OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 27 October 2004 TO: Superintendent of Police FROM: Chief Administrator Of?ce of Professional Standards SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS AND DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATION Complaint Register Number 287850 Accused: P.O. George FERRO, Star #2917, Unit 008 PO. Peter KOPEC, Star #10813, Unit 008 PO. John CATANZARA, Star #3572, Unit 002 After investigation of matters registered under the above number, I make the following ?ndings and disciplinary recommendation: INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS: As to Of?cer FERRO, Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 8. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Other Violation: SUSTAIN ED. Violation of Rule 2. As to Of?cer KOPEC, Allegation NOT SUSTAINED. As to CATANZARA, Allegation #1 UNFOUNDED. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Other Violation: SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 2. DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATION: After review of the accused members? complimentary and disciplinary histories, I recommend that Police Of?cer George FERRO and Police Of?cer John CATANZARA both be sus ended for a period of ?ve (5) days each. Chief Administr tor Of?ce of Profess onal Standards /ra SUMMARY REPORT- SUBJECT: COMPLAINT REGISTER INVESTIGATION NO.: CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUSTAINED 287850 DATE OF REPORT (DAY-MO.-YEAR) 24 MARCH 2004 INSTRUCTIONS: SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 3 COPIES IF ASSIGNED TO SAME UNIT AS ACCUSED. SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 4 COPIES IF NOT ASSIGNED TO SAME UNIT AS ACCUSED. TO: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTENTION ADMINISTRATOR IN CHARGE. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ASSISTANT DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION FROM - NAME RANK STAR N0. SOCIAL SEC. NO EMPLOYEE No. UNIT ASSIGN. Erica D. Sanders INV 248 -- 113 REFERENCE NOS. (LIST ALL RELATED CR. 013.. IR. INVENTORY NOS. ETC., PERTINENT To THIS INVESTIGATION ADDRESS OF INCIDENT DATE OF INCIDENT - TIME BEAT OF INCIDENT LOCATION 5114 S. Knox (on the street outside of Cardinal Liquor 25 FEB 03, Approx 17 Store) 2120hrS NAME RANK STAR No. SOCIAL UNIT ASSIGN. 1 George Ferro PO 2917 008 2. Peter op 0 PO 10813 008 3_ John atanzara PO 3572 002 D. DATE OF APPOINTMENT DUTY STATUS (TIME OF INCIDENT) I SWORN ms. 1 23JUN80 [1 ON DUTY [x1 OFF DUTY CIVILIAN COND- coos 01 30NOV93 ON DUTY [1 OFF DUTY 1 SWORN a 2' I I CIVILIAN 01 03JAN95 ?on DUTY OFF DUTY 3. I CIVILIAN 03 I1FAPPLICABLE-DATE CHARGES COURT BRANCH DISPOSITION 8. DATE 2. 3 NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE 1+ng {2 PO John Catanzara, Unlt 002 1 CODE- 7} #3572 I . I D. . ca sanders' Unlt 113 OPS 312?745? #248 5 3605 NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE PHYS I- 5 PHYS. 01 a WW 6 8832 83 01 SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL ACCUSED. COMPLAINANTS, VICTIMS, WITNESSES. 1 FG ATIONS CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT-44.1123 (1/84) OR. NO. 287850 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER COMPLETING THE FORM, CONTINUE THE SUMMARY REPORT ON 8% 11 INCH WHITE PAPER. 1. ALLEGATIONS In narrative form, state how, when, where, and by whom the complaint was received. State the date, time, and location where the incident occurred, and summarized the complaint. IF more than one allegation is made, enumerate each allegation as follows: No. 1 (Summarize the allegation) No. 2 (Summarize the allegation) 2. EVIDENCE Number and attach all statements, reports, and other evidence gathered, on the lower right hand corner. The Complaint Register number must also be entered on the lower right hand corner of each attachment. Following re examples of attachments and the sequence in which they may be numbered (EXAMPLES ONLY). Attachments: No 1 Complaint Against Department Member No. 2 Letter of complaint from victim No. 3 Statement of victim No. 4 Statement of witness (give name) No. 5 Report of member (give name) No. 6 Statement of member (give name) No. 7 Progress report of investigator (give name) No. 8 Copy of certified letter to complainant No. 9 Copy of Alcoholic Influence Report accused) No. 10 General Offense Case Report, R. D. No. 11 Injury on Duty Report give name of injured) 3. INVESTIGATION In narrative form, indicate the fact-finding processes followed and the information ascertained as a result of the investigation. Whenever reference is made to an attachment, indicate the attachment number. 4. FINDINGS Each allegation must be classified as either of the following: Unfounded - Exonerated - Not Sustained - Sustained. IF the classification is ?Sustained,? indicate the rule number violated, the context of the rule, and how the rule was violated by the member. Example: Allegation No. 1, Unfounded Allegation No. 1. Sustained - Violation of Rule 12, Failure to wear the uniform as prescribed, in that on 27 Feb 84 the accused was found to be wearing a non-prescribed short sleeve shirt. Even though the original allegation(s) may be Unfounded, LOCATION 01 Food Sales/Restaurant 11 Public Transportation VehJFacility 02 Tavern/Liquor Store 12 Park District Property 03 Other Business Establishment 13 Airport 04 Police Building 14 Public Property - Other 05 Lockup Facility 15 Other Private Premise 06 Police Maintenance Facility 16 Expressway/Interstate System 07 CPD Automotive Pound Facility 17 Public Way - Other 08 Other Police Property 18 Waterway, Incl. Park District 09 Police Communications System 19 Private Residence 10 Court Room etc., the investigation may uncover a violation of serious nature unrelated to the original complain, in which case disciplinary action should be recommended for the violation. Example: Allegation No. 1 Unfounded Allegation No. 2, Not Sustained Other violation: Sustained - Violation of Rule 26, Failure to provide the Department with a current address and telephone number, in that the accused related in his statement that he had moved and obtained a new telephone number and he had failed to provide this information to the Department. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and RECORD OF PREVIOUS COMPLIMENTARY HISTORY IN SUSTAINED CASES ONLY, copies of the accused member?s Summary of Previous Disciplinary Actions and Record of Previous final investigation report. Refer to the General Order entitled ?Complain and disciplinary Procedures.? 5. RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION One (overall) recommendation for disciplinary action will be made by the investigator, The recommendation will be for a_H sustained findings; recommendations will not be made for each sustained allegation. Examples: 1. Violation noted, no disciplinary action warranted. 2. That the accused member be reprimanded. 3. That the accused member be suspended for Days not to exceed 30 days). 4. That the accused member be separated from the Department. 6. DATE INITIATED: (Date complaint was received for inves?ga?on) 7. DATE COMPLETED: (Date of this report) 8. ELAPSED TIME: (Total time, expressed in days) (Investigator) Rank Name Star NO. Unit 9. APPROVALS The investigator will initiate the Command Channel Review form (CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT-44.113) by completing the Investigator Section I.A.D. PHYSICAL CONDITION CODES 01 No Visible Injury - Apparently Normal 02 No Visible Injury - Under In?uence 03 Injured, Not Hospitalized 04 Injured, Not Hospitalized - Under Influence 05 Injured, Hospitalized 06 Injured. Hospitalized - Under In?uence 07 Injured, Refused Medical Aid 08 Injured, Refused Medical Aid - Under Influence 09 Deceased 10 Deceased - Under Influence OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 3 WITNESSES (continued): 3) WW, 17YOA, Cond Code 01 4) M?Arab-vz Cond Code 01 OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 4 ALLEGATIONS: On 25 FEB 03, at 2345 hours, Sgt. Carson Earnest, #1379, Unit 008, contacted the Of?ce of Professional Standards, Via Pax, and registered a complaint with Civ. Diane Stewart, Employee on behalf of the complainant, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002. Of?cer Catanzara alleged that on 25 FEB03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, the accused, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008: 1. engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with him; 2. engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with him; and 3. threatened to shoot him. The complainant, OPS Erica D. Sanders, #248, alleged that on the same date and time, at the same location, the accused, Officer Peter Kopec, #10813, Unit 008: 1. witnessed misconduct on the part of a Department member and failed to report it and that the accused, Officer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, while off-duty: 1. engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer George Ferro; 2. engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro; and 3. threatened to ?jam it? [Of?cer Ferro?s gun] up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass.? OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 5 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENTS: 1) Complaint Against Department Member Face Sheet, 1A) Con?ict Certi?cation 2) Report of Lt. Robert Cervenka, #275, Unit 008, Re: Simple Battery Involving On- Duty Police Of?cer 3) Report of Sgt. Carson Earnest, #1379, Unit 008, Re: Initiation Re ort 3A) Report of Sgt. Earnest, Re: Witness Statement, 3B) Report of Sgt. Earnest, Re: Witness Statement, 1 3C) Re ort of Sgt. Earnest, Re: Witness Statement, 4) Case Report, Simple Battery, 5) Supplementary Report, 6) Case Report, Arson by Fire, RD- 7) Crime Scene Processing Report 8) Evidence Property Inventory #10103126 9) Property Transmittal Report 10) US. Letter Mailed to Witness, 11) Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness 12) US. Letter Mailed to Witness? 13) Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 14) Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 15) US Letter Mailed to Witness, 16) Request for Evidence Technician Photos 17) Privileged and Con?dential Recorded Voice Transmissions Request 18) Report of OPS Erica D. Sanders, #248, Re: Request to Obtain Inventoried Video Tape 19) Receipt of Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 19A) US. Mail Certi?ed Receipt, Re: Letter Mailed to Witness, 20) Receipt of Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 20A) US. Mail Certi?ed Receipt, Re: Letter Mailed to Witness, 21) Receipt of Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 21A) US. Mail Certi?ed Receipt, Re: Letter Mailed to Witness, 22) Chicago Police Department Event Query 22A) Chicago Police Department Unit Query 23) Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Transcription of OECM Tape 24) OECM Tape 25) Request for Time Extension 26) Request for Time Extension 27) Request for Time Extension 28) Request for Time Extension 29) Request for Time Extension 30) Request for Time Extension OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 6 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENTS (continued): 31) 31) 32) 33) 34) Request for Time Extension Second Request for Evidence Technician Photos Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Re: Complainant, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002 Attendance Assignment Record, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Attendance Assignment Records, Re: Of?cer Catanzara 35-35A)Evidence Technician Photo, Re: Incident Card 36A-H) Evidence Technician Photo, Re: Of?cer Catanzara 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) 50) 51) 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) 59) 60) 61) 62) 62A) 63) 64) 65) Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Viewing of Video Tape Video Tape Statement of Of?cer Catanzara Attendance Assignment Record, Re: Accused, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, and Of?cer Peter Kopec, #10813, Unit 008 Report of OPS Inv. Krista Schwertfeger, #264, Re: Personal Visit to Residence of Witness, 1- - Re ort of Inv. Schwertfeger, Re: Personal Visit to Residence of Witness,- Report of Inv. Schwertfeger, Re: Canvass Report of Inv. Schwertfeger, Re: Personal Visit to Residence of Witness, 1-- Request for Time Extension Noti?cation of CR Investigation Update, Re: Accused, Of?cer Kopec Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Re: Of?cer Ferro Date for Taking a Formal Statement, Re: Of?cer Ferro Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Re: Of?cer Kopec Date for Taking a Formal Statement, Re: Of?cer Kopec Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Ferro Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Ferro Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Re: Of?cer erro Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Kopec Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Kopec Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Re: Of?cer KOpec Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Ferro Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Ferro Statement of Of?cer Ferro Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Kopec Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Kopec Statement of Of?cer Kopec Noti?cation of CR Investigation Update, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Re: Of?cer Catanzara OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 7 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENTS (continued): 66) 67) 68) 69) 70) 71) 72) 73) 74) 75) 76) 77) 78) 79) 80) 81) 82) 83) 83A) Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Statement of Of?cer Catanzara Request for Time Extension Request for Time Extension Request for Time Extension Request for Time Extension Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Outcome of Investigation Conducted by Intemal Affairs Division Regarding Accused, PO John Catanzara Working at Cardinal Liquor Store on 25 FEB 03 Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Obtain a Copy of the Closed Face Sheet Re: 880 Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Copy of Initial Face Sheet Complaint Against Department Member, Re: Con?dential Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Telephone Contact Made with by Possible Witness, 1 - - In-Person Statement of Witness, Investigator?s Case Log Investigator?s Case Log 1-- OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 8 INVESTIGATION: In a report dated 25 FEB 03, Lt. Robert Cervenka, #275, Unit 008, reported that on 25 FEB 03, at approximately 2240 hours, Sgt. Carson Earnest, #1379, Unit 008, informed him that he was assigned to investigate an allegation of a simple battery made by off-duty Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, against on-duty Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008. (Att. At the time of the incident, Of?cer Ferro was assigned to Beat 815, 3rd Watch, with Of?cer Peter Kopec, #10813. Lt. Cervenka interviewed Of?cer Catanzara. During the interview, Of?cer Catanzara alleged that Of?cer Ferro punched him once on the right side of the head and once on the left side of the neck, kicked him on the left thigh and threatened to ?blow his fucking brains out?. The alleged abuse occurred during an altercation at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store. Lt. Cervenka requested an Evidence Technician. Although he did not observe any injuries to Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara refused medical treatment and refused to sign a complaint against Of?cer Ferro. Lt. Cervenka also interviewed Of?cer Ferro; Of?cer Ferro admitted to engaging in a verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara outside the liquor store, but denied striking or kicking Of?cer Catanzara. The civilian witnesses Who were interviewed by Lt. Cervenka and Sgt. Earnest provided con?icting statements regarding the incident. A check of the area surrounding Cardinal Liquors revealed a surveillance camera mounted on the southeast wall of the building. It was uncertain if the camera was operable or captured any part of the incident. (Att. In an initiation report dated 26 FEB 03, Sgt. Earnest provided essentially the same information that was contained in the report of Lt. Cervenka. (Att. Sgt. Earnest additionally reported that he became aware of the situation after he responded to a request made by Of?cer Catanzara, via OEMC, for a su ervisor at 5114 S. Knox. Sgt. Earnest rovided the names of the three civilian witnesses: anti and he submitted separate reports regarding his interviews. (Att. In a report dated 26 MAR 03, Sgt. Earnest reported that he interviewed on 25 FEB 03. (Att. -described Of?cer Catanzara as being a friend. stated that he was seated in his vehicle, which was parked several car away from Of?cer Catanzara and Of?cer Ferro, when he observed Of?cer Catanzara and Of?cer Ferro speaking with one another outside of 5114 S. Knox. heard Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro yelling insults at each other during their verbal exchange. Among the insults,_heard Of?cer Catanzara refer to Of?cer Ferro as being a female sex organ and heard Of?cer Ferro threaten to blow Of?cer Catanzara?s brains out. -also observed Of?cer Ferro strike Of?cer Catanzara. (Att. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 9 INVESTIGATION (continued): In a report dated 26 MAR 03, Sgt. Earnest reported that he interviewed? (Att. _identi?ed himself as being an employee of Cardinal Liquors. stated that he was standing inside the front doorway of the store when he heard two men, whom he did not see, yelling at each other. When asked by Sgt. Earnest whether he knew either of the involved subjects stated that he knew Of?cer Catanzara because Of?cer Catanzara is ?at that location the store - at about the same time on a frequent basis?. (Att. During an in-person interview on 21 SEP 04 with the stated that he was working at the liquor store as a ?stock boy?. (Att. was about to throw out some garbage when he observed Of?cer Catanzara and an unknown uniformed of?cer (KNA Of?cer Ferro) standing directly outside the store, at the _knew Of?cer Catanzara because at the time of the incident, Of?cer Catanzara was working as store security as he had been throughout the previous year. stood inside the store, behind the entry door, and heard Of?cers Ferro and Catanzara directing profanity and insults at each other. observed Of?cer erro repeatedly push Of?cer Catanzara on the chest. According to Of?cer Catanzara?s only reaction to being pushed was that ?he [Of?cer Catanzara] just leaned back a little and that was about it.? Of?cer Ferro then walked back toward his marked squad car which was parked on the opposite side of the street, approximately 20 feet away. Of?cer Catanzara stood in the doorway of the store and within seconds, Of?cer Ferro confronted Of?cer Catanzara, removed his own hat from his head and threw it on the ground. Of?cer Ferro then struck Of?cer Catanzara once on the left side of the face with his ?st, returned to his squad car and left the scene with his partner, whom never exited the squad car. Of?cer Catanzara remained outside and talked on a cell phone. A sergeant [Sergeant Earnest] arrived thereafter and interviewed Of?cer Catanzara an_ observed bruising to Of?cer Catanzara?s cheek following the altercation, but never observed Of?cer Catanzara strike Of?cer Ferro. _did not know the reason for the altercation. (Att. In a report dated 26 MAR 03, Sgt. Earnest reported that he interviewed 1- - regarding the incident. (Att. identi?ed himself as being the victim of arson that was being handled by Of?cers Ferro and Kopec at the time of the incident. _was seated in the rear of the of?cers? squad car, en-route to his home, when Of?cer Ferro stopped at Cardinal Liquors and entered the same. Of?cer Ferro and another man who was younger and bigger than Of?cer Ferro (NKA Of?cer Catanzara) exited the store and began yelling at and simultaneously pointing ?ngers at each other. stated that he did not observe Of?cer Ferro or Of?cer Catanzara attempt to strike each other. (Att. Attempts to contact and interview- and?were made but met with negative results. (Att.