LOG NO 1081642 TYPE CR, U, CONF DATE OF REPORT 14-SEP-2017 SUMMARY REPORT CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT 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 TO: CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, I I INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY CHIEF, 14 BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS - NAME RANK 0422 STAR NO EMPLOYEE NO ASSIGNED - ?173 REFERENCE ALL RELATED C.L., C.B., INVENTORY ETC.. PERTINENT OF THIS INVESTIGATION) INCIDENT S. MERWL AVE. CHICAGO, IL 60649 I 19:07 i SEAT: 333 ACCUSED NAME NO EMP NO UNIT UNIT DOB . APPOINTED ON ASSIGNED DETAILED DATE DUTY 7 9161 ??3783 004 I 1981 YES YES 5 COUGHLIN MICHAEL P: 91? 16614 004 172 1979' YES '_9161? 15610 004 172 1979 YESTYTES BAKER, MOHAMMAD 9161? 19740 004 WHII 1986' 01-APR-2013 YES YES REPORTING PARTY NAME CITY. TELEPHONE - MARIA VICTIMS TME -1998/1_9' CHICAFO, IL 4999/16 WITNESSES NAME CITY DOWAGE DAWNGFATRICR LANNINO, CHRISTOPHER LITTISHA FONSECA. ARTURO RAUBA, EDWARD MONTES. JACQUELINE RICARDO LAWSON, JEFFREY TRANK: 9161 .STAR NO: NO: RANK: RANK: 9165.8TAR NO: NO: RANK: NO: 1W NO: WK: 9161.8TAR NO: 11WEMP NO: RANK: mam: 11996.EMP NO: RANK: NO: NO: Rm: NO: WWNO: RANK: NO: RANK: 9161.STAR NO: 17203WNO: 3W.EMP NO: RANK: 4155.EMWOT- RAW: No: NO: 7343 s. MERRILL AVE CHICAGO, IL 7337 SMERRILLAVE CHICAGO, IL RANK: NO: 8353.EMP NO: i IWHI "-1979733 CPD-44.112-IPRA (Rev. 2715) [031642 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log #1081642/ REFERENCE: INVOLVED OFFICER OFFICER #l?s WEAPON: OFFICER #l?s INJURIES: INVOLVED OFFICER OFFICER #2?s WEAPON: OFFICER #2?s INJURIES: INVOLVED OFFICER OFFICER #3?s WEAPON: HZ368777 (Aggravated Battery to Police Of?cer) HZ368887 (Traf?c Crash) HZ3 69157 (Death Investigation) HZ3 69170 (N on-Criminal Foreign Recovery: Automobile) COUGHLIN JR., Michael; Star #16614; Assigned to Unit 004; Beat Caucasian male; Employee DOB: 1979; DOA: 27 May 2014; On-duty; Uniform. Glock; Model 19; 9 MM semi-automatic pistol; Serial Chicago Registration FOID #17070463; 17-round capacity magazine (total weapon capacity 17+1); WIN 9MM Luger ammunition; Nine (9) live rounds recovered from ?rearm; Fired (9) nine rounds. None reported. TORRES, Jose; Star #3783; Assigned to Unit 004; Beat Hispanic male; Employee DOB: 1981; DOA: 15 March 2013; On-duty; Uniform. Glock; Model 17; 9MM semi-automatic pistol; Serial Chicago Registration FOID #16991469; 17-round capacity magazine (total weapon capacity 17+1); WIN 9MM Luger ammunition and WIN 9MM Luger ammunition; Seventeen (17) live rounds recovered from ?rearm; Fired (1) one round. None reported. DIAZ, Jose; Star #15610; Assigned to Unit 004; Beat Hispanic male; Employee DOB: 1979; DOA: 05 October 2012; On-duty; Uniform. Glock; Model 17; 9MM semi-automatic pistol; Serial Chicago Registration FOID #95180740; 17?round capacity magazine (total weapon capacity 17+1); WIN 9MM Luger ammunition; Thirteen (13) live rounds recovered from ?rearm; Fired (5) ?ve rounds. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log OFFICER #3?s INJURIES: WITNESS OFFICER: WITNESS INJURIES: SUBJECT: INJURIES: WEAPON: VEHICLE: CIVILIAN WITNESS: Bruising to the leg. BAKER, Mohammad, Star #19740; Unit 004; Beat Employee 1986; DOA: 01 April 2013; On- duty, Uniform. Multiple, unspeci?ed injuries relating to the car accident. Black male; DOB: - 1998; Fatal; Single gunshot wound to the lower mid-back; Subject was pronounced DOA at on 28 July 2016, at 2108 hours, by None Recovered. 