treated. (Attachment 10)
The Chicago Fire Department ambulance report indicates that paramedics
found Subject 1 at 0427 hours at 71XX S. Champlain with abdominal trauma due to a
gunshot wound. Subject 1 was transported to Christ Hospital at 0442 hours and arrived at
0454 hours. (Attachment 39)
The Medical Examiner’s Report of Postmortem Examination indicates that
Assistant Medical Examiner A performed the examination on Subject 1 on 17 July 2006.
The examination revealed that Subject 1 died of a through-and-through gunshot wound to
the back. There was no evidence of close range firing on the wound. (Attachment 47)
Medical Examiner photographs taken during the postmortem examination
depict Subject 1 and his injuries. (Attachment 46)
Medical records from St. Bernard Hospital indicate that Subject 2 was treated for
gunshot wounds to the right leg and back. He was released to Chicago Police custody.
There is no indication of what explanation Subject 2 gave medical staff regarding his
injuries. (Attachment 40)
A report from the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services (“ISP”)
dated 28 July 2006 indicates that Detective A’s weapon, Beretta Model 92D 9mm semiautomatic pistol, was examined and found to be in firing condition and test fired. The ten
cartridge cases recovered from the scene were found to have been fired by Detective A’s
weapon. The Hi-Point Model JC 40 S & W semi-automatic pistol that was recovered near
Subject 1 was also examined and found to be in firing condition and test fired. A bullet
2

Inventory Lists, Evidence Technician photographs, and test results from the Illinois State Police Division
of Forensic Services indicate that three additional cartridge cases were recovered from the alley at a later
point for a total of ten cases. (Attachments 14, 42)

Page 5 of 8

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
fragment 3 was tested but was not found to have been fired from either recovered gun.
(Attachment 42)
ISP reports dated 11 April 2007 and 13 November 2008 indicate that nine latent
prints suitable for comparison were lifted from the recovered weapon, but they did not
match the samples from Subject 2 and [Name Withheld]. (Attachments 48, 55)
ISP reports dated 11 June 2007, 29 June 2007 and 30 November 2007 indicate
that the human male DNA profile obtained from swabs of the grips of the recovered
weapon came from Subject 1. There is no indication on any of these reports that blood
was recovered on the gun. (Attachments 49, 50, 51, 52)
The Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC)
recordings and related Event Queries provide information consistent with the
Summary of Incident. Telephone calls to “911” regarding the incident include Detective
A’s call reporting the shots fired and a call from St. Bernard Hospital to report a gunshot
victim. Detective A reported to OEMC that two men with guns tried to carjack him. He
provided descriptions of both individuals and the vehicle they used. Detective A reported
that he fired his weapon at the two men. A nurse from St. Bernard Hospital telephoned
OEMC to report that Subject 2 was at the hospital with a gunshot wound. Another officer
was at the hospital on an unrelated incident and also reported that a gunshot victim was
there. Additional units went to the hospital and made arrangements for Detective A to go
to the hospital to try to identify Subject 2. (Attachments 24-36)
In a statement with IPRA on 14 November 2008, Detective A provided an
account of the incident that is consistent with the Summary of Incident, the related
Department Reports, and the account he provided to the Roundtable Panel. Detective A
stated that on 16 July 2006, while off-duty, he went to J & J Fish on 75th and King Drive
at approximately 0001-0100 hours. Detective A stayed at the restaurant for approximately
35 minutes and then drove home. Detective A did not pay attention to the time and did
not know what time he arrived at home. Detective A drove north into the alley and
parked on the cement slab behind his house. As he got ready to go inside his house,
Detective A saw a green van drive past him heading south in the alley from 71st Street.
Detective A related that he knows most of the vehicles that belong to the people in his
area but he did not recognize the green van. Detective A had previously seen the green
van driving behind him while he was driving on St. Lawrence. Detective A recognized
the driver from a previous arrest. The van proceeded down the alley out of Detective A’s
line of sight, but Detective A could see the reflection of the van’s brakes on nearby
garages. Detective A collected his food and his gun, which was holstered and stuck
between the seat and center console, and started to get out of his vehicle.
Before he got out of the car, a black male (now known to be Subject 1) came
around the car toward the driver’s side. Subject 1 had one arm across the lower portion of
3

This is the item that was in the sealed envelope that was given to the Forensic Investigators at St. Bernard
Hospital.