#s10, ll, 14, 15, 41, 42, 77, 78). OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 10 INVESTIGATION (continued): A canvass of the area was conducted, but no witnesses were located. (Att. Evidence Technician photos depict what appears to be an abrasion to the right side of Of?cer Catanzara?s head and left leg and redness to his neck. (Att. Transcription from a cassette tape received from the Of?ce of Emergency Communications Center indicates that on 25 FEB 03, at 2152 hours, a request for a supervisor at 5114 S. Knox was made by Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara explained to the call taker, ?I?m an off duty PO minding my own business. He [Of?cer Ferro] came to challenge me about something, the next thing you know, he [Of?cer Ferro] punched me three times in the head.? Of?cer Catanzara identi?ed Of?cer Ferro by name and beat and explained that Of?cer Ferro?s actions were unprovoked. Beat 830 gt. Earnest] was given the assignment. The Simple Battery case report, HJ-205308, indicates that on 26 FEB 03, at 0030 hours, Sgt. Earnest responded to 5114 S. Knox regarding an incident that occurred on 25 FEB 03, at 2145 hours. (Att. Of?cer Catanzara informed Sgt. Earnest that during a verbal altercation, Of?cer Ferro struck him on the right side of the face and on the left side of the neck, kicked him on the left thigh and threatened to ?blow his brains out?. Of?cer Catanzara refused medical attention and refused to prosecute. and were listed as witnesses. (Att. The related Supplementary Report, indicates that a video surveillance tape was recovered from the liquor store and inventoried. (Att. A review of the video surveillance tape depicts the interior and exterior of Cardinal Liquors but does not depict the incident between Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro. (Att.#s 37 38). During a statement to OPS on 06 OCT 03, the accused, Of?cer John Catanzara, stated that on the date of the incident, at approximately 2150 hours, he was off duty and was working security at Cardinal Liquors. (Att. A store employee named? inforrned him that earlier during the day, at 1400, 1600 and 1900 hours, respectively, Of?cer Ferro had repeatedly come to the store looking for him. Of?cer Catanzara stated that Of?cer Ferro returned to the liquor store during his shift. Of?cer Ferro entered the premises and asked Of?cer Catanzara if he could talk to him. Of?cer Catanzara agreed and the two exited the store. Of?cer Catanzara ?knew of Of?cer Ferro? but did ?not have a friendly relationship? with him. After exiting the store, Of?cer Ferro stated to Of?cer Catanzara, ?What did you say about my mom,? regarding a statement that Of?cer Catanzara made about Of?cer Ferro needing to teach his mother how to read menu prices. Of?cer Catanzara apologized for making the comment. Of?cer Ferro yelled at Of?cer Catanzara. When Of?cer Catanzara yelled at Of?cer OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 11 INVESTIGATION (continued): Ferro, Of?cer Ferro drew one of his hands back as if he was about to strike Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara asked Of?cer Ferro if he was about to hit him. Of?cer Ferro responded by stating to Of?cer Catanzara, ?You?re a big guy, come on go ahead. You hit me.? Of?cer Catanzara informed Of?cer Ferro that he had repeatedly come to the liquor store looking for him and that he [Of?cer Catanzara] ?was not stupid enough to hit a cop in uniform.? Of?cer Ferro repeatedly stated to Of?cer Catanzara ?fuck you?, in the middle of their conversation, Of?cer Ferro ?just swung at me [Of?cer Catanzara] with his right hand.? Of?cer Ferro struck Of?cer Catanzara on the right temple and ?then swung a right hand and struck me [Of?cer Catanzara] on the left side of my neck. He threw another right hand that I blocked. Then he threw a kick with his right foot and hit me in the left thigh which he left the imprint of the sole of his boot on my leg.? Of?cer Catanzara stated that following the kick, he [Of?cer Catanzara] ?raised up like I was going to swing back at him [Of?cer Ferro]. He [Of?cer Ferro] then took a step back and grabbed his gun which was in a holster on his side.? Of?cer Catanzara looked over Of?cer Ferro?s shoulder and observed that Ferro?s partner (NKA Of?cer Kopec) was seated in the passenger seat of the marked squad car. The squad car was parked in the middle of Knox Street, approximately 25 feet from Of?cer Ferro and Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara then told Of?cer Ferro that ?if his [Of?cer Ferro?s] gun came out, I [Of?cer Catanzara] was going to amb it up his [Of?cer Catanzara?s] ass.? Of?cer Catanzara told Of?cer Kopec, ?Get him [Of?cer Ferro] out of here before he gets himself in trouble.? Of?cer Catanzara stated that the incident occurred one foot outside the entry door of the liquor store, out of View of the store?s surveillance camera. Of?cer Ferro stated that a stock guy named-was standing in the immediate area during the incident, just inside the door of the liquor store, and was ?looking out?. Of?cer Ferro stated that he sustained a bruised thigh and has had sporadic headaches and back pain as a result of Of?cer Ferro?s contact with him. According to Of?cer Catanzara, that the only physical contact that he had with Of?cer Ferro was that of extending his arms outward in effort to block a punch from Of?cer Ferro. Of?cer Catanzara stated that an investigation was being conducted by the Internal Affairs Division regarding his employment at the liquor store, but he has not received a ?nal determination. (Att. During an in?person interview on 20 SEP 04 with the IUI_related that he did not witness the alleged incident. (Att. himself a an. described Of?cer Catanzara as being ?a good friend?. stated that Of?cer Catanzara has never worked at the liquor store. (Att. During a statement to OPS on 13 NOV 03, the accused, Of?cer George Ferro, denied the allegations. (Att. Of?cer Ferro stated that on the date and time of the incident, he and his OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 12 INVESTIGATION (continued): partner, Of?cer Peter Kopec, were transporting an arson victi_ home. Of?cer Ferro, who was driving, stopped at Cardinal Liquors when he was Of?cer Catanzara standing alone outside. Of?cer Ferro described Of?cer Catanzara as being a ?casual acquaintance from when [Of?cer Catanzara] used to work at the 008th District Station.? Of?cer Ferro acknowledged that earlier during his tour, he stopped at the liquor store ?a few times? in search of Of?cer Catanzara because he was told that Of?cer Catanzara wanted to talk to him. Of?cer Ferro parked the squad car approximately 40 yards away from the liquor store and greeted Of?cer Catanzara by extending his hand to shake with Of?cer Catanzara and by stating, Of?cer Kopec and?remained seated in the squad car. Of?cer Catanzara failed to return the greeting. Of?cer Ferro asked Of?cer Catanzara what was wrong. Of?cer Catanzara responded by stating that ?my [Of?cer Ferro?s] parents did not know what the fuck they were talking about? regarding menu prices at a neighborhood restaurant owned by Of?cer Catanzara?s friend and by threatening to ?kick my [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass up and down the parking lot.? Of?cer Ferro informed Of?cer Catanzara that he did not want any con?ict, returned to his squad car and drove away. Of?cer Catanzara followed Of?cer Ferro as Ferro was returning to the squad car. Of?cer Catanzara yelled profanities and threatened to have Of?cer Kopec ?red. Of?cer Ferro stated that he never directed profanity at; made derogatory remarks toward; swung at or attempted to strike Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Ferro stated that there was never any physical contact between him and Of?cer Catanzara during the incident and that the only threat made was that of Of?cer Catanzara threatening to kick his ?ass? up and down the parking lot. (Att. During a statement to OPS on 14 NOV 03, the accused, Of?cer Peter Kopec, denied the allegation against him. (Att. Of?cer Kopec stated that after Of?cer Ferro exited the squad car and walked toward Cardinal Liquors, he remained seated in the squad car with- and continued to write the report regarding the arson of- vehicle. Of?cer Ferro retumed to the squad car approximately two minutes later. Of?cer Catanzara, who appeared to be unhappy, approached the squad car holding a cell phone and stated ?something to me [Of?cer Kopec] about going to jail?. Of?cer Kopec asked Of?cer Catanzara ?for what and he [Of?cer Catanzara] did not reply?. Of?cer Kopec was familiar with Of?cer Catanzara as a result of ?seeing him around on our beat.? Of?cer Kopec stated that he never heard any conversation or observed any physical contact between Of?cers erro and Catanzara and that Of?cer Ferro never informed him of any incident involving Of?cer Catanzara. (Att. During a statement to OPS on 20 NOV 03, Of?cer Catanzara admitted that he threatened to ?jamb it [Of?cer Ferro?s] gun up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass?. (Att. Of?cer Catanzara OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 13 INVESTIGATION (continued): provided the reasoning for his actions as being because Of?cer Ferro ?had already struck me several times with a ?st and kicked me and he was attempting to grab his gun.? Of?cer Catanzara denied engaging an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Ferro stating, ?He [Of?cer Ferro] is the person who engaged me.? Of?cer Catanzara denied engaging in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Ferro stating, stood there and was beaten by Of?cer Ferro.? Of?cer Catanzara described the incident as, ?Of?cer Ferro was an on-duty of?cer asking me to come outside the store and I simply complied with his request.? (Att. During a telephone conversation with the on 18 AUG 04, Department Advocate Dan Mahoney informed the RH that the investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Division regarding Of?cer Catanzara?s employment at Cardinal Liquors was ?Sustained?; that a ?six day suspension? was recommended; and that a Complaint Register Panel hearing was currently being scheduled. (Att. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 14 CONCLUSION: The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAINED for Allegation #1 that Of?cer Ferro engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Catanzara. In his statement to OPS, Of?cer Ferro admitted stopping by the liquor store, while he was on duty, in search of Of?cer Catanzara ?a few times? prior to the incident. Witness_ informed Sgt. Earnest that he observed Of?cer Ferro strike Of?cer Catanzara during the incident. Witness- inforrned the that he observed Of?cer Ferro repeatedly push Of?cer Catanzara on the chest and strike Of?cer Catanzara once on the face with his ?st. Complainant, Of?cer Catanzara, informed the ?911? call taker; the responding police of?cers; Sgt. Earnest; Lt. Cervenka and that IUI that Of?cer Ferro had struck him. Contemporaneous Evidence Technician photos depict an abrasion about the right side of Of?cer Catanzara?s head and left thigh and redness about his left leg. The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAINED for Allegation #2 that Of?cer Ferro engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara for the same reasons as mentioned above regarding the allegation that Of?cer Ferro engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Catanzara. In addition, Of?cer Ferro informed Lt. Cervenka that he engaged in a verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara. Witnesses 1 - - and each informed Sgt. Earnest that they heard Of?cers erro and Catanzara shouting insults at each other. Witness_ informed the IUI that he additionally heard Of?cer Ferro directing profanity at Of?cer Catanzara. The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAINED for allegation 3-- that Of?cer Ferro threatened to shoot Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara was consistent in his account regarding this allegation to the ?911? call taker; to the responding police of?cers; to Sgt. Earnest; and to Lt. Cervenka. In addition, witness- speci?cally stated that he heard Of?cer Ferro make the threatening remark to Of?cer Catanzara that he was going to ?blow his brains ?9 out . The recommends a ?nding of NOT SUSTAINED for allegation #1 that Of?cer Kopec witnessed misconduct on the part of a Department member and failed to report it. There is insuf?cient evidence to prove or disprove whether Of?cer Kopec actually witnessed any police misconduct. Of?cer Kopec stated that after Of?cer erro exited the squad car and approached the liquor store, he remained seated in the squad car wit_ and completed the general offense case report regarding the arson of vehicle. Of?cer Kopec stated that he did not hear any conversation or observe any physical contact between Of?cers Ferro and Catanzara nor did Of?cer Ferro ever inform him of any incident involving Of?cer Catanzara. In addition, Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro each stated that during the altercation Of?cer Kopec was seated in the squad car, which was parked a short distance away on the same block. The 1V1 recommends a ?nding of UN FOUNDED for allegation #1 that Of?cer Catanzara engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Ferro. Of?cer Catanzara denied the allegation. Of?cer Ferro stated that at no time did Of?cer Catanzara strike him OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 15 CONCLUSION (continued): during the incident. There was no indication in the reports of Sgt. Earnest that witnesses --andobserved Of?cer Catanzara strike Of?cer Ferro. Witness- inforrned the that he did not observe Of?cer Catanzara strike Of?cer Ferro. In addition, the evidence indicates that it was Of?cer Ferro who engaged Of?cer Catanzara in the altercation; Of?cer Ferro, by his own admission, went to the liquor store looking for Of?cer Catanzara. The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAIN ED for allegation #2 that Of?cer Catanzara engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Ferro. Witnesses 1 - - and- each stated that they heard Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro shouting insults at each other during the incident. Witness_ stated that he heard Of?cer Catanzara refer to Of?cer Ferro as a female sex organ. Witness_ stated that he heard Of?cer Catanzara direct profanity at Of?cer Ferro. The IUI recommends a ?nding of SUSTAIN ED for allegation #3 that Of?cer Catanzara threatened to ?j am it [Of?cer Ferro?s gun] up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass?. Of?cer Catanzara admitted that he made such a comment to Of?cer Ferro during in his statement at the Of?ce of Professional Standards. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 18 FINDINGS (continued): ACCUSED: OFFICER JOHN CATANZARA, #3572, UNIT 002 Allegation #1 UNFOUNDED Allegation #2 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while off duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro in that he shouted insults at Of?cer Ferro. Allegation #3 SUSTAINED. ?Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while off duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro in that he threatened to ?jam it [Of?cer Ferro?s gun] up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass.? Other Violations: Date Initiated: OPS Supv. Maria Elena Olvera, #124 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 2, ?Any action or conduct which impedes the Department?s effort to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,? in that on 25 FEB 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, while off duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, by his overall conduct/actions, did bring discredit upon the Department when he engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro in the public way. 25 FEB 03 OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 17 FINDINGS (continued): ACCUSED: OFFICER PETER KOPEC, #10813, UNIT 008 Allegation #1 NOT SUSTAINED OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 16 FINDINGS: ACCUSED: OFFICER GEORGE FERRO, #2917, UNIT 008 Allegation #1 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 8, ?Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did maltreat Of?cer Catanzara in that he struck Of?cer Catanzara about the head and neck and kicked him on the left leg. Allegation #2 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara in that he shouted insults at Of?cer Catanzara. Allegation #3 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara in that he threatened to shoot Of?cer Catanzara. Other Violations: SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 2, ?Any action or conduct which impedes the Department?s effort to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,? in that on 25 FEB 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, in public View and while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did bring discredit upon the Department by his overall conduct/actions during a physical and verbal altercation with Of?cer John Catanzara. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 27 October 2004 TO: Superintendent of Police FROM: Chief Administrator Of?ce of Professional Standards SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS AND DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATION Complaint Register Number 287850 Accused: P.O. George FERRO, Star #2917, Unit 008 PO. Peter KOPEC, Star #10813, Unit 008 PO. John CATANZARA, Star #3572, Unit 002 After investigation of matters registered under the above number, I make the following ?ndings and disciplinary recommendation: INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS: As to Of?cer FERRO, Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 8. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Other Violation: SUSTAIN ED. Violation of Rule 2. As to Of?cer KOPEC, Allegation NOT SUSTAINED. As to CATANZARA, Allegation #1 UNFOUNDED. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Allegation SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9. Other Violation: SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 2. DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATION: After review of the accused members? complimentary and disciplinary histories, I recommend that Police Of?cer George FERRO and Police Of?cer John CATANZARA both be sus ended for a period of ?ve (5) days each. Chief Administr tor Of?ce of Profess onal Standards /ra SUMMARY REPORT- SUBJECT: COMPLAINT REGISTER INVESTIGATION NO.: CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUSTAINED 287850 DATE OF REPORT (DAY-MO.-YEAR) 24 MARCH 2004 INSTRUCTIONS: SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 3 COPIES IF ASSIGNED TO SAME UNIT AS ACCUSED. SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 4 COPIES IF NOT ASSIGNED TO SAME UNIT AS ACCUSED. TO: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTENTION ADMINISTRATOR IN CHARGE. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ASSISTANT DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION FROM - NAME RANK STAR N0. SOCIAL SEC. NO EMPLOYEE No. UNIT ASSIGN. Erica D. Sanders INV 248 -- 113 REFERENCE NOS. (LIST ALL RELATED CR. 013.. IR. INVENTORY NOS. ETC., PERTINENT To THIS INVESTIGATION ADDRESS OF INCIDENT DATE OF INCIDENT - TIME BEAT OF INCIDENT LOCATION 5114 S. Knox (on the street outside of Cardinal Liquor 25 FEB 03, Approx 17 Store) 2120hrS NAME RANK STAR No. SOCIAL UNIT ASSIGN. 1 George Ferro PO 2917 008 2. Peter op 0 PO 10813 008 3_ John atanzara PO 3572 002 D. DATE OF APPOINTMENT DUTY STATUS (TIME OF INCIDENT) I SWORN ms. 1 23JUN80 [1 ON DUTY [x1 OFF DUTY CIVILIAN COND- coos 01 30NOV93 ON DUTY [1 OFF DUTY 1 SWORN a 2' I I CIVILIAN 01 03JAN95 ?on DUTY OFF DUTY 3. I CIVILIAN 03 I1FAPPLICABLE-DATE CHARGES COURT BRANCH DISPOSITION 8. DATE 2. 3 NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE 1+ng {2 PO John Catanzara, Unlt 002 1 CODE- 7} #3572 I . I D. . ca sanders' Unlt 113 OPS 312?745? #248 5 3605 NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE PHYS I- 5 PHYS. 01 a WW 6 8832 83 01 SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL ACCUSED. COMPLAINANTS, VICTIMS, WITNESSES. 1 FG ATIONS CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT-44.1123 (1/84) OR. NO. 287850 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER COMPLETING THE FORM, CONTINUE THE SUMMARY REPORT ON 8% 11 INCH WHITE PAPER. 1. ALLEGATIONS In narrative form, state how, when, where, and by whom the complaint was received. State the date, time, and location where the incident occurred, and summarized the complaint. IF more than one allegation is made, enumerate each allegation as follows: No. 1 (Summarize the allegation) No. 2 (Summarize the allegation) 2. EVIDENCE Number and attach all statements, reports, and other evidence gathered, on the lower right hand corner. The Complaint Register number must also be entered on the lower right hand corner of each attachment. Following re examples of attachments and the sequence in which they may be numbered (EXAMPLES ONLY). Attachments: No 1 Complaint Against Department Member No. 2 Letter of complaint from victim No. 3 Statement of victim No. 4 Statement of witness (give name) No. 5 Report of member (give name) No. 6 Statement of member (give name) No. 7 Progress report of investigator (give name) No. 8 Copy of certified letter to complainant No. 9 Copy of Alcoholic Influence Report accused) No. 10 General Offense Case Report, R. D. No. 11 Injury on Duty Report give name of injured) 3. INVESTIGATION In narrative form, indicate the fact-finding processes followed and the information ascertained as a result of the investigation. Whenever reference is made to an attachment, indicate the attachment number. 4. FINDINGS Each allegation must be classified as either of the following: Unfounded - Exonerated - Not Sustained - Sustained. IF the classification is ?Sustained,? indicate the rule number violated, the context of the rule, and how the rule was violated by the member. Example: Allegation No. 1, Unfounded Allegation No. 1. Sustained - Violation of Rule 12, Failure to wear the uniform as prescribed, in that on 27 Feb 84 the accused was found to be wearing a non-prescribed short sleeve shirt. Even though the original allegation(s) may be Unfounded, LOCATION 01 Food Sales/Restaurant 11 Public Transportation VehJFacility 02 Tavern/Liquor Store 12 Park District Property 03 Other Business Establishment 13 Airport 04 Police Building 14 Public Property - Other 05 Lockup Facility 15 Other Private Premise 06 Police Maintenance Facility 16 Expressway/Interstate System 07 CPD Automotive Pound Facility 17 Public Way - Other 08 Other Police Property 18 Waterway, Incl. Park District 09 Police Communications System 19 Private Residence 10 Court Room etc., the investigation may uncover a violation of serious nature unrelated to the original complain, in which case disciplinary action should be recommended for the violation. Example: Allegation No. 1 Unfounded Allegation No. 2, Not Sustained Other violation: Sustained - Violation of Rule 26, Failure to provide the Department with a current address and telephone number, in that the accused related in his statement that he had moved and obtained a new telephone number and he had failed to provide this information to the Department. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and RECORD OF PREVIOUS COMPLIMENTARY HISTORY IN SUSTAINED CASES ONLY, copies of the accused member?s Summary of Previous Disciplinary Actions and Record of Previous final investigation report. Refer to the General Order entitled ?Complain and disciplinary Procedures.? 5. RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION One (overall) recommendation for disciplinary action will be made by the investigator, The recommendation will be for a_H sustained findings; recommendations will not be made for each sustained allegation. Examples: 1. Violation noted, no disciplinary action warranted. 2. That the accused member be reprimanded. 3. That the accused member be suspended for Days not to exceed 30 days). 4. That the accused member be separated from the Department. 6. DATE INITIATED: (Date complaint was received for inves?ga?on) 7. DATE COMPLETED: (Date of this report) 8. ELAPSED TIME: (Total time, expressed in days) (Investigator) Rank Name Star NO. Unit 9. APPROVALS The investigator will initiate the Command Channel Review form (CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT-44.113) by completing the Investigator Section I.A.D. PHYSICAL CONDITION CODES 01 No Visible Injury - Apparently Normal 02 No Visible Injury - Under In?uence 03 Injured, Not Hospitalized 04 Injured, Not Hospitalized - Under Influence 05 Injured, Hospitalized 06 Injured. Hospitalized - Under In?uence 07 Injured, Refused Medical Aid 08 Injured, Refused Medical Aid - Under Influence 09 Deceased 10 Deceased - Under Influence OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 3 WITNESSES (continued): 3) WW, 17YOA, Cond Code 01 4) M?Arab-vz Cond Code 01 OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 4 ALLEGATIONS: On 25 FEB 03, at 2345 hours, Sgt. Carson Earnest, #1379, Unit 008, contacted the Of?ce of Professional Standards, Via Pax, and registered a complaint with Civ. Diane Stewart, Employee on behalf of the complainant, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002. Of?cer Catanzara alleged that on 25 FEB03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, the accused, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008: 1. engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with him; 2. engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with him; and 3. threatened to shoot him. The complainant, OPS Erica D. Sanders, #248, alleged that on the same date and time, at the same location, the accused, Officer Peter Kopec, #10813, Unit 008: 1. witnessed misconduct on the part of a Department member and failed to report it and that the accused, Officer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, while off-duty: 1. engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer George Ferro; 2. engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro; and 3. threatened to ?jam it? [Of?cer Ferro?s gun] up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass.? OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 5 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENTS: 1) Complaint Against Department Member Face Sheet, 1A) Con?ict Certi?cation 2) Report of Lt. Robert Cervenka, #275, Unit 008, Re: Simple Battery Involving On- Duty Police Of?cer 3) Report of Sgt. Carson Earnest, #1379, Unit 008, Re: Initiation Re ort 3A) Report of Sgt. Earnest, Re: Witness Statement, 3B) Report of Sgt. Earnest, Re: Witness Statement, 1 3C) Re ort of Sgt. Earnest, Re: Witness Statement, 4) Case Report, Simple Battery, 5) Supplementary Report, 6) Case Report, Arson by Fire, RD- 7) Crime Scene Processing Report 8) Evidence Property Inventory #10103126 9) Property Transmittal Report 10) US. Letter Mailed to Witness, 11) Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness 12) US. Letter Mailed to Witness? 13) Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 14) Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 15) US Letter Mailed to Witness, 16) Request for Evidence Technician Photos 17) Privileged and Con?dential Recorded Voice Transmissions Request 18) Report of OPS Erica D. Sanders, #248, Re: Request to Obtain Inventoried Video Tape 19) Receipt of Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 19A) US. Mail Certi?ed Receipt, Re: Letter Mailed to Witness, 20) Receipt of Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 20A) US. Mail Certi?ed Receipt, Re: Letter Mailed to Witness, 21) Receipt of Certi?ed Letter Mailed to Witness, 21A) US. Mail Certi?ed Receipt, Re: Letter Mailed to Witness, 22) Chicago Police Department Event Query 22A) Chicago Police Department Unit Query 23) Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Transcription of OECM Tape 24) OECM Tape 25) Request for Time Extension 26) Request for Time Extension 27) Request for Time Extension 28) Request for Time Extension 29) Request for Time Extension 30) Request for Time Extension OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 6 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENTS (continued): 31) 31) 32) 33) 34) Request for Time Extension Second Request for Evidence Technician Photos Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Re: Complainant, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002 Attendance Assignment Record, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Attendance Assignment Records, Re: Of?cer Catanzara 35-35A)Evidence Technician Photo, Re: Incident Card 36A-H) Evidence Technician Photo, Re: Of?cer Catanzara 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) 50) 51) 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) 59) 60) 61) 62) 62A) 63) 64) 65) Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Viewing of Video Tape Video Tape Statement of Of?cer Catanzara Attendance Assignment Record, Re: Accused, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, and Of?cer Peter Kopec, #10813, Unit 008 Report of OPS Inv. Krista Schwertfeger, #264, Re: Personal Visit to Residence of Witness, 1- - Re ort of Inv. Schwertfeger, Re: Personal Visit to Residence of Witness,- Report of Inv. Schwertfeger, Re: Canvass Report of Inv. Schwertfeger, Re: Personal Visit to Residence of Witness, 1-- Request for Time Extension Noti?cation of CR Investigation Update, Re: Accused, Of?cer Kopec Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Re: Of?cer Ferro Date for Taking a Formal Statement, Re: Of?cer Ferro Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Re: Of?cer Kopec Date for Taking a Formal Statement, Re: Of?cer Kopec Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Ferro Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Ferro Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Re: Of?cer erro Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Kopec Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Kopec Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Re: Of?cer KOpec Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Ferro Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Ferro Statement of Of?cer Ferro Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Kopec Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Kopec Statement of Of?cer Kopec Noti?cation of CR Investigation Update, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Re: Of?cer Catanzara OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 7 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENTS (continued): 66) 67) 68) 69) 70) 71) 72) 73) 74) 75) 76) 77) 78) 79) 80) 81) 82) 83) 83A) Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights, Re: Of?cer Catanzara Statement of Of?cer Catanzara Request for Time Extension Request for Time Extension Request for Time Extension Request for Time Extension Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Outcome of Investigation Conducted by Intemal Affairs Division Regarding Accused, PO John Catanzara Working at Cardinal Liquor Store on 25 FEB 03 Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Obtain a Copy of the Closed Face Sheet Re: 880 Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Copy of Initial Face Sheet Complaint Against Department Member, Re: Con?dential Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Attempt to Contact Witness Report of Inv. Sanders, Re: Telephone Contact Made with by Possible Witness, 1 - - In-Person Statement of Witness, Investigator?s Case Log Investigator?s Case Log 1-- OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 8 INVESTIGATION: In a report dated 25 FEB 03, Lt. Robert Cervenka, #275, Unit 008, reported that on 25 FEB 03, at approximately 2240 hours, Sgt. Carson Earnest, #1379, Unit 008, informed him that he was assigned to investigate an allegation of a simple battery made by off-duty Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, against on-duty Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008. (Att. At the time of the incident, Of?cer Ferro was assigned to Beat 815, 3rd Watch, with Of?cer Peter Kopec, #10813. Lt. Cervenka interviewed Of?cer Catanzara. During the interview, Of?cer Catanzara alleged that Of?cer Ferro punched him once on the right side of the head and once on the left side of the neck, kicked him on the left thigh and threatened to ?blow his fucking brains out?. The alleged abuse occurred during an altercation at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store. Lt. Cervenka requested an Evidence Technician. Although he did not observe any injuries to Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara refused medical treatment and refused to sign a complaint against Of?cer Ferro. Lt. Cervenka also interviewed Of?cer Ferro; Of?cer Ferro admitted to engaging in a verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara outside the liquor store, but denied striking or kicking Of?cer Catanzara. The civilian witnesses Who were interviewed by Lt. Cervenka and Sgt. Earnest provided con?icting statements regarding the incident. A check of the area surrounding Cardinal Liquors revealed a surveillance camera mounted on the southeast wall of the building. It was uncertain if the camera was operable or captured any part of the incident. (Att. In an initiation report dated 26 FEB 03, Sgt. Earnest provided essentially the same information that was contained in the report of Lt. Cervenka. (Att. Sgt. Earnest additionally reported that he became aware of the situation after he responded to a request made by Of?cer Catanzara, via OEMC, for a su ervisor at 5114 S. Knox. Sgt. Earnest rovided the names of the three civilian witnesses: anti and he submitted separate reports regarding his interviews. (Att. In a report dated 26 MAR 03, Sgt. Earnest reported that he interviewed on 25 FEB 03. (Att. -described Of?cer Catanzara as being a friend. stated that he was seated in his vehicle, which was parked several car away from Of?cer Catanzara and Of?cer Ferro, when he observed Of?cer Catanzara and Of?cer Ferro speaking with one another outside of 5114 S. Knox. heard Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro yelling insults at each other during their verbal exchange. Among the insults,_heard Of?cer Catanzara refer to Of?cer Ferro as being a female sex organ and heard Of?cer Ferro threaten to blow Of?cer Catanzara?s brains out. -also observed Of?cer Ferro strike Of?cer Catanzara. (Att. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 9 INVESTIGATION (continued): In a report dated 26 MAR 03, Sgt. Earnest reported that he interviewed? (Att. _identi?ed himself as being an employee of Cardinal Liquors. stated that he was standing inside the front doorway of the store when he heard two men, whom he did not see, yelling at each other. When asked by Sgt. Earnest whether he knew either of the involved subjects stated that he knew Of?cer Catanzara because Of?cer Catanzara is ?at that location the store - at about the same time on a frequent basis?. (Att. During an in-person interview on 21 SEP 04 with the stated that he was working at the liquor store as a ?stock boy?. (Att. was about to throw out some garbage when he observed Of?cer Catanzara and an unknown uniformed of?cer (KNA Of?cer Ferro) standing directly outside the store, at the _knew Of?cer Catanzara because at the time of the incident, Of?cer Catanzara was working as store security as he had been throughout the previous year. stood inside the store, behind the entry door, and heard Of?cers Ferro and Catanzara directing profanity and insults at each other. observed Of?cer erro repeatedly push Of?cer Catanzara on the chest. According to Of?cer Catanzara?s only reaction to being pushed was that ?he [Of?cer Catanzara] just leaned back a little and that was about it.? Of?cer Ferro then walked back toward his marked squad car which was parked on the opposite side of the street, approximately 20 feet away. Of?cer Catanzara stood in the doorway of the store and within seconds, Of?cer Ferro confronted Of?cer Catanzara, removed his own hat from his head and threw it on the ground. Of?cer Ferro then struck Of?cer Catanzara once on the left side of the face with his ?st, returned to his squad car and left the scene with his partner, whom never exited the squad car. Of?cer Catanzara remained outside and talked on a cell phone. A sergeant [Sergeant Earnest] arrived thereafter and interviewed Of?cer Catanzara an_ observed bruising to Of?cer Catanzara?s cheek following the altercation, but never observed Of?cer Catanzara strike Of?cer Ferro. _did not know the reason for the altercation. (Att. In a report dated 26 MAR 03, Sgt. Earnest reported that he interviewed 1- - regarding the incident. (Att. identi?ed himself as being the victim of arson that was being handled by Of?cers Ferro and Kopec at the time of the incident. _was seated in the rear of the of?cers? squad car, en-route to his home, when Of?cer Ferro stopped at Cardinal Liquors and entered the same. Of?cer Ferro and another man who was younger and bigger than Of?cer Ferro (NKA Of?cer Catanzara) exited the store and began yelling at and simultaneously pointing ?ngers at each other. stated that he did not observe Of?cer Ferro or Of?cer Catanzara attempt to strike each other. (Att. Attempts to contact and interview- and?were made but met with negative results. (Att.#s10, ll, 14, 15, 41, 42, 77, 78). OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 10 INVESTIGATION (continued): A canvass of the area was conducted, but no witnesses were located. (Att. Evidence Technician photos depict what appears to be an abrasion to the right side of Of?cer Catanzara?s head and left leg and redness to his neck. (Att. Transcription from a cassette tape received from the Of?ce of Emergency Communications Center indicates that on 25 FEB 03, at 2152 hours, a request for a supervisor at 5114 S. Knox was made by Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara explained to the call taker, ?I?m an off duty PO minding my own business. He [Of?cer Ferro] came to challenge me about something, the next thing you know, he [Of?cer Ferro] punched me three times in the head.? Of?cer Catanzara identi?ed Of?cer Ferro by name and beat and explained that Of?cer Ferro?s actions were unprovoked. Beat 830 gt. Earnest] was given the assignment. The Simple Battery case report, HJ-205308, indicates that on 26 FEB 03, at 0030 hours, Sgt. Earnest responded to 5114 S. Knox regarding an incident that occurred on 25 FEB 03, at 2145 hours. (Att. Of?cer Catanzara informed Sgt. Earnest that during a verbal altercation, Of?cer Ferro struck him on the right side of the face and on the left side of the neck, kicked him on the left thigh and threatened to ?blow his brains out?. Of?cer Catanzara refused medical attention and refused to prosecute. and were listed as witnesses. (Att. The related Supplementary Report, indicates that a video surveillance tape was recovered from the liquor store and inventoried. (Att. A review of the video surveillance tape depicts the interior and exterior of Cardinal Liquors but does not depict the incident between Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro. (Att.