2002 Black Jaguar Convertible; License Plate Black male; INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log #1081642/ REFERENCE: INVOLVED OFFICER OFFICER #l?s WEAPON: OFFICER #l?s INJURIES: INVOLVED OFFICER OFFICER #2?s WEAPON: OFFICER #2?s INJURIES: INVOLVED OFFICER OFFICER #3?s WEAPON: HZ368777 (Aggravated Battery to Police Of?cer) HZ368887 (Traf?c Crash) 11Z369157 (Death Investigation) HZ369170 (N on?Criminal Foreign Recovery: Automobile) COUGHLIN JR, Michael; Star #16614; Assigned to Unit 004; Beat Caucasian male; Employee DOB: 1979; DOA: 27 May 2014; On-duty; Uniform. Glock; Model 19; 9 MM semi-automatic pistol; Serial Chicago Registration FOID #17070463; l7-round capacity magazine (total weapon capacity 17+1); WIN 9MM Luger ammunition; Nine (9) live rounds recovered from ?rearm; Fired (9) nine rounds. None reported. TORRES, Jose; Star #3783; Assigned to Unit 004; Beat Hispanic male; Employee DOA: 15 March 2013; On-duly; Uniform. Glock; Model 17; 9MM semi-automatic pistol; Serial Chicago Registration FOID #16991469; l7-round capacity magazine (total weapon capacity 17+1); WIN 9MM Luger ammunition and WIN 9MM Luger ammunition; Seventeen (17) live rounds recovered from ?rearm; Fired (1) one round. None reported. DIAZ, Jose; Star #15610; Assigned to Unit 004; Beat Hispanic male; Employee DOB: 1979; DOA: 05 October 2012; On?duty; Uniform. Glock; Model 17; 9MM semi-automatic pistol; Serial Chicago Registration FOID #95180740; 17-round capacity magazine (total weapon capacity 17+1); WIN 9MM Luger ammunition; Thirteen (13) live rounds recovered from ?rearm; Fired (5) ?ve rounds. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log I. INTRODUCTION: On 28 July 2016, at approximately 1929 hours, Of?cers Coughlin and Torres, who were working Beat 406C, responded to the area of 75th Street and Merrill Avenue in a marked Chicago Police Department (CPD) SUV, license plate number According to dispatch reports, a stolen Jaguar, license plate number had been observed in the area. As Of?cers Torres and Coughlin drove southbound onto Merrill Avenue from 74th Street, they spotted the Jaguar driving northbound on the 7400 block of South Merrill Avenue in their direction. Of?cers Torres and Coughlin immediately parked and started to exit their SUV as the Jaguar continued to approach. Almost simultaneously upon exiting the vehicle, Of?cer Coughlin discharged his ?rearm at the Jaguar. The driver of the Jaguar, now known as drove between a parked vehicle, Ford Expedition license plate number and the of?cers? parked SUV. As the Jaguar drove between the Ford Expedition and the of?cers? SUV, Of?cer Torres exited the driver side of the SUV. Of?cer Coughlin continued to discharge his ?rearm at the Jaguar as he walked around the front of the SUV while Of?cer Torres jumped onto the east parkway of the 7400 block of South Merrill Avenue to avoid being struck by the Jaguar. As the Jaguar continued to travel northbound on Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Coughlin continued to discharge his ?rearm and Of?cer Torres discharged his ?rearm once. The Jaguar continued to drive northbound towards the 7300 block of South Merrill Avenue at an increased rate of speed. Of?cer Coughlin stopped shooting and reloaded his weapon. Within moments, the Jaguar collided head on with Beat406B, a marked CPD SUV with license plate number driven by Of?cer Diaz with Of?cer Baker riding as passenger. Of?cers Coughlin and Torres ran towards the collision and observed? exit the driver side of the Jaguar and ?ee west towards the backyards of the houses along the 7300 block of South Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Baker exited his CPD SUV and started to pursue Of?cers Coughlin and Torres followed Of?cer Baker. As ??ed westbound, he ran to the backyard of - S. Merrill Avenue and jumped over a tall gate. then proceeded to ?ee northbound through the backyards along the 7300 block of South Merrill Avenue. When Of?cers Baker, Coughlin, and Torres arrived at the same gate, they observed that the gate was locked. Of?cer Coughlin assisted Of?cer Baker with getting over the gate. Meanwhile, Of?cer Diaz exited the front passenger side of the Beat 406B CPD SUV and ran west down the driveway at- S. Merrill Avenue in an attempt to cut of-?s ?ight path. As Of?cer Diaz ran west through the