Page 6 of 8

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
his face and held a black gun in his other hand, which he pointed at Detective A.
Detective A leaned back and partially closed his door. When Subject 1 got close to the
door, Detective A kicked it open. The door hit Subject 1 and knocked him to the ground.
Detective A repeatedly yelled that he was a police officer. Detective A searched for the
snap on his holster so he could remove his gun. As he did so, another black male (now
known to be Subject 2) approached the vehicle. Subject 2 had a silver gun in his hand,
which he pointed at Detective A. Detective A could hear the hammer of Subject 2’s gun
clicking. Detective A assumed that Subject 2 was attempting to shoot the gun but that the
gun was not working. Subject 1 got up from the ground. Detective A got out of his car
and was able to get the gun out of his holster. Detective A again stated that he was a
police officer. Subject 1 and Subject 2 ran into the alley. Detective A ran after them and
told them to stop.
As Detective A got to the middle of the alley, he saw Subject 1 on the east side of
the alley and Subject 2 on the west side. Subject 1 turned and pointed his gun at Detective
A. Detective A fired his gun in Subject 1’s direction. Subject 2 turned and pointed his
weapon at Detective A. Detective A then fired at Subject 2. Detective A believed that he
fired his weapon a total of ten times. Subject 1 continued running in the alley and turned
into an open area behind some overgrown bushes. Subject 2 continued running down the
alley and appeared to be hobbling. The van had disappeared down the alley. Detective A
thought he saw the van turn east. The last time Detective A saw Subject 2, he was
running in the van’s direction. He did not see Subject 2 get into the van. Detective A’s
attention was drawn to the area where Subject 1 had turned. Detective A ran to the front
of his house to see if Subject 1 ran into the street. There were people outside who had
heard the gunshots. Detective A asked them if they saw anyone run from the alley, but
they said no. Detective A ran back to his car, changed the clip in his gun, and looked in
the alley. He did not see anyone running in the alley. Detective A did not spend a long
time searching for Subject 1. He stated that he merely looked into the alley but did not
see him. Detective A then called “911” on his cell phone to report what happened.
Detective A sat on his porch and waited for the police to arrive. Detective A directed the
responding officers to the alley where the incident took place. He did not assist the
officers in searching the area. When officers found Subject 1 hiding under a parked car, a
detective called Detective A to the car. Detective A positively identified Subject 1 as one
of his assailants. Subject 1 was lying on his back at the time. He and Detective A did not
speak to each other during the identification. One of the officers later found Subject 1’s
gun stuck in the bumper of the car where he had been hiding. Detective A later identified
Subject 2 in a line-up at Area 2. He also identified the driver of the van in a photo array.
(Attachment 54)

Page 7 of 8

 Independent Police Review Authority
U# 06-27
CONCLUSION AND FINDING:
This investigation found that Detective A’s use of deadly force was 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 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.”

Detective A’s actions were in accordance with CPD’s deadly force policy.
Detective A reported that Subject 2 and Subject 1 both pointed guns at him when they
initially approached his vehicle. Detective A also reported that he repeatedly announced
his office throughout this incident, starting from when he opened his car door. Subject 2
admitted that he and Subject 1 approached Detective A’s car with the intention of
carjacking him at gunpoint, which is a forcible felony involving the threatened use of
physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Detective A further stated that
Subject 2 and Subject 1 both pointed their guns at him while they were running away
from him down the alley. It was only at that point that Detective A fired his own weapon
at them. Although Subject 2 denied that he had a gun and no recovered weapon was
linked to him, he was able to flee the scene and was discovered at St. Bernard Hospital
sometime later, offering an opportunity for him to get rid of the gun. DNA evidence
obtained from the weapon recovered under the parked car near Subject 1 linked it to
Subject 1. The preponderance of the evidence, including Subject 2’s admissions to OPS
and to the investigating detectives and the DNA evidence, supports the conclusion that
Detective A’s actions were in accordance with CPD’s deadly force policy.

Page 8 of 8