#s 37 38). During a statement to OPS on 06 OCT 03, the accused, Of?cer John Catanzara, stated that on the date of the incident, at approximately 2150 hours, he was off duty and was working security at Cardinal Liquors. (Att. A store employee named? inforrned him that earlier during the day, at 1400, 1600 and 1900 hours, respectively, Of?cer Ferro had repeatedly come to the store looking for him. Of?cer Catanzara stated that Of?cer Ferro returned to the liquor store during his shift. Of?cer Ferro entered the premises and asked Of?cer Catanzara if he could talk to him. Of?cer Catanzara agreed and the two exited the store. Of?cer Catanzara ?knew of Of?cer Ferro? but did ?not have a friendly relationship? with him. After exiting the store, Of?cer Ferro stated to Of?cer Catanzara, ?What did you say about my mom,? regarding a statement that Of?cer Catanzara made about Of?cer Ferro needing to teach his mother how to read menu prices. Of?cer Catanzara apologized for making the comment. Of?cer Ferro yelled at Of?cer Catanzara. When Of?cer Catanzara yelled at Of?cer OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 11 INVESTIGATION (continued): Ferro, Of?cer Ferro drew one of his hands back as if he was about to strike Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara asked Of?cer Ferro if he was about to hit him. Of?cer Ferro responded by stating to Of?cer Catanzara, ?You?re a big guy, come on go ahead. You hit me.? Of?cer Catanzara informed Of?cer Ferro that he had repeatedly come to the liquor store looking for him and that he [Of?cer Catanzara] ?was not stupid enough to hit a cop in uniform.? Of?cer Ferro repeatedly stated to Of?cer Catanzara ?fuck you?, in the middle of their conversation, Of?cer Ferro ?just swung at me [Of?cer Catanzara] with his right hand.? Of?cer Ferro struck Of?cer Catanzara on the right temple and ?then swung a right hand and struck me [Of?cer Catanzara] on the left side of my neck. He threw another right hand that I blocked. Then he threw a kick with his right foot and hit me in the left thigh which he left the imprint of the sole of his boot on my leg.? Of?cer Catanzara stated that following the kick, he [Of?cer Catanzara] ?raised up like I was going to swing back at him [Of?cer Ferro]. He [Of?cer Ferro] then took a step back and grabbed his gun which was in a holster on his side.? Of?cer Catanzara looked over Of?cer Ferro?s shoulder and observed that Ferro?s partner (NKA Of?cer Kopec) was seated in the passenger seat of the marked squad car. The squad car was parked in the middle of Knox Street, approximately 25 feet from Of?cer Ferro and Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara then told Of?cer Ferro that ?if his [Of?cer Ferro?s] gun came out, I [Of?cer Catanzara] was going to amb it up his [Of?cer Catanzara?s] ass.? Of?cer Catanzara told Of?cer Kopec, ?Get him [Of?cer Ferro] out of here before he gets himself in trouble.? Of?cer Catanzara stated that the incident occurred one foot outside the entry door of the liquor store, out of View of the store?s surveillance camera. Of?cer Ferro stated that a stock guy named-was standing in the immediate area during the incident, just inside the door of the liquor store, and was ?looking out?. Of?cer Ferro stated that he sustained a bruised thigh and has had sporadic headaches and back pain as a result of Of?cer Ferro?s contact with him. According to Of?cer Catanzara, that the only physical contact that he had with Of?cer Ferro was that of extending his arms outward in effort to block a punch from Of?cer Ferro. Of?cer Catanzara stated that an investigation was being conducted by the Internal Affairs Division regarding his employment at the liquor store, but he has not received a ?nal determination. (Att. During an in?person interview on 20 SEP 04 with the IUI_related that he did not witness the alleged incident. (Att. himself a an. described Of?cer Catanzara as being ?a good friend?. stated that Of?cer Catanzara has never worked at the liquor store. (Att. During a statement to OPS on 13 NOV 03, the accused, Of?cer George Ferro, denied the allegations. (Att. Of?cer Ferro stated that on the date and time of the incident, he and his OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 12 INVESTIGATION (continued): partner, Of?cer Peter Kopec, were transporting an arson victi_ home. Of?cer Ferro, who was driving, stopped at Cardinal Liquors when he was Of?cer Catanzara standing alone outside. Of?cer Ferro described Of?cer Catanzara as being a ?casual acquaintance from when [Of?cer Catanzara] used to work at the 008th District Station.? Of?cer Ferro acknowledged that earlier during his tour, he stopped at the liquor store ?a few times? in search of Of?cer Catanzara because he was told that Of?cer Catanzara wanted to talk to him. Of?cer Ferro parked the squad car approximately 40 yards away from the liquor store and greeted Of?cer Catanzara by extending his hand to shake with Of?cer Catanzara and by stating, Of?cer Kopec and?remained seated in the squad car. Of?cer Catanzara failed to return the greeting. Of?cer Ferro asked Of?cer Catanzara what was wrong. Of?cer Catanzara responded by stating that ?my [Of?cer Ferro?s] parents did not know what the fuck they were talking about? regarding menu prices at a neighborhood restaurant owned by Of?cer Catanzara?s friend and by threatening to ?kick my [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass up and down the parking lot.? Of?cer Ferro informed Of?cer Catanzara that he did not want any con?ict, returned to his squad car and drove away. Of?cer Catanzara followed Of?cer Ferro as Ferro was returning to the squad car. Of?cer Catanzara yelled profanities and threatened to have Of?cer Kopec ?red. Of?cer Ferro stated that he never directed profanity at; made derogatory remarks toward; swung at or attempted to strike Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Ferro stated that there was never any physical contact between him and Of?cer Catanzara during the incident and that the only threat made was that of Of?cer Catanzara threatening to kick his ?ass? up and down the parking lot. (Att. During a statement to OPS on 14 NOV 03, the accused, Of?cer Peter Kopec, denied the allegation against him. (Att. Of?cer Kopec stated that after Of?cer Ferro exited the squad car and walked toward Cardinal Liquors, he remained seated in the squad car with- and continued to write the report regarding the arson of- vehicle. Of?cer Ferro retumed to the squad car approximately two minutes later. Of?cer Catanzara, who appeared to be unhappy, approached the squad car holding a cell phone and stated ?something to me [Of?cer Kopec] about going to jail?. Of?cer Kopec asked Of?cer Catanzara ?for what and he [Of?cer Catanzara] did not reply?. Of?cer Kopec was familiar with Of?cer Catanzara as a result of ?seeing him around on our beat.? Of?cer Kopec stated that he never heard any conversation or observed any physical contact between Of?cers erro and Catanzara and that Of?cer Ferro never informed him of any incident involving Of?cer Catanzara. (Att. During a statement to OPS on 20 NOV 03, Of?cer Catanzara admitted that he threatened to ?jamb it [Of?cer Ferro?s] gun up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass?. (Att. Of?cer Catanzara OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 13 INVESTIGATION (continued): provided the reasoning for his actions as being because Of?cer Ferro ?had already struck me several times with a ?st and kicked me and he was attempting to grab his gun.? Of?cer Catanzara denied engaging an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Ferro stating, ?He [Of?cer Ferro] is the person who engaged me.? Of?cer Catanzara denied engaging in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Ferro stating, stood there and was beaten by Of?cer Ferro.? Of?cer Catanzara described the incident as, ?Of?cer Ferro was an on-duty of?cer asking me to come outside the store and I simply complied with his request.? (Att. During a telephone conversation with the on 18 AUG 04, Department Advocate Dan Mahoney informed the RH that the investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Division regarding Of?cer Catanzara?s employment at Cardinal Liquors was ?Sustained?; that a ?six day suspension? was recommended; and that a Complaint Register Panel hearing was currently being scheduled. (Att. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 14 CONCLUSION: The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAINED for Allegation #1 that Of?cer Ferro engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Catanzara. In his statement to OPS, Of?cer Ferro admitted stopping by the liquor store, while he was on duty, in search of Of?cer Catanzara ?a few times? prior to the incident. Witness_ informed Sgt. Earnest that he observed Of?cer Ferro strike Of?cer Catanzara during the incident. Witness- inforrned the that he observed Of?cer Ferro repeatedly push Of?cer Catanzara on the chest and strike Of?cer Catanzara once on the face with his ?st. Complainant, Of?cer Catanzara, informed the ?911? call taker; the responding police of?cers; Sgt. Earnest; Lt. Cervenka and that IUI that Of?cer Ferro had struck him. Contemporaneous Evidence Technician photos depict an abrasion about the right side of Of?cer Catanzara?s head and left thigh and redness about his left leg. The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAINED for Allegation #2 that Of?cer Ferro engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara for the same reasons as mentioned above regarding the allegation that Of?cer Ferro engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Catanzara. In addition, Of?cer Ferro informed Lt. Cervenka that he engaged in a verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara. Witnesses 1 - - and each informed Sgt. Earnest that they heard Of?cers erro and Catanzara shouting insults at each other. Witness_ informed the IUI that he additionally heard Of?cer Ferro directing profanity at Of?cer Catanzara. The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAINED for allegation 3-- that Of?cer Ferro threatened to shoot Of?cer Catanzara. Of?cer Catanzara was consistent in his account regarding this allegation to the ?911? call taker; to the responding police of?cers; to Sgt. Earnest; and to Lt. Cervenka. In addition, witness- speci?cally stated that he heard Of?cer Ferro make the threatening remark to Of?cer Catanzara that he was going to ?blow his brains ?9 out . The recommends a ?nding of NOT SUSTAINED for allegation #1 that Of?cer Kopec witnessed misconduct on the part of a Department member and failed to report it. There is insuf?cient evidence to prove or disprove whether Of?cer Kopec actually witnessed any police misconduct. Of?cer Kopec stated that after Of?cer erro exited the squad car and approached the liquor store, he remained seated in the squad car wit_ and completed the general offense case report regarding the arson of vehicle. Of?cer Kopec stated that he did not hear any conversation or observe any physical contact between Of?cers Ferro and Catanzara nor did Of?cer Ferro ever inform him of any incident involving Of?cer Catanzara. In addition, Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro each stated that during the altercation Of?cer Kopec was seated in the squad car, which was parked a short distance away on the same block. The 1V1 recommends a ?nding of UN FOUNDED for allegation #1 that Of?cer Catanzara engaged in an unjusti?ed physical altercation with Of?cer Ferro. Of?cer Catanzara denied the allegation. Of?cer Ferro stated that at no time did Of?cer Catanzara strike him OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 15 CONCLUSION (continued): during the incident. There was no indication in the reports of Sgt. Earnest that witnesses --andobserved Of?cer Catanzara strike Of?cer Ferro. Witness- inforrned the that he did not observe Of?cer Catanzara strike Of?cer Ferro. In addition, the evidence indicates that it was Of?cer Ferro who engaged Of?cer Catanzara in the altercation; Of?cer Ferro, by his own admission, went to the liquor store looking for Of?cer Catanzara. The recommends a ?nding of SUSTAIN ED for allegation #2 that Of?cer Catanzara engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Ferro. Witnesses 1 - - and- each stated that they heard Of?cers Catanzara and Ferro shouting insults at each other during the incident. Witness_ stated that he heard Of?cer Catanzara refer to Of?cer Ferro as a female sex organ. Witness_ stated that he heard Of?cer Catanzara direct profanity at Of?cer Ferro. The IUI recommends a ?nding of SUSTAIN ED for allegation #3 that Of?cer Catanzara threatened to ?j am it [Of?cer Ferro?s gun] up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass?. Of?cer Catanzara admitted that he made such a comment to Of?cer Ferro during in his statement at the Of?ce of Professional Standards. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 18 FINDINGS (continued): ACCUSED: OFFICER JOHN CATANZARA, #3572, UNIT 002 Allegation #1 UNFOUNDED Allegation #2 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while off duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro in that he shouted insults at Of?cer Ferro. Allegation #3 SUSTAINED. ?Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while off duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro in that he threatened to ?jam it [Of?cer Ferro?s gun] up his [Of?cer Ferro?s] ass.? Other Violations: Date Initiated: OPS Supv. Maria Elena Olvera, #124 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 2, ?Any action or conduct which impedes the Department?s effort to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,? in that on 25 FEB 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, while off duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002, by his overall conduct/actions, did bring discredit upon the Department when he engaged in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer George Ferro in the public way. 25 FEB 03 OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 17 FINDINGS (continued): ACCUSED: OFFICER PETER KOPEC, #10813, UNIT 008 Allegation #1 NOT SUSTAINED OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS CR #287850 Page 16 FINDINGS: ACCUSED: OFFICER GEORGE FERRO, #2917, UNIT 008 Allegation #1 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 8, ?Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did maltreat Of?cer Catanzara in that he struck Of?cer Catanzara about the head and neck and kicked him on the left leg. Allegation #2 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara in that he shouted insults at Of?cer Catanzara. Allegation #3 SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 9, ?Engaging in an unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,? in that on 25 Feb 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, on the street, while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did engage in an unjusti?ed verbal altercation with Of?cer Catanzara in that he threatened to shoot Of?cer Catanzara. Other Violations: SUSTAINED. Violation of Rule 2, ?Any action or conduct which impedes the Department?s effort to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,? in that on 25 FEB 03, at approximately 2150 hours, at 5114 S. Knox, outside of Cardinal Liquor Store, in public View and while on duty, Of?cer George Ferro, #2917, Unit 008, did bring discredit upon the Department by his overall conduct/actions during a physical and verbal altercation with Of?cer John Catanzara. SUMMARY REPORT- SUBJECT: COMPLAINT REGISTER INVESTIGATION NO.: CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUSTAINED 287661 DATE OF REPORT (DAY-MO.-YEAR) 01 July 2003 INSTRUCTIONS: TO: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTENTION 5WD SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 4 COPIES IF NOT ASSIGNED To SAME UNIT As ACCUSED. ADMINISTRATOR IN CHARGE, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ASSISTANT DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION FROM - NAME Lydia Conlisk RANK Inv. STAR NO. SOCIAL SEC. NO 265 EMPLOYEE NO. UNIT ASSIGN. 113 REFERENCE NO (LIST ALL RELATED C.R., C.B., I.R., INVENTORY NOS. ETC, PERTINENT TO THIS INVESTIGATION Miami Beach Florida Police Report Tinley Park Police Report Order of Protection ADDRESS OF INCIDENT DATE OF INCIDENT . TIME BEAT OF INCIDENT LOCATION 1- - Jan - Feb 03 Various 3100 19 NAME RANK STAR N0. SOCIAL SECNO. EMPLOYEE NO. UNIT ASSIGN. I. John Catanzara 3572 002 2 3 D.O.B. DATE OF APPOINTMENT DUTY STATUS (TIME OF INCIDENT) [x1 SWORN PHYS 01 ON DUTY DUTY CIVILIAN MM -68 03 Jan 95 5333. 2 ON DUTY OF DUTY SWORN 1 CIVILIAN 3 ON DUTY OF DUTY SWORN CIVILIAN ?mm? DATE CHARGES COURT BRANCH DISPOSITION DATE I- Summons 6 Mar 03 Criminal Trespass to Residence Markham TELEPHONE PHYS 01 COND. '1 PM 63 CODE 1 I NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE 1:10:31) CODE I NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE D.O.B..IAGE PHYS. 01 . . . COND. 1? 1 Loews Hotel - 1601 Collins,M1am1, FL 305-604-5435 52 come I I I SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL ACCUSED. COMPLAINANTS. VICTIMS. WITNESSES. I SEE REPORT 287661 ALLEGATIONS: On 17 February 2003, at approximately 1130 hours, a complaint was received in the Office of Professional Standards, via telephone, from Officer Bayles, from the Miami Beach Police Department, on behalf of the complainant_ The complainant alleged that between 13 February 2003, and 17 February 2003, at various hours, while she was vacationing in Miami, Florida, the accused Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002: (1) continuously harassed her by making numerous unwanted telephone calls with threatening remarks. It is further alleged that after 18 February 2003 and prior to 21 February 2003, the accused Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002: (2) made several harassing calls to her cellular and home phone in violation of an Interim Order of Protection served on 18 February 2003, and a direct order given by Lt. Eve Gushes #412 on 19 February 2003. It is further alleged that on or about 16 January 2003, at approximately 0400-0500 hours, at the accused Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002: (3) entered her residence without authorization. It is further alleged that after 16 January 2003, the accused Officer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002: (4) failed to immediately report to the Chicago Police Department that he was under investigation by an outside agency. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 3 287661 Id lug?g) 0 12A. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Complaint Against Department Member C.R. 287661 Con?ict Certification Miami Beach Police Department Report Report, Supv. Andrea Stoutenborough, #107 Report, Supv. Andrea Stoutenborough, #107 Report, Supv. Andrea Stoutenborough, #107 Report, Lt. Eve Gushes, #412, Unit 002 Report, Officer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002 Report, Supv. Andrea Stoutenborough, #107 Order of Protection -- 1- - Petition for Order of Protection Sheriff?s Office Service Order Statement 0 Complainant Copy of Identification, Tinley Park Police Department General Report Report, Supv. Andrea Stoutenborough, #107 Sgt. Matthew Brown, #2378, Unit 121, E-Mail Letter to Superintendent Fax Cover Sheet, Clerk of the Circuit Court Disposition of Order of Protection Request for Time Extension Telephone Interview, Witness,? Court Case Computer Printout Request For Time Extension Cassette Tape Recording of Saved Voicemail Messages Transcription of Saved Voicemail Messages Request For Time Extension Request for Interview/Statement/Report, Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Notification of Charges/Allegations, Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Administrative Proceedings Rights, Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Waiver of Counsel/Request to Secure Counsel, Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Notification of Date for Taking Formal Statement Notification of Charges/Allegations, Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Administrative Proceedings Rights, Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Formal Statement of Officer John Catanzara, #3672, Unit 002 Request For Time Extension Report, Inv. Lydia Conlisk, #265 Supplementary Report, Tinley Park Police Department Investigator?s Case Log Report, Inv. Lydia Conlisk #265 38-A Copies of Photographs OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 4 287661 INVESTIGATION: In a statement, given on 21 February 2003, the complainant,_ related that she and Officer John Catanzara had a dating relationship for approximately eighteen months, but she ended the relationship in December 2002. (Attachment: Ms alleged that on 16 January 2003, at approximately 0400 or 0500 hours, Officer Catanzara broke into her residence in order to tell her that he loved herleave him. Msp?led a report regarding the incident with the Tinley Park Police Department, and on 21 anuary 2003, she obtained an Order of Protection against Officer Catanzara; however, he was not served with the Order until 18 February 2003. It was further related that on 12 February 2003, the night before Ms. was to leave for a trip to Florida, Officer Catanzara repeatedly called her cell phone, but she did not answer. She then found a bag containing a red bikini and two White Castle hamburgers from Officer Catanzara on her patio. Officer Catanzara called her later that night, and told her that he had left her the bag. She told him that she did not want the gift. Officer Catanzara told her that if she did not want the gift, she should return it to him or give him the $97.00 that it cost. He told her that if she did not return the gift or give him the money, she should not show her face again in Illinois, because he would embarrass her. Ms.-also stated that on 13 February 2003, while at the airport, Officer Catanzara repeatedly made unwanted telephone calls and left messages on her cellular phone in which he said he loved her. She stated that after arriving in Florida, she sent him a text message in which she told Officer Catanzara to stop calling her; however, he continued to place harassing calls to her. In one message, the accused told her that if she did not call him, he would come to Florida to make a scene. Mr.-the hotel security manager, called the police after Ms.- notified him about the threats. Ms.-further alleged that on an unknown date and time before he was served with the Order of Protection, Officer Catanzara told her in a phone conversation, ?If I lose my job I will get you, or I?ll have someone else get you.? Additionally, she stated that toward the end of their relationship, the accused said things such as, ?What do you want me to do, drive into a bridge and kill myself?? and ?Do you want me to take my gun and kill myself?? Ms.-continued that after Officer Catanzara was served with the Order of Protection, he called her on several occasions; however, she did not file a complaint regarding the violation of the Order, because she did not want him to lose his job, and she only wished to be left alone. (Attachment: 12, In a telephone interview on 17 March 2003, the witness,? Security Supervisor at Loews Miami Beach Hotel in Miami, Florida, related that on 17 February 2003, at approximately 0800 hours (EST), he was informed that a guest-did not wish for her OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 5 287661 status at the hotel to be released. (Attachment: He stated that Ms.-seemed ?very nervous,? and she told him that she had a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, Officer Catanzara, and she had received harassing phone calls from him. qu also told Mr. ?Officer Catanzara told her that he was taking the next ?ight to iami to find her. Mr contacted the airport and confirmed that a flight from Chicago was scheduled to arrive shortly. Mr.-listened to a voicemail message on Ms.- cell phone, in which a male voice said something to the effect, ?You better call me back, if you know what?s good for you.? NIL-then summoned the Miami Beach Police Department, and he escorted the responding officers to Ms. r-oom, where they made a report. Mr.- stated that no further incidents regarding Ms-occurred during the rest of her stay at the hotel. (Attachment: 20). The Miami Beach Police Department Offense Incident Report, indicates that on 17 February 2003, at approximately 1127 hours, police responded to a complaint of verbal assault received via telephone at 0700 hours at Loews Hotel in Miami, Florida. (Att. Ms. -related to the officer that she had received a threatening phOne call in which her ex- boyfriend, Officer Catanzara, said that he was coming to her hotel in Miami, where he would hurt her in the lobby, even if other people were present. The victim also stated that the offender called repeatedly, and that she was concerned for her safety. The victim informed the police that she had a restraining order against Officer Catanzara. (Attachment: On 18 February 2003, Cook County Sheriff?s Officers served Officer John Catanzara with an Interim Order of Protection and a Summons. The Petitioner, Ms! petitioned the Order on 21 January 2003. Among the provisions were ?no unlawful contact Wit the Petitioner and_? He was also prohibited from harassing or stalking her. (Attachments: 9). On 06 March 2003, the initial Order of Protection hearing was held, the Order of Protection was vacated, and the charge of Criminal Trespass to Residence was Stricken Off, Leave to Reinstate (SOL). Ms-was not in court. (Attachments: #15, 16, 18, 21). On 19 February 2003, Lt. Eve Gushes, from the 002nd District, gave Officer Catanzara a direct order to have no contact, either in person or telephonically, with the complainant, According to Lt. Gushes, Officer John Catanzara acknowledged the order and stated that he would refrain from contact with-in the future. (Attachments: 6). The Tinley Park Police Department General Report, indicates that on 16 January 2003, at approximately 0906 hours, officers arrived at the residence 0 in response to a complaint of stalking and criminal trespassing. (Att. The victim, Ms. related to the officers that she woke up that same day, at approximately 0530 hours, to find her intoxicated ex-boyfriend, Officer Catanzara, kneeling next to her bed, watching her. She stated that for about the next hour, the accused told her that he loved her and begged to restart the relationship. Officer Catanzara also scrolled through her cell phone, and became infuriated when he noticed that his roommate had called her the prior evening. Officer Catanzara then left the OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 6 287661 residence with her phone battery, but he later called to tell her that he left the battery in the garage. Ms.-believed Officer Catanzara entered her residence through the garage via the overhead keypad. Ms.-recalled that the accused had entered her residence without her permission on numerous occasions, but she never contacted the police because she is afraid of him, since he is a Chicago Police Officer. Ms-requested the Tinley Park officers not to speak with the offender. The Supplementary Case Report indicates that-signed a complaint for Criminal Trespass to Residence, and a Summons/Complaint packet was prepared for Ms.-to present at the Markham Court District. According to Tinley Park Police Commander, Philip Valois, Officer Catanzara was not interviewed by the Tinley Park Police Officers. (Attachments: #13, 35, 36). Ms-provided a tape containing twelve recorded voicemail messages, not necessarily recorded in the order they were received, from Officer John Catanzara. (Attachments: #23-24). Excerpts of some of those messages are as follows: cannot wait ?til March 6?11 when it comes out and people will see that you?re the fucking person that?s the problem and not me.? ?I?m just calling to tell you, just to show I got my paperwork this morning, ahh, now I believe you.? don?t necessarily believe that there?s an. order of protection against me. You can call the police, do whatever you want to do. It .doesn?t matter. I have no idea what the hell is going on, if anything. But unless you want to avoid a scene again as usual, then you better call me back because I will come there and get an explanation in person.? ?EitherI want the bag of stuff back, in the same condition I left it there or I want 97 dollars. I?m sick of spending money on you, you don?t deserve it, you don?t appreciate it. You?re just a mean miserable person and I don?t deserve it.? not fucking with you. You better answer the phone the next time I call or you?ll never want to leave the house again. And you won?t want to show up in court on March cause I?ll be one hundred percent honest on March 6th, and you?ll look so fuckin? stupid for the bullshit order of protection you got.? ?Well, it?s 4:30. I have a 6:30 ?ight. I already know where you?re staying, so unless you would like a scene in the last day-and-a-half you?re there, I advise you to pick up the phone and talk to me cause I certainly don?t feel like ?ying three hours one way to make a scene, but I will.? (Attachment: #23-24). In a formal statement given on 21 May 2003, the accused, Officer John Catanzara, related that he has known?since September of 2001, but the relationship had been off and on since December 2002, and he said that they are currently just friends. (Attachment: He OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 7 287661 explained that Ms.-gave him the key-code to her garage, and she had given him an open invitation to use it to enter her residence. Officer Catanzara stated that he never entered Ms. -home without permission or approval from her, and she never asked him to leave the residence. Officer Catanzara further related that he entered Ms-residence through the ara sometime between 0430 and 0500 hours on 16 January 2003. He said that he went to Ms. ?residence to speak with her, and they had an argument about calls that they had made to other people. Catanzara stated that he stayed at Ms-residence for approximately twenty or thirty minutes, but Ms.-never requested that he leave. Officer Catanzara denied all allegations of harassin intimidating, and threatening Ms. 1 however, he stated that he attempted to call Ms?afte?r she asked him lU refrain from calling her, but he explained that behavior such as this was a normal aspect of their relationship. Furthermore, Officer Catanzara stated that on 12 February 2003, he telephoned Ms. -and left a gift on her patio, but he then called her and asked her to return it or give him the money for it. He also related that he called Ms. several times between 13 and 17 February 2003. Officer Catanzara stated that Ms never requested that he cease his calls to her. He related that he never left Ms. any intimidating voicemail messages, and that he simply wished to speak with her to resolve some issues. The accused also denied harassing Ms- by telling her that he would come to Florida to find her, and that he or someone else would get her if he lost his job. However, after listening to the recorded voicemail messages, Officer Catanzara admitted to making the calls, and he explained that he made the calls becaUse he was upset and frustrated with the fact that he was unable to speak with Ms.-on the phone. The accused stated that he was not intending to threaten Ms.- and ?phone games? such as this were a common part of their relationship. Officer Catanzara related that he initially became aware of Ms. 1- - Order of Protection when the County Sheriff served him with the court documents on 18 February 2003. He stated that although Ms. -had informed him about the Order prior to this date, he did not believe her, because she tells him many untrue statements. Officer Catanzara also stated that he had contact with Ms. 1 - - ia telephone, after being served with the Order of Protection and after being given the direct order by Lt. Eve Gushes. He stated that this contact occurred, because Ms also continued to contact him, and because he believed that the Order of Protection and the direct order did not prohibit him from having telephone contact with Ms. 1 Officer Catanzara also stated that he first learned of the police report filed by Ms.- with the Tinley Park Police Department at the time he was served with the Order of Protection, on 18 February 2003. (Officer Catanzara notified the Chicago Police Department that he had been served with the Order of Protection. - Attachment: Officer Catanzara also stated that he did not inform the Chicago Police Department that he was subject to investigation by the OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 8 287661 Miami Beach Police Department, because he was unaware that he was the subject of any police report. Officer Catanzara related that Ms. -made these allegations against him, because she has been depressed and suicidal since her divorce proceedings began. Additionally, Officer Catanzara stated that Ms. -is afraid of losing custody of her children to her estranged husband, because her children have told their father that she and Officer Catanzara have been - fighting. (Attachment: OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 9 287661 CONCLUSION: The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Sustained for Allegation #1 that Officer Catanzara continuously harassed-by making numerous unwanted telephone calls with threatening and intimidating remarks. Officer Catanzara admitted to making the calls, but denied that his calls to 1 - - were harassing or intimidating in nature. It should be noted that Officer Catanzara only admitted making the calls after being confronted with the recordings; he initially denied making any calls to- The preponderance of the evidence indicated that 1- was being harassed and was intimidated by Officer Catanzara, which resulted in the involvement of the Miami Beach Police Department and the Loews Hotel Security Personnel. Furthermore, whether or not the ?phone games? were common in Officer Catanzara?s relationship with-the recorded voicemail messages left by Officer Catanzara were clearly harassing and intimidating in nature. It is particularly disturbing that Officer Catanzara believes this type of behavior is a ?normal aspect? of a relationship. For these reasons this allegations must be sustained. The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Sustained for Allegation #2 that Officer Catanzara made several calls to 1 - - cellular and home phone in violation of Order of Protection and a Direct Order by a Commanding Officer. Officer Catanzara admitted to contacting-via telephone, after he was served with the Court Order of Protection and after being given the direct order, because he believed that neither order prohibited him from contacting-via telephone, and claimed that-was initiating contact with him. Regardless of Officer Cantanzara?s own interpretation of the Court Order and Direct Order, the evidence indicates that he was in violation of both orders. The content of his messages were clearly harassing and intimidating in nature, which was prohibited by the Order of Protection. Moreover, Lt. Gushes? direct order to Officer Catanzara was very specific to have no contact, either in person or telephonically, with- By his own admission, Officer Catanzara ignored both the Court Order and the direct order of a supervisor. For these reasons this allegation must be sustained. The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Not Sustained for Allegation #3 that Officer Catanzara entered-residence without authorization. Although-stated that Officer Catanzara entered her home while she slept, she did not know the manner in which he entered. Officer Catanzara denied the allegation and claimed that-had given him keys to her house and had authorized him entry in the past. There were no independent witnesses to the incident. There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove whether the incident took place as alleged. For these reasons this allegation must be not-sustained. The Reporting Investigator recommends a finding of Unfounded for Allegation #4 that Officer Catanzara failed to notify the Department that he was under investigation by an outside agency. Officer Catanzara denied having any knowledge of the reports filed against him by the Tinley Park Police Department, and/or by the Miami Beach Police. The evidence indicates that neither outside police agency interviewed Officer Catanzara. Therefore, the allegation must be classified as Unfounded. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Page 10 287661 FINDINGS: Accused: Allegation Allegation Allegation Allegation Officer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002 SUSTAINED Violation of Rule 2, ?Any action or conduct which impedes the Department?s efforts to achieve its policies and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,? in that between 13 February 2003, and 17 February 2003, at various times, accused Officer John Catanzara, Star #3572, made numerous calls to_that were harassing and intimidating in nature, which resulted in the Miami Beach Police Depgtment filing a report for verbal assault, thereby bringing discredit upon the Department. SUSTAINED Count 1 Violation of Rule 2, ?Any action or conduct which impedes the Department?s efforts to achieve its policies and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,? in that accused Officer John Catanzara, Star #3572, was in violation of the Interim Order of Protection in that he contacted and harassed?via telephone, thereby bringing discredit upon the Department. SUSTAINED Count 2 Violation of Rule 6, ?Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral,? in that accused Officer John Catanzara, Star #3572, failed to obey a direct order given by Lt. Eve Gushes, Star #412, that he have no contact, either in person or telephonically, with 1 - - NOT SUSTAINED UNFOUNDED OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 287661 DATE INITIATED: 18 February 2003 DATE CLOSED: 01 July 2003 ELAPSED TIME: 133 Days Supervisor Ands'ca Sloulcnh Page 11 BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES FILED AGAINST POLICE OFFICER JOHN J. CATANZARA, STAR No. 3572, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, CITY OF CHICAGO, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 12 PB 2794 (CR Nos. 1013430 & 1017379) FINDINGS AND DECISION On April 18, 2012, the Superintendent of Police filed with the Police Board of the City of Chicago charges against Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Respondent”), recommending that the Respondent be discharged from the Chicago Police Department for violating the following Rules of Conduct: Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department. Rule 3: Any failure to promote the Department’s efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals. Rule 6: Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral. Rule 14: Making a false report, written or oral. Rule 23: Failure to obey Department orders concerning other employment, occupation, or profession. Rule 24: Failure to follow medical roll procedures. The Police Board caused a hearing on these charges against the Respondent to be had before Michael G. Berland, Hearing Officer of the Police Board, on October 9, November 20, and December 10, 2012. Following the hearing, the members of the Police Board read and reviewed the record of proceedings and viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses. Hearing Officer Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision Berland made an oral report to and conferred with the Police Board before it rendered its findings and decision. POLICE BOARD FINDINGS The Police Board of the City of Chicago, as a result of its hearing on the charges, finds and determines that: 1. The Respondent was at all times mentioned herein employed as a police officer by the Department of Police of the City of Chicago. 2. The written charges, and a Notice stating when and where a hearing on the charges was to be held, were served upon the Respondent more than five (5) days prior to the hearing on the charges. 3. Throughout the hearing on the charges the Respondent appeared in person and chose to represent himself. 4. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, requesting that the charges filed against him be stricken and the case dismissed for the following reasons: (a) the IPRA investigation violated Section 2-57-070 of the Municipal Code of Chicago; (b) the failure to bring timely charges violates the due process rights of the Respondent; (c) material provided to the Respondent during the course of pre-hearing discovery does not include proof of misconduct; and (d) the charges against the Respondent were filed in retaliation for action the Respondent has taken in the past. The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied for the reasons set forth below. a. Municipal Code Section 2-57-070. The Code provides that if the Chief Administrator of the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) does not conclude an investigation within six months after its initiation, the Chief Administrator shall notify the Mayor, the City Council, 2 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision the complainant, and the accused officer. The Respondent argues that IPRA did not comply with this provision of the Code. IPRA did not conclude its investigation by December 14, 2008, which was six months after the date of the initiation of the investigation. IPRA sent to the Respondent a notification dated December 29, 2008, informing him that the investigation is continuing. However, even if this provision of the Code was violated, neither Section 2-57-070 nor anything else in the Code states that dismissal of a Police Board case is the sanction for failing to make the report to the Mayor, the City Council, the officer, and the complainant. This is particularly true where the Board finds, as in this case, that there was no due process violation, whether by the alleged violation of this Section of the Code, or from anything else alleged by the Respondent in his Motion to Dismiss. Without any basis or cited authority, and none is given by the Respondent, there is no basis for the Board to dismiss the charges pursuant to Section 2-57-070, and the Board declines to extend the reach of the ordinance in this manner. b. Due Process. Citing Morgan v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, 374 Ill.App.3d 275, 871 NE2d 178 (1st Dist 2007), the Respondent claims that the Constitution precludes such a lengthy delay in the investigation of the Respondent’s alleged misconduct. Morgan, however, involved a delay in adjudication of allegations of misconduct after the plaintiff had been suspended from his job—not delay in the investigation leading to the initial suspension. Morgan involved a clinical psychologist accused of sexually abusing a patient, where the state took fifteen months to decide the case after the suspension. The Respondent’s case before the Police Board is different from Morgan, as the 3 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision Respondent in his Motion is complaining about the delay from the time of the incident to the bringing of charges, not the time it took to try him once the charges were filed and he was suspended without pay. This difference is important because the due-process analysis in Morgan is triggered by the state’s decision to deprive the psychologist of his job, thus preventing him from working for a prolonged period of time before he was accorded the opportunity to have a hearing and decision to clear his name. Here, the Respondent was working and was being paid his full salary and benefits during the entire period of the investigation and up to the filing of charges with the Police Board. The Due Process clause precludes a state or local government from “depriving any person of life, liberty or property [i.e. a public job] without due process of law.” Here, the Respondent was not suspended without pay from his job until after the charges against him were filed. Therefore, the Respondent was not deprived of his job prior to the filing of charges, and any delay in bringing the charges is therefore not a violation of the Respondent’s due process rights. We recognize that the Circuit Court of Cook County, in Orsa v. City of Chicago Police Board, 11 CH 08166 (March 1, 2012) found that the protections of the Due Process clause are triggered by an unreasonable delay in the investigation of a matter, even if the officer retains his job, salary and benefits during the investigation. The Court cited Stull v. Department of Children and Family Services, 239 Ill.App.3d 325 (5th Dist. 1992). Stull involved a teacher accused of sexually abusing two of his students. The statute and regulations governing DCFS investigations of child abuse provided strict time limits on the length of any investigation and on the time within which a hearing must be conducted and a decision entered if the adult found to have abused children sought a hearing. The Stull court found that DCFS had grossly violated these 4 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision time limits and required expungement of the adverse finding against the teacher, even though the administrative appeal found that he had been properly “indicated” as an abuser. The Stull court did find that the teacher’s due process rights had been infringed, but it was not because of a delay in DCFS’s investigation of the case. The court held that due process was violated by the more than one-year delay in adjudicating the teacher’s appeal because during that period of time there was an indicated finding of child abuse lodged against the teacher and this finding prohibited him from working, see 239 Ill.App.3d at 335, thus triggering the kind of deprivation that is not present in the Respondent’s case. Cavaretta v. Department of Children and Family Services, 277 Ill.App.3d 16 (2nd Dist. 1996), also cited by the Circuit Court, is identical to Stull, which it relies upon. The Cavaretta court was quite careful to find that due process was not implicated until DCFS (after its investigation was complete) “indicated” the teacher as a child abuser and placed the teacher’s name in the state’s central registry, which directly deprived the teacher of the ability to work.1 c. Lack of proof. The Respondent argues that material provided to him during the course of pre-hearing discovery does not include proof of misconduct, in that it does not include any proof that he was compensated for his activity at the restaurant. This issue is not grounds for dismissing the case. Rather, it was a factual issue that was decided by the Board based on evidence presented at the hearing. The Board’s findings below deal with the question of the Respondent’s guilt in light of the issue of compensation for his activity at the restaurant. 1 The Circuit Court also cited Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), but only in general terms. There was no issue in Loudermill that a deprivation, for due process purposes, had occurred as it involved the discharge of school district employees. 5 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision d. Retaliation. The Respondent alleged as a defense that the charges against him were brought because of complaints that he made in 2004 and/or 2005 to supervisory police personnel about certain watch secretaries leaving early or because of certain problems he had with Captain Kolman (Respondent Exhibit 1). The Board finds that Catanzara’s retaliation defense has no merit and that the charges in this case were not brought in retaliation for any action Catanzara had taken in the past. 5. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: 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: Count I: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll and/or on Injured on Duty (IOD) status for a back-related injury, engaged in secondary employment at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, in that he worked as a security person/guard, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals, and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. The Board finds that Police Officer John Catanzara (“Catanzara”) went to Topo Gigio Ristorante on June 24, 2008, and performed the duties of a security guard. Catanzara testified that after he went to the restaurant, he explained to customers that because of an art fair in the neighborhood that if they did not have a reservation, they could not get into the restaurant. He also was assisting the hostess, Rebecca, with crowd control. When a customer named Messina tried to get back into the restaurant after the hostess told him to leave, Catanzara told him to leave. Messina refused to leave. Catanzara testified that Messina threatened Catanzara and then spit at him. Catanzara then handcuffed Messina and placed him under arrest. In the process of 6 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision arresting Messina, Catanzara identified himself as a police officer. There was substantial credible evidence presented at the hearing that Catanzara was working as a security guard on June 14, 2008. Police Officer Victor Montoya responded to the call for assistance at the restaurant after Messina was placed under arrest. Catanzara told him, either at the scene of the arrest or at the police station, that he was working security at the restaurant. Mary Micelli worked for the Chicago Police Department and retired as a Sergeant. Catanzara saw her with Messina at the restaurant and told her that he was working the door. Micelli testified that Catanzara told her that a customer got belligerent and tried to punch him and that Catanzara then placed the man under arrest. The Police Board finds the testimony of Montoya and Micelli to be credible. Catanzara testified at the hearing that he did not believe he was working security or as a guard on June 14, 2008. The Board finds Catanzara’s testimony not credible. When Frank Reda Jr. called 911 after Messina was not listening to Catanzara’s directions, he said in the 911 call that an off-duty police officer was working as a bouncer. Clark Johnson, who was a patron at the restaurant at the time of this incident, told the IPRA investigator that Catanzara was working as a bouncer. Catanzara had previously testified before the hearing that when Frank Reda Sr. initially called him, he had asked him to work security on the date of the art fair. When Catanzara was called by Reda Sr. on June 14, 2008, and told to come to the restaurant, Catanzara told him that he was on injured on duty status and was not supposed to be working. Since there was no issue that Catanzara was on injured on duty status with the Chicago Police Department on June 14, 7 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision 2008, he should not have been working that day and performing the activities that he engaged in while at the restaurant. This Count also required the Superintendent to prove that Catanzara’s working at the Topo Gigio Ristorante constituted secondary employment in violation of General Order 89-8, Section IV-K, and/or Employee Resource E03-01, Glossary Terms 9.B., General Order 08-01, Section IV-K. General Order 89-8. Section IV-K, which is Superintendent’s Exhibit 18, states that “Secondary employments is any extra-Department activity for which any Department member is being compensated in salary, wages, or commission, or other things of value for services performed for an employer....(Emphasis added) The Police Board finds that the evidence established that Catanzara received something of value, while working at the restaurant that day. While there is no evidence that Catanzara received any salary, wage, gifts, gratuities, or food for working that day, he testified that he did the work because the people at the restaurant were “very good” to me. Tr. 29. Being “very good” to a person is a thing of value for that person. Furthermore, Catanzara testified there were other benefits to him from his being there. Tr. 29. Therefore, the Board finds that Catanzara engaged in secondary employment in violation of General Order 89-8 1V.K when he was working security at Topo Gigio Ristorante on June 14, 2008 (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above finding: We find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Catanzara’s activities at the restaurant constituted “secondary employment.” There is no evidence that Catanzara received any salary, wage, gifts, gratuities, or food for being at the restaurant. We find that “other things of value” do not include any intangible “benefits” Catanzara may have received. The 8 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision Superintendent did not meet his burden of proving this charge by a preponderance of the evidence, and we therefore vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 6. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: 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: Count II: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll, represented himself as a Chicago police officer while working as a non-uniformed security person/guard at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals, and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. This count did not require proof that Catanzara received wages or anything of value while working on June 14, 2008. (Board Members Ballate and Carney dissent from the above finding: There is no evidence that Catanzara received any compensation for his activities at the restaurant—there is no record that he received any salary, wage, gifts, gratuities, or food for being at the restaurant. Because there is no evidence of tangible compensation, there is insufficient evidence to find that his activities constituted work as a security guard. The Superintendent did not meet his burden of proving this charge by a preponderance of the evidence, and we therefore vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 9 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision 7. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: 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: Count III: On or about October 20, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, during a statement to the Independent Police Review Authority, denied that he was working security at Topo Gigio on June 14, 2008, and/or denied that the accepted gratuities, gifts or food in exchange for doing security at Topo Gigio, and/or made statements to that effect, while one or more employees of Topo Gigio stated that he was working security that day, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. The Board finds Catanzara guilty of falsely denying that he was working security on June 14, 2008. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he accepted gratuities, gifts, or food on the day in question. Therefore, there is also insufficient evidence that he made a false statement as to whether “he accepted gratuities, gifts or food in exchange for doing security.” However, the Board finds that he is still guilty of this charge, which also charges and alleges that he falsely denied that he was working security and/or accepted gratuities, gifts or food in exchange for doing security and/or made statements to that effect. (Board Members Ballate and Carney dissent from the above finding of guilt for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 6 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 10 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision 8. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: 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: Count IV: On or about January 15, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, after being released from the medical roll at approximately 1330 hours, failed to report for duty in the 18th District, third watch, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. The evidence is uncontested that Officer Catanzara did not work on January 15, 2008, for the Chicago Police Department after he had been released from the medical roll. The evidence at the hearing established that Catanzara was required to be working on that date. Catanzara testified that he forgot that he was supposed to work on January 15, 2008. 9. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 3: Any failure to promote the Department’s efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals, in that: Count I: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll and/or on Injured on Duty (IOD) status for a back-related injury, engaged in secondary employment at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, in that he worked as a security person/guard. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above , which are incorporated here by reference. The allegations in this Count relate to working secondary employment. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above 11 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 10. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 3: Any failure to promote the Department’s efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals, in that: Count II: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll, represented himself as a Chicago police officer while working as a non-uniformed security person/guard at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. This count did not require proof that Catanzara received wages or anything of value while working on June 14, 2008. (Board Members Ballate and Carney dissent from the above finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 6 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 11. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 6: Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral, in that: Count I: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll and/or on Injured on Duty (IOD) status for a back-related injury, engaged in secondary employment at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, in that he worked as a security person/guard, thereby violating Employee Resource 12 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision E01-11, Section III-J, Employee Resource E03-01, Glossary Terms 9-B, General Order 0801, Section IV-K, and/or General Order 89-08, Section IV-K. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 12. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 6: Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral, in that: Count II: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll, represented himself as a Chicago police officer while working as a non-uniformed security person/guard at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, thereby violating Employee Resource E01-11, Section II-f, General Order 08-01, Section III-F, and/or General Order 89-08, Section III-F. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 13. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: 13 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision Rule 14: Making a false report, written or oral, in that: On or about October 20, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, during a statement to the Independent Police Review Authority, denied that he was working security at Topo Gigio on June 14, 2008, and/or denied that he accepted gratuities, gifts or food in exchange for doing security at Topo Gigio, and/or made statements to that effect, while one or more employees of Topo Gigio stated that he was working security that day. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 7 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate and Carney dissent from the above finding of guilt for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 6 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 14. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 23: Failure to obey Department orders concerning other employment, occupation, or profession, in that: Count I: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll and/or on Injured on Duty (IOD) status for a back-related injury, engaged in secondary employment at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, in that he worked as a security person/guard, thereby violating Employee Resource E01-11, Section III-J, Employee Resource E03-01, Glossary Terms 9-B, General Order 0801, Section IV-K, and/or General Order 89-08, Section IV-K. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above 14 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 15. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 23: Failure to obey Department orders concerning other employment, occupation, or profession, in that: Count II: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll, represented himself as a Chicago police officer while working as a non-uniformed security person/guard at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, thereby violating Employee Resource E01-11, Section II-f, General Order 08-01, Section III-F, and/or General Order 89-08, Section III-F. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 16. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 24: Failure to follow medical roll procedures, in that: Count I: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll and/or on Injured on Duty (IOD) status for a back-related injury, engaged in secondary employment at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, 15 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision Chicago, in that he worked as a security person/guard, thereby violating Employee Resource E01-11, Section III-J, Employee Resource E03-01, Glossary Terms 9-B, General Order 0801, Section IV-K, and/or General Order 89-08, Section IV-K. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 17. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 24: Failure to follow medical roll procedures, in that: Count II: On or about June 14, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, while on the medical roll, represented himself as a Chicago police officer while working as a non-uniformed security person/guard at the Topo Gigio Restaurant, located at or about 1516 North Wells Street, Chicago, thereby violating Employee Resource E01-11, Section II-F, General Order 08-01, Section III-F, and/or General Order 89-08, Section III-F. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, which are incorporated here by reference. (Board Members Ballate, Carney, McKeever, and Rodriguez dissent from the above finding for the reasons set forth in paragraph no. 5 above, and vote to find the Respondent not guilty of this charge.) 16 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision 18. The Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit: Rule 24: Failure to follow medical roll procedures, in that: Count III: On or about January 15, 2008, Police Officer Catanzara, after being released from the medical roll at approximately 1330 hours, failed to report for duty in the 18th District, third watch, thereby violating Employee Resource E03-01-01 or any of its predecessor general orders, and/or the Department’s medical roll procedures/policy. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 8 above, which are incorporated here by reference. 19. The Police Board has considered the facts and circumstances of the Respondent’s conduct, the evidence presented in defense and mitigation, and the Respondent’s complimentary and disciplinary histories, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Board finds and determines that a suspension is the appropriate penalty in this case. The Respondent violated the rules that govern when an officer is allowed to work while on the medical roll. Nonetheless, the Board does not find that the Respondent is a flagrant abuser of the medical roll, and does not find that his medical-roll violations and one false statement as to what he was doing at the restaurant are sufficiently serious to warrant a penalty of discharge. Rather, the Board finds that a suspension is a more fitting punishment on the facts of this particular case and based on the limited nature of the Respondent’s misconduct. In determining the length of the suspension, the Board took into consideration that the Respondent worked at the restaurant on one day and that he received no wages for doing so, and that his disciplinary history contains no prior sustained complaints or discipline (see attached Exhibit A). 17 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision POLICE BOARD DECISION The Police Board of the City of Chicago, having read and reviewed the record of proceedings in this case, having viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses, having received the oral report of the Hearing Officer, and having conferred with the Hearing Officer on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, hereby adopts the findings set forth herein by the following votes. By a unanimous vote, the Board denies the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the charges. By a vote of 5 (Davis, Conlon, Foreman, Fry, Miller) to 4 (Carney, Ballate, McKeever, Rodriguez), the Board finds the Respondent guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count I), Rule 3 (Count I), Rule 6, Rule 23, and Rule 24 (Counts I and II). By a vote of 7 (Davis, Conlon, Foreman, Fry, McKeever, Miller, Rodriguez) to 2 (Carney, Ballate), the Board finds the Respondent guilty of violating Rule 2 (Counts II and III), Rule 3 (Count II), and Rule 14. By a unanimous vote, the Board finds the Respondent guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count IV) and Rule 24 (Count III). As a result of the foregoing, the Police Board, by a vote of 7 (Carney, Davis, Ballate, Fry, McKeever, Miller, Rodriguez) to 2 (Conlon, Foreman), hereby determines that cause exists for suspending the Respondent from his position as a police officer with the Department of Police, and from the services of the City of Chicago, for a period of twenty (20) days, from April 20, 2012, to and including May 9, 2012. 18 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, as a result of having been found guilty of charges in Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794, be and hereby is suspended from his position as a police officer with the Department of Police, and from the services of the City of Chicago, for a period from April 20, 2012, to and including May 9, 2012 (twenty days). DATED AT CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK, STATE OF ILLINOIS, THIS 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013. /s/ Demetrius E. Carney /s/ Scott J. Davis /s/ Melissa M. Ballate /s/ Rita A. Fry /s/ Susan L. McKeever /s/ Johnny L. Miller /s/ Elisa Rodriguez Attested by: /s/ Max A. Caproni Executive Director Police Board 19 Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision DISSENT We find the Respondent guilty of all charges and, based on the serious and intentional nature of the Respondent’s misconduct, his self-serving false statements and testimony under oath, we vote to order that he be discharged from his position as a police officer. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned hereby dissent from the Decision of the majority of the Board. /s/ William F. Conlon /s/ Ghian Foreman 20 Report Date: 1 3 Apr 2012 Report Time: 1426 Information Services Division Data Warehouse Produced by: ILO1656AEO 1 Main Report '53 I Chicago Police Department Personnel Division *Only for active personnel Complimentary History Name Title Star Unit Detail Unit Emp Number CATANZARA JR JOHN I 9161 I 3572 014 376 21 Achievements PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEPLOYMENT AWARD 2008 HONORABLE MENTION - 2004 CRIME REDUCTION RIBBON EMBLEM OF RECOGNITION - PHYSICAL FITNESS 2009 CRIME REDUCTION AWARD DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION AWARD TOTAL AWARDS Total No4/1 8/20 12 mv Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision Police Board Case No. 12 PB 2794 Police Officer John J. Catanzara Findings and Decision BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS - 17 Ap1i12012 RECORDS SECTION TO: COMMANDIN OFFICER UNIT FROM: RECORDS SECTION BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS SUBJECT: PREVIOUS SUSTAINED DISCIPLINARY HISTORY OF: CATANZARA JR.. JOHN J. 3572? 376 NAME (LAST, FIRST M.I.) STAR UNIT SEX RACE EMPLOYEE REFERENCE: COMPLAINT REGISTER 1017379 THE PREVIOUS DISCIPLINARY RECORD OF THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN REQUESTED IN YOUR NAME BY: GEN. COUNSEL ERIC RANK NAME STAR UNIT RELATIVE TO A SUSTAINED FINDING IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ABOVE REF ERENCED COMPLAINT REGISTER NUMBER. THE RECORDS SECTION, BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING DISCIPLINARY ADMIN ISTERED TO THE SUBJECT ACCUSED, FOR THE PAST FIVE (5) YEARS. BY: P.A. CHRISTINA OFFICER RECORDS SECTION BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS SPAR-NONE NONE 22 BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE crrY IN THE MATTER OF C!iAIWES FILED AGAINS'r POLICE OFFICER JOHN J. CATANZARA, STAR No. 3572., DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, CITY OF CHICAGO, OF CHICAGO 'j No. 08 PB 2697 ) ) RESPONDENT (CR No. 1004628) FINDINGS On August the Police Board Officer John referred to be 28, ,T. as 2008, of the Superintendent City Catanzara, of from the following Rules of of Chicago Star "Respondent"), discharged the the No. charges 3572 Police filed against that sometimes the Department with Police (hereinafter recommending Chicago Police Respondent for violating Conduct: Rule 2: A,,y action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department. Rule 6: Disobedience written or The Police Police Officer Berland, Board John Hearing of oral. caused J. an order a hearing Catanzara Officer of to or on be had the Police the members directive, these charges before Board, whether against Michael on January G. 20, 2009. Following and reviewed recording of the hearing, the record the testimony of proceedings of the of and witnesses. the Police viewed the Hearing Board video- Officer read Pol lee Board Case No. Poli.ce Officer· John~flaqe 2 Board before The hearing The 1 employed the 2. The the to J. the 4. No. 3572, Rule in was officer were date, to be held, served hearing The upon 2: as determines mer1tioned all times by the Department place, writing when the of and and with Respondent of its that: at in a result Police of the a Notice, where a copy more l1erein than a hearing of the of original five (5) days charges. appeared throughout the hearing and was counsel. Respondent, charged Chicago, together on the by legal of and filed and The Respondent represented City finds charges was were the charges, time, charges of a police Chicago. charges, prior as a decisio~ Respondent of stating ~oard the "· . City re~dered it Police of D PR 2637 Catanzara herein, Police Officer is guilty not John of J. violating, Catanzara, to Star wit: Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brirrgs discr2dit upon the Department, ~hat.: The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respon.dent' s act.ions on or about April 2, 2007, constituted an improper fai.lure to report to the Center for Applied Psychology and Forensic Studies t:o complete a psychological exam after being ordered to do so, and therefore the superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of che evidence that the Respondent impeded the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or brought discredit ~pon the Department. Poli.Ce Board Case No. CB PB 2697 PoJ.ice Officer John J. Catanzara Page 3 The No. 3572, charged Rule in Respondent, 6: Police O'.':Jicer :i_s not he.rein, Disobedience v,lritten or of oral ,Jchn lty an order Cat.anzara ,J. 1 oE violating, to or whether directive, Star wit: 1 t~at: The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's actions on or about April 2, 2007, constituted an improper failure to report to the Center for Applied Psychology and Forensic Studies to complete a psychological exam after being ordered to do so, and therefore the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent disobeyed an order or directive, whether written or oral. By reason exists for Catanzara, with of the of the findings restoring Star the No. Chicago, with of all fact Respondent, 3572, Department of to his Police, rights forth Police position and and set to Officer as the benefits, herein, cause John a police services officer of effective J. the City September 3, 2008. The Board did regarding certain Board did not found the Respondent. not rule parts of consider the not on the his Respondent's disciplinary history disciplinary guilty of objection history, all because as charges. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL G. Hearing Officer BERLAf\JD the Board the ' Police Police fJoard r:asc No. 08 PD 2697 Off_~cer· Joh11 J. (~aLan~ara DECISION The Police Board of the City of Chicago, ~aving read and reviewed the record of proceedings in this case, having viewed the video recordir1g of the testimony of the witnesses, having received the oral report of the Hearing Officer, Michael G. Berland, and having conferred with the Hearing OEflcer on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, hereby adopts all findings herein; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, Police Officer John J. Catanzara, Star No. 3572, as a result of having been found not guilty of the charges in Police Board Case No. 08 PB 2697, be and hereby is restored to his position as a police officer with the Department of Police, and to the services of the City of Chicago, with all rights and benefits, effective 03 September 2008. 25' 0 • DATED AT CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK, STATE OF ILLINOIS, DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009. (5 Attested by: Executive Director Police Board THIS Pol 1cc Goard Case No. 08 PB 2697 Police Officer· John J. c~alanzara Page S DISSENT from The the Eollov1ing decision The undersigned charges. members of the of the majority voted co find Po.l.ice of the che Respondent RECEIVED A COPY OF THE FOREGOING COMJv!UNICATION FI1HIS DAY OF' ----------• SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Board Board. 2 009. hereby guilty dissent. oE al] Feb 26 09 12; 13p Polic,p Police Arthur p.4 480-609-8599 Smith Boan) Case Ne" 08 PB 2697 Officer John "T. Catanzara Page SA r.rhe following £:com the decisior.1 J1he undersigned 1 rr;embers of t.he of t1:e majority voted to find Police o-: the Board Board. :.he Respondent hereby guilty dissent of all charges. RECEIVED A COPY OF 1'HE FOREGOINGCO½l-!UNICATION THIS DAY OF ----------' 2 009. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE FE8-2S-212J09 14:03 IU:PULICE DOHRD F'.:i9e: tJ04 R:::95:-: SUMMARY REPORT- SUBJECT: COMPLAINT REGISTER INVESTIGATION NO.: SUSTAINED 290353 CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE OF REPORT (DAY-MO.-YEAR) 29 December 2003 INSTRUCTIONS: SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 3 COPIES IF ASSIGNED TO SAME UNIT AS ACCUSED. SUBMIT ORIGINAL AND 4 COPIES IF NOT ASSIGNED TO SAME UNIT AS ACCUSED TO: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTENTION ADMINISTRATOR IN CHARGE. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ASSISTANT DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION RANK Inv. STAR NO. 279 FROM - NAME Dagny A. BLASKOVICH SOCIAL SEC. NO UNIT ASSIGN. 113 EMPLOYEE NO, REFERENCE NOS. (LIST ALL RELATED R.. C.BI, INVENTORY NOS. ETC., PERTINENT TO THIS INVESTIGATION Event ADDRESS OF INCIDENT DATE OF INCIDENT - TIME BEAT OF INCIDENT LOCATION 4818 S. Pulaski Romantic Club Tavern 22 Jun 03 0130 hours 821 017 NAME RANK STAR NO SOCIAL SEC.NO. EMPLOYEE NO. UNIT ASSIGN John CATANZARA PO 3572 002 2 Trayce BURKS PO 12408 008 3 Derrick ASH FORD PO 16571 008 A D.O.B. DATE OF APPOINTMENT DUTY STATUS (TIME OF INCIDENT) SWORN PHYS 1 68 03 Jan 95 DUTY [x1 OFF DUTY CIVILIAN DUTY OFF DUTY SWORN 01 CIVILIAN 3 65 18 Mar 96 WON DUTY [1 OFFDUTY 3mm 01 TApmme.onemesreomomsn CHARGES COURT BRANCH DISPOSITION 8. DATE 2 3 l? I NAME ADDRE '2?;th 03 2 MW 80 CODE. 1 . Inv. Dagny BLASKOVICH #279, um 113 PAX 0119 NAME CITY STATE TELEPHONE '3;ng CODE I II 9 I 1 NAME 01 I MW 77 CODE. 5 i 78 01 SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL ACCUSED. COMPLAINANTS. VICTIMS. WITNESSESOR, NO. 290353 OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ADDITIONAL ACCUSED: 4. Edward HANLON 2464 -41 27 Sept 65 5. Stan WOLAK 2120 -59 29 Nov 82 ADDITIONAL WITNESS: 290353 Page 2 On Duty Sworn On Duty Sworn OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 3 ALLEGATIONS: On Tuesday, 24 June 2003, at 2220 hours, Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008, telephoned the Of?ce of Professional Standards Via Pax and registered a complaint on behalf of the complainant_ with Intake Aide Stacey Tolliver, #301988, Unit 113. It is alleged that on 22 June 2003, at approximately 0130 hours, while outside the Romantic Club Tavern, 4818 S. Pulaski, while off-duty, Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002: (I) pushed on the chest for no reason; and, (2) struc_ several times about the face. It is further alleged on 22 June 2003, at approximately 0340 hours, while at Holy Cross Hospital, Of?cers Trayce Burks, #12408, and Derrick Ashford, #16571, Unit 008: 1) failed to notify a supervisory member upon learning of allegations of physical maltreatment against a Department member. It is also alleged on 22 June 2003, at approximately 0340 hours, while at Holy Cross Hospital, Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008: (1) became aware of misconduct and failed to immediately obtain a Complaint Register Number. It is ?nally alleged on 22 June 2003, at approximately 0700 hours, upon his review of General Offense Case Repo_ Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008: (1) failed to immediately obtain a Complaint Register Number. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 4 1. Complaint Against Department Member 1A. Con?ict Certi?cation 2. Report by Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008, re: Initial Report 3. General Offense Case Report RD- 4. Report by OPS Investigator Darren Bowens, #223, re: Attempt to Contact 5 . Report by OPS Investigator Patrick Querfurth, #246, re: Attempt to Interview Complainant 1 6. Certi?ed Letter sent to Attorney? 7. Certi?ed Mail Receipt 8. Report by OPS Investigator Krista Schwertfeger, #264, re: Attempt to Contact 1- - Manager of Romantic Club Tavern 9. Signed Certi?ed Mail Receipt 10. Letter from Attorney? 11. Request for Time Extension 12. Report by OPS Investigator Dagny A. Blaskovich, #279, re: Information re: security at the Romantic Club Tavern 13. Request for Time Extension 14. Statement of Complainant, 15. Signed Medical Release Form 16. Request for?Medical Records from Holy Cross Hospital 17. Law Enforcement Of?cer?s Request for Protected Health Information 18. Report by Investigator Blakovich, re: Interview of Witness 19. Noti?cation re: C.R. Investigation 20. Report by Investigator Blaskovich, re: Interview of Witness 1 - - 21. Attendance and Assignment Records 22. Pre-Hospital Care Report from Chicago Fire Department 23. Medical Records from Holy Cross Hospital 24. Canvass 25. Request for Time Extension 26. Of?ce of Emergency Communications Event Query 27. Attendance and Assignment Records (22 Jun 03) 27A. Attendance and Assignment Records (23 Jun 03) 27B. Attendance and Assignment Records (24 Jun 03) 27C. Attendance and Assignment Records (24 Jun 03) 28. Noti?cation Re: C.R. Investigation (Of?cer Derrick Ashford, #16571, Unit 008) 28A. Noti?cation Re: C.R. Investigation (Of?cer Trayce Burks, #12408, Unit 008) 28B. Noti?cation Re: C.R. Investigation (Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008) 29. Request for Interview/Statement/Report for Accused Of?cer Trayce Burks, #12408, Unit 008 30. Date for Taking a Formal Statement 31. Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Burks 32. Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Burks OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 5 (continued): 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 45A. 45B. 46. 47. 47A. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Request to Secure Counsel for Of?cer Burks Request for Time Extension Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Burks Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Burks Request to Secure Counsel for Of?cer Burks Request for Interview/Statement?keport for Accused Of?cer Derrick Ashford, #16571, Unit 008 Date for Taking a Formal Statement Request for Interview/Statement/Report for Accused Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008 Date for Taking a Formal Statement Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Ashford Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Ashford Formal Statement of Of?cer Ashford OEMC Unit Query Beat 0810 OEMC Event Query - - OEMC Event Query - - 1 Personnel Order No. 2003-153 re: Retirement of Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008 Personnel Action Request for Sergeant Hanlon Personnel Action Request for Sergeant Hanlon Exit Interview Report for Sergeant Hanlon Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Sergeant Wolak Administrative Proceedings Rights for Sergeant Wolak Waiver of Counsel for Sergeant Wolak Formal Statement of Sergeant Wolak Request for Interview/Statement/Report for Of?cer Burks Date for Taking a Formal Statement Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Medical Status of Accused Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002 Request for Interview/Statement/Report for Of?cer Catanzara Date for Taking a Formal Statement Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Burks Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Burks Formal Statement with Of?cer Burks Report by Sergeant Louis Vasquez, #1960, Unit 002, re: CR 290353, Of?cer Catanzara Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Catanzara Waiver of Counsel for Of?cer Catanzara Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Catanzara Waiver of Counsel for Of?cer Catanzara OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 6 (continued76A. 77. 78. 79. 79A. 80. 81. 81A. 81B. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. Noti?cation of Charges/Allegations for Of?cer Catanzara Administrative Proceedings Rights for Of?cer Catanzara Waiver of Counsel for Of?cer Catanzara Formal Statement of Of?cer Catanzara Noti?cation Re: C.R. Investigation (Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008, retired) Case Supplemental Report Request for Time Extension Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Information re: Additional Allegations US Mail Letter sent to Witness Certi?ed Letter sent to Witness Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Attempts to Contact Witness Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Attempts to Authenticate Statements of Witnesses US Mail Letter sent to Sergeant Hanlon Certi?ed Mail Letter sent to Sergeant Hanlon Certi?ed Mail receipt from Sergeant Hanlon Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Attempts to Contact Accused Sergeant Edward Hanlon Report by OPS Chief Administrator Lori B. Lighfoot re: Completion of Of?ce of Professional Standards Investigation where Accused is the subject of a Case Report Request for Time Extension Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Attempts to Contac- Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Attempts to Contact Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Personal Visit Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Personal Visit Report by Investigator Blaskovich re: Telephone interview of Witness General Order 93-3-02B Investigator?s Case Log 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 9 INVESTIGATION (continued): area. _further related-did not observe any of the ?ght either, as he was seated in the bar next to her during the (Att. 86). Per the manager of the Romantic Club_ the Romanic Club does not employ off-duty Chicago Police of?cers. (Att. 12). The General Offense Case Report for Simple Battery indicated that of?cers (Beat 831) responded to a call of a battery at Holy Cross Hospital, and upon their arrival, the victim, related he had been at the Romantic Club and had had a verbal altercation with a male/white by the name of ?John,? an alleged off-duty police of?cer working security at the Club. Some time later, John accused of breaking his tail lights on his car and John, along with a second male/white, began punchin and kicking him about the face and body, causing a bloody nose, chipped teeth and swelling. ?was treated and released from Holy Cross Hospital. (Att. 3). The Case Supplementary Report relative to this incident indicated Detective Joseph Aguirre, #20510, Unit 610, interviewed-who stated he had become involved in a physical altercation with an offender regarding damage to the offender?s vehicle. (Att. 73). was taken to Holy Cross Hospital and was treated for a bloody nose and swelling to his cheek. related the offender was an off-duty police of?cer and when questioned as to how he knew this, -tated, just know.? _then instructed Detective Aguirre that if he had any more questions he should call lawyer and then terminated the phone call. No further investigation was conducted and the case was placed in suspense. (Att. 73). The Office of Emergency and Management Communications event query indicated Beat 831 res onded to Holy Cross Hospital after receiving a call of a battery report needed for?pThe query further indicated no other beat responded to the hospital. (Att. 26). Per Attendance and Assignment Records for the 008tll District Station, Of?cers Derrick Ashford, #16571, and Trayce Burks, #12408, were assigned to Beat 831 on 22 June 2003. Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, was assigned to Beat 810, and Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, was assigned to Beat 830. (Att. 27). Per Attendance and Assignment Records for the 002'1d District Station, Of?cer John Catanzara was IOD (Injured on Duty) on 22 June 2003. (Att. 21). The Chicago Fire Department?s Pre?Hospital Care Report indicated upon their arrival,?was sitting outside of a bar, and he informed them that a bouncer at the bar had beaten him up for no reason. _denied any loss of consciousness. had a laceration to the nose, and complained of pain to the right lower quadrant. informed responding paramedics that he had been punched in the stomach. (Att. 22). OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 10 INVESTIGATION (continued): Medical records from Hol Cross Hos ital from 22 June 2003, indicated In a formal statement on 07 November 2003, accused Of?cer Derrick Ashford, #16571, Unit 008, related on 22 June 2003, he was working with Of?cer Burks when they responded to a call of a victim of a battery at Holy Cross Hospital. (Att. 44). Upon their arrival, Of?cer Burks spoke directly with and completed the case report Of?cer Ashford stated -elated he had been in a ?ght with a security of?cer, who was either a Cook County Sheriff or a Chicago Police Of?cer. As Of?cer Burks completed the case report inside the hospital?s police room, Of?cer Ashford spoke with Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008 (Beat 810) in the parking lot of Holy Cross Hospital and informed him that-ad made allegations of physical maltreatment by a possible Chicago Police Of?cer. Of?cer Ashford explained that Sergeant Hanlon arrived at the hospital in order to pick up any completed paperwork; however, as the case report was not comileted, Of?cer Ashford verbally informed Sergeant Hanlon of the allegations made by Of?cer Ashford related he and Of?cer Burks dropped off the completed case report at the station. Of?cer Ashford did not enter the station with Of?cer Burks and therefore did not know if she informed the desk sergeant or any other of?cer of the allegations made by-in the case report. Of?cer Ashford did not know a CR number had been obtained and stated it was not normal procedure for him or Of?cer Burks to follow up on the status of the CR number because once they had noti?ed Sergeant Hanlon of the allegations, it was his responsibility to obtain the CR number. Of?cer Ashford stated he did not fail to notify a supervisory member because he noti?ed Sergeant Hanlon of the allegations made by-while at the Holy Cross Hospital. (Att. 44). Per OEMC event and unit queries for Unit 810, Sergeant Hanlon never indicated he was at Holy Cross Hospital. (Att. 45, 45A, 45B). Of?cers Ashford and Burks arrived at Holy Cross Hospital at 0340 hours, and Of?cer Ashford indicated he and Of?cer Burks were at the hospital for approximately 10-15 minutes before Sergeant Hanlon arrived. Per the Unit Query, Sergeant Hanlon was cleared from a ob at 49IS. La Crosse at 0404 hours, without any indication as to where he went following being cleared. (Att. 45, 45A, 45B). Per Personnel, Sergeant Hanlon retired from the Chicago Police Department on 04 July 2003. (Att. 46, 47, 47A, 48). In a formal statement on 17 November 2003, accused Of?cer Trayce Burks, #12408, Unit 008, related on 22 June 2003, she was working with Of?cer Derrick Ashford in uniform when they responded to a call for a battery report at Holy Cross Hospital. (Att. 60). Upon OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 11 INVESTIGATION (continued): their arrival, Of?cer Burks spoke to "who related he had been at a club and an off-duty police of?cer had beaten him up and would not let him in the club because of some kind of previous altercation. Of?cer Burks stated she completed the case report relative to the incident and was ?nishing it in the police room when Sergeant Edward Hanlon arrived at the hospital and spoke with Of?cer Ashford. While en route back to the 00 8th District Station, Of?cer Ashford informed Of?cer Burks that he had informed Sergeant Hanlon of the allegations made by? Of?cer Burks related upon their return to the 008th District station, she dropped the case report at the desk of the 008th District and did not speak to anyone at that time. Of?cer Burks explained she did not inform anyone of the allegations made by-because Of?cer Ashford had already informed Sergeant Hanlon. Of?cer Burks stated at check off that morning Sergeant Hanlon told her that a CR number was going to be initiated because of_ allegations that a police of?cer had battered him. Of?cer Burks further related Sergeant Hanlon had inquired about _medical status. Of?cer Burks denied the allegation against her stating that Sergeant Hanlon had been noti?ed of the allegations while they were at the hospital. (Att. 60). In a formal statement on 13 November 2003, accused Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008, related on 22 June 2003, he was working as a street sergeant and before the end of his tour, he approved General Offense Case Report for Simple Battery. (Att. 52). Sergeant Wolak further related he did not thoroughly read the case report before approving it, but only saw there was a verbal altercation and a battery not involving any weapons. Sergeant Wolak admitted he did not see the accused was alleged to be an ?off-duty police of?cer.? Upon returning to duty on the night of 24 June 2003, Sergeant Wolak discovered the case report had been returned to him via the Review Of?cer, who asked about the Complaint Register Number related to the case. It was then that Sergeant Wolak initiated the CR number relative to this incident. Sergeant Wolak also stated he added the information regarding the initiation of the CR number to the original case report. Sergeant Wolak related he did not speak to either Of?cers Burks and Ashford or Sergeant Hanlon regarding this case on 22 June 2003. Sergeant Wolak further related he did not respond to Holy Cross Hospital and his ?rst knowledge of the completed case report came at 0700 hours on 22 June 2003, when he signed it. Sergeant Wolak stated Of?cers Burks and Ashford should have noti?ed a sergeant/su ervisor of the allegations made by- so that an ET could have been ordered to photo graphand a CR number could have been immediately initiated. To the best of Sergeant Wolak?s knowledge, neither Of?cer Burks nor Of?cer Ashland noti?ed a supervisor of the allegations. Sergeant Wolak admitted to failing to immediately obtain a CR number upon approving the case report because he failed to adequately read the case report before signing it. (Att. 52). All attempts to contact accused Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008, who is currently retired, met with negative results. (Att. 79, 79A, 80). 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-1-1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 13 INVESTIGATION (continued): The additional allegations made b_ regarding Of?cer Catanzara?s employment at the Romantic Club Tavern, the Orion, and the Cardinal Liquor Depot were the subject of a separate Complaint Register Number, 287880, handled by Internal Affairs. The ?nding of this CR number was Sustained, with a penalty recommendation of six days. (Att. 75). A11 attempts to contact witness?were met with negative results. (Att. 76, 76A, 77). 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-1-- 1-- 1-- 1-- OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 15 CONCLUSION (continued): The Reporting Investigator recommends Allegation #1 against Of?cer Derrick Ashford, #16571, Unit 008, that he failed to notify a supervisory member upon learning of allegations of physical maltreatment against a Department member, be Unfounded. Of?cer Ashford related in his statement to OPS that he told Sergeant Hanlon of the allegations made by- while they were at Holy Cross Hospital. Of?cer Ashford denied telling any other supervisory member of the allegations due to the fact he had already told Sergeant Hanlon. Despite Sergeant Hanlon?s status with the Department and the inability to contact him, this allegation should be unfounded as Of?cer Ashford?s account is supported by Of?cer Burks, as well as Of?cer Burks statements that she spoke again to Sergeant Hanlon at check-off regardin- allegations against a police of?cer. The Reporting Investigator recommends Allegation #1 against Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008, that upon becoming aware of misconduct, failed to immediately obtain a Complaint Register Number, be Sustained. Despite Sergeant Hanlon?s retired status with the Department and the inability to contact him for a statement, statements made by both Of?cers Ashford and Burks support a ?nding of sustained. Of?cer Ashford stated he informed Sergeant Hanlon of the allegations made by-while Sergeant Hanlon was at the hospital. Furthermore, Of?cer Burks supported Of?cer Ashford?s statement by stating she also observed Sergeant Hanlon at the hospital speaking with Of?cer Ashford, who later informed her that he had told Sergeant Hanlon the allegations made by- In addition, Of?cer Burks stated in her statement to OPS that she spoke to Sergeant Hanlon during check-off roll call and during that conversation, Sergeant Hanlon related a CR number was going to be initiated based on the allegation that a olice of?cer had battered_ and that Sergeant Hanlon had further inquired aboutd medical status. Based on these statements, and the fact that Sergeant Hanlon was not the initiator of this complaint number, this allegation should be sustained. The Reporting Investigator recommends Allegation #1 against Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008, that he failed to immediately obtain a Complaint Register Number, be Sustained. Sergeant Wolak admitted in his statement to OPS that he failed to adequately read the case report submitted by Of?cer Burks before signing it on 22 June 2003. As a result, Sergeant Wolak was unaware that an allegation was made against a Department Member. This investigation did not reveal that Sergeant Wolak?s failure to obtain the CR. number was deliberate. On the contrary, his failure to adequately review the case report resulted in him being inattentive to duty. Sergeant Wolak stated as a result of his not reading the case report thoroughly, upon his return to duty on 24 June 2003, he was informed that a Complaint Register number was required for the signed case report and he immediately obtained one. However, based on Sergeant Wolak?s statement and the fact that a CR number was not initiated for two days, this ?nding should be sustained. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 16 FINDINGS: Accused #1 Of?cer John Catanzara, #3572, Unit 002 Allegation #1 Not Sustained Allegation #2 Not Sustained OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 17 FINDINGS (continued): Accused #2 Of?cer Trayce Burks, #12408, Unit 008 Allegation #1 Unfounded OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 18 FINDINGS (continued): Accused #3 Of?cer Derrick Ashford, #16571, Unit 008 Allegation #1 Unfounded OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 19 FINDINGS (continued): Accused #4 Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008 Allegation #1 Sustained Violation of Rule 6, ?Disobedience of an order or direction, whether written or oral,? in that on 22 June 2003, at approximately 0340 hours, while at Holy Cross Hospital, the accused, Sergeant Edward Hanlon, #2464, Unit 008, failed to adhere to the provisions of General Order Section II-B-2, in that upon becoming aware of misconduct, he failed to immediately obtain a Complaint Register Number. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 290353 Page 20 FINDINGS (continued): Accused #5 Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008 Allegation #1 Sustained Violation of Rule 10, ?Inattention to Duty,? in that on 22 June 2003, at approximately 0700 hours, upon reviewing General Offense Case Report?the accused, Sergeant Stan Wolak, #2120, Unit 008, was inattentive to duty in that he failed to adequately review Case Report 1 - - which indicated that an off-duty police of?cer was the offender, and, therefore, he did not obtain a Complaint Register Number in a timely manner. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Date Initiated: 24 June 2003 Date Completed: 29 December 2003 Elapsed Time: 187 days Superv?sm? Lesley Linn, #112, OPS 290353 Page 21