driveway, he observed ?eeing northbound. Of?cer Diaz discharged his ?rearm several times striking once. - continued to ?ee into the backyard of-S. Merrill Avenue where he was then placed into custody. An ambulance responded to the scene and transported? to where he was pronounced deceased. The passenger of the Jaguar, was unsuccessful 1n his attempt to ?ee and was arrested. No weapon was recovered on the scene, in the Jaguar, or from r? INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 5 II. ALLEGATIONS: It is alleged that on 28 July 2016, at approximately 1930 hours, at or near - S. Merrill Avenue, the accused, Of?cer Michael Coughlin, Jr. #16614, Emp. Unit 004/172, violated department policy when heFired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon at and into a moving vehicle, in violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Torres, in violation of Rule 10; Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Baker, in violation of Rule 10; Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Diaz, in violation of Rule 10; and Stated words to the effect of, ?Fuck, man I?m gonna be on the desk for thirty goddamn days now. Fucking desk duty for thirty days now. Motherfucker. I shot,? in violation of Rule 2. It is alleged that on 28 July 2016, at approximately 1930 hours, at or near - S. Merrill Avenue, the accused, Of?cer Jose Torres, #3783, Emp. Unit 004/172, violated department policy when he: 1) Used his police vehicle to obstruct the passage of another motor vehicle, in Violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon at or in the direction of m, in violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon at and into a moving vehicle, in violation of Rule 6; Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Baker, in violation of Rule 10; Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Diaz, in violation of Rule 10; and Loaded his Glock, model 17, bearing serial with mismatched ammunition, in violation of Rule 10. It is alleged that on 28 July 2016, at approximately 1930 hours, at or near -S. Merrill Avenue, the accused, Of?cer Jose Diaz, #15610, Emp. Unit 004/172, violated department policy when he: 1) 2) 3) 4) Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6; Kicked in violation of Rule 8 and 9; Directed words towards to the effect of, ?Bitch ass motherfucker," in violation of Rule 8 and 9; and Failed to activate his body camera, in violation of Rule 6. It is alleged that on 28 July 2016, at approximately 1930 hours, at or near - S. Merrill Avenue, the accused, Of?cer Mohammad Baker, #19740 Emp. Unit 004, violated department policy when he: 1) Failed to activate his body camera, in Violation of Rule 6. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION: A. Interviews 1. Witness Of?cer Interviews: In a statement to IPRA on 20 September 2016, Witness Of?cer Kenneth Wojtan stated that, while on duty on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Jeffrey Lawson, heard via police radio that of?cers had spotted a Jaguar that had been reported stolen. Of?cer Wojtan, who was the driver of?cer, drove in an unmarked police vehicle, in the direction of where the Jaguar was seen in order to assist. As Of?cer Wojtan approached the area of 75th and Paxton, he and Of?cer Lawson observed a vehicle that matched the description of the stolen Jaguar approaching in the opposite direction with two occupants, now known as? and Two police of?cers1 in a CPD who Officer Wojtan did not know, were driving behind the Jaguar and one of the of?cers in the SUV pointed to the Jaguar. Of?cer Wojtan made a U-turn and drove behind the CPD SUV. The Jaguar made a right turn onto Merrill Avenue followed by a series of turns, traveling approximately 20-35 miles per hour. The Jaguar circled back around to Merrill Avenue and proceeded northbound at a high rate of speed followed by the two police vehicles. According to Of?cer Wojtan, the SUV came to a sudden stop. Of?cer Wojtan could not see the Jaguar because the SUV blocked Of?cer Wojtan?s View. Of?cer Wojtan heard several gunshots while sitting in his vehicle. Of?cer Wojtan did not know who was shooting because he could not see. Of?cer Wojtan proceeded to drive up the west parkway of the 7400 block of South Merrill Avenue. Moments later, Of?cer Wojtan heard a loud ?boom? and observed smoke/dust coming from the area of a CPD vehicle and the Jaguar. Of?cer Wojtan saw signs of an accident, but he did not witness how the accident occurred. At that time, Of?cer Wojtan observed several people running, but he could not decipher whether any of them were police of?cers. Of?cer Lawson exited the vehicle while Of?cer Wojtan drove to the mouth of the alley at 74th and Merrill Avenue and exited his vehicle. Of?cer Wojtan started to run north through the alley and heard approximately ?ve gunshots. Of?cer Wojtan stopped at approximately - S. Merrill Avenue and observed two uniformed of?cers that he did not know in the alley. One of the of?cers stated, ?There he is,? and pointed to the backyard of - S. Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Wojtan and the of?cers went into the yard and observed a male subject, -, sitting on the ground with his back up against the home. The of?cers ordered to lie down on his stomach. ?did not comply initially, but after receiving several more commands, laid on the ground. Of?cer Woj tan handcuffed and realized that was bleeding. An of?cer on scene requested an ambulance and paramedics arrived and rendered aide to (Att. 317) In a statement to IPRA on 22 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Jeffrey Lawson stated that on the 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Wojtan, were on a directed mission to monitor The of?cers are now known as Of?cers Darling and Passarelli. 2 Of?cer Wojtan described the vehicle as an Expedition. The vehicle was a silver unmarked Ford SUV. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log radio calls and assist with high priority jobs on the east side of the 4th District. As Of?cers Lawson and Wojtan were en route to their deployment area, the dispatcher announced that there was a Jaguar in the area wanted for a reason unbeknownst to Of?cer Lawson. An unknown of?cer reported that the Jaguar was last seen in the area of 77th and Colfax Avenue. As Of?cer Wojtan drove east on 75th Street, Of?cer Lawson observed the Jaguar heading west and approaching Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Lawson also observer! a silver or gray unmaI ked Cl?l) Ford SUV driving behind the Jaguar. The of?cers In the silver or gray SUV, who Of?cer Lawson identi?ed as Of?cers Darling and Passarelli, pointed at the Jaguar. Of?cer Wojtan then made a U?turn and drove behind Of?cers Darling and Passarelli. The Jaguar turned north onto Merrill Avenue, turned east through an alley, turned south onto Paxton Avenue, turned west onto 75th Street, and ?nally turned north again onto Merrill Avenue. As the Jaguar proceeded north on Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Lawson observed a marked CPD vehicle, Beat 406C, at 74th Street driving south on Merrill Avenue towards the Jaguar. Of?cer Lawson stated that the driver of?cer of Beat 406C, Of?cer Torres, exited his vehicle and was nearly struck by the Jaguar as it drove past. Simultaneously, Of?cer Lawson saw Of?cer Torres discharge his ?rearm. Of?cer Lawson stated that he heard multiple gunshots and it sounded like more than one person was shooting, but he did not see anyone else shooting.4 At that time, Of?cers Darling and Passarelli exited their vehicle, so Of?cer Wojtan drove onto the curb to go around. The Jaguar continued northbound and struck a second marked squad ear head on. 5Subsequently, the driver of the Jaguar, ?ed from the vehicle and ran westbound into a residential yard. Of?cer Lawson ran to the west alley of the 73 00 block of Merrill in an attempt to intercept in the alley. As Of?cer Lawson arrived at the alley, he heard ?ve additional gunshots. Of?cer Lawson stated that he could not see who was shooting as there were several fences obstructing his view. A short time later, Of?cer Lawson heard someone announce that _was in custody in one of the yards.6 Of?cer Lawson went to - S. Merrill Avenue and spotted Of?cer Baker. Of?cer Lawson checked Of?cer Baker for injuries and asked him if he was okay. Of?cer Lawson noted that Of?cers Wojtan, Passarelli, Darling, and a Hispanic of?cer, whose last name was possibly Diaz, were also in the yard. was lying on the ground in handcuffs and appeared to be bleeding from his left ?ank area. eyes were open and he was responsive. Of?cer Lawson performed a pat down of? and asked him his name. After an ambulance was requested and Of?cer Lawson determined everyone was okay, Of?cer Lawson searched the area for contraband, drugs, and guns. Of?cer Lawson spoke with the detectives on scene and ultimately went back to the detective division to give a statement. (Att. 309) In a statement to IPRA on 11 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Daniel Passarelli #11574, stated that on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Darling, were in the vicinity of 8200 S. 3 Of?cer Lawson described the vehicle as an Explorer. 4 Of?cer Lawson stated that his View was partially obstructed by the gray/ silver Ford Explorer that was stopped in limit of ill?: and Of?cer Wojtan? 5 vehicle. 5?(Jilleel Laws-en identi?ed one of the of?cers In the second marked squad car as Of?cer Mohammad Baker. 6Now known as - S. Merrill Avenue. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Muskegon Avenue when they heard a ?ash message over the radio related to a stolen Jaguar. At the same time, they heard a call about a stolen BMW. Of?cer Darling, who was driving the unmarked squad car, believed that he had observed the stolen Jaguar cross their path going westbound on 75th Street. Of?cer Darling asked the dispatcher for the license plate number of the stolen Jaguar and con?rmed that the vehicle was stolen. Of?cers Passarelli and Darling then observed the Jaguar turn right onto Merrill Avenue and then made another right down an alley and then returned to the original location on 75th Street.7 Of?cers Passarelli and Darling started to follow the Jaguar. Of?cer Passarelli recalled that the Jaguar was not traveling any faster than 25 miles per hour. As the Jaguar traveled northbound on Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Passarelli observed a police vehicle8 traveling southbound on Merrill Avenue. At this time, the Jaguar struck the driver?s side of Of?cers Coughlin and Torres vehicle and continued to drive pass the vehicle. Of?cer Passarelli then heard several gunshots. Of?cer Passarelli did not know who was ?ring their weapon or who the shots were being fired at. The Jaguar continued driving nertiibound on Merrill Avenue and struck a second squad ear? that was driving southbound. The driver, - of the Jaguar exited the driver?s side of the vehicle and began running westbound. Of?cer Darling continued driving and turned west on 74th Street and went down the ?rst north alley. Of?cers Passarelli and Darling exited the vehicle to locate at which time they heard several more gunshots. Of?cer Passarelli then entered the yard, - S. Merrill Avenue, where he believed - - ran into and observed attempt to enter someone?s home. Additional of?cers entered the yard, got on the ground and placed him into custody. Of?cer Passarelli stated he observed blood on back, but he did not know the source of the injury. (Att. 288) In a statement to IPRA on 10 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Patrick Darling #7134, stated that on 28 July 2016, he was assigned to Beat 6721C. Of?cer Darling was the driver of an unmarked police vehicle and his partner was Of?cer Daniel Passarelli. The of?cers were in the 4th District attempting to locate a wanted offender for a shooting in the 7th district. While of?cers were in the vicinity of 77th Street and Muskegon Avenue, Of?cer Darling heard ?ash messages regarding a wanted Jaguar and of?cers losing sight of the vehicle in the vicinity of 75th and Yates Avenue. Of?cer Darling and his partner began to tour the area and noticed numerous police cars in the area. Around 75th Street, East of Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Darling observed the Jaguar in front of his police vehicle. Of?cer Darling stated that he did not notice it right away because the driver of the Jaguar, was going at a ?normal controlled manner.? The Jaguar matched the description and Of?cer Darling asked diSpatch for the license plate number. When dispatch con?rmed the plate number, Of?cer Darling issued a ?ash message notifying the dispatcher that the stolen Jaguar was headed westbound on 75th Street. Of?cer Darling continued to follow without lights or sirens. The Jaguar turned northbound onto Merrill Avenue, entered the north alley of 75th Street, and then southbound on 7 Of?cer Passarelli described the route as a circle. 8 Of?cers Coughlin and Torres marked squad car, Beat 9 Of?cers Diaz and Baker marked squad car, Beat #4068. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Paxton Avenue and back to 75th Street heading west. Of?cer Darling observed other police vehicles eastbound on 75th Street and the Jaguar turned northbound again onto Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Darling turned on the emergency equipment and continued behind the Jaguar. A marked police vehicle, Beat 406C, Of?cers Coughlin and Torres, turned southbound on Merrill Avenue and stopped at the intersection of 74th Street. Of?cer Darling stated that the Jaguar continued and struck Beat 406C. Of?cer Darling then heard several gunshots, but did not see who ?red the shots. Of?cer Darling slowed down and lost sight of the Jaguar. Of?cer Darling drove his vehicle to the west of Beat 406C and then observed the Jaguar had collided with another marked vehicle, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, on the 7300 block of Merrill Avenue. At this time, a black male in a gray T-shirt, ran westbound from the crash towards the residential yards. Of?cer Darling recalled he did not see whether? was armed or not, and did not observe any of?cers run after him. Of?cer Darling turned westbound onto 74th Street and stopped in the west alley of Merrill Avenue. The two of?cers exited their vehicle and Of?cer Darling observed head pop up quickly from one of the fences. Shortly afterwards, Of?cer Darling heard several gunshots coming from one of the yards. Of?cer Darling stated that he thought that he was getting shot at and sought cover behind his vehicle. Of?cer Darling withdrew his ?rearm while Of?cer Passarelli ran north in the alley. Subsequently, _was located in the yard of a residence, - S. Merrill Avenue, just ?several houses north? of Of?cer Darling?s location. Of?cer Darling entered the yard where _was located and observed his partner and standing against the back of the residence. Of?cers ordered _to get on the ground, and complied. The of?cers then handcuffed and searched - -. Of?cer Darling then observed that _had blood on his side and the back of his shirt. Of?cer Darling grabbed his radio, ran to the front of the residence to obtain the address, and provided the address to dispatch with a request for an ambulance. (Att. 305) In a statement to IPRA on 18 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Andrew Braun stated that on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Arturo Fonseca, were on patrol when they heard via police radio that 4th District of?cers were searching for a Jaguar. A police unit announced that the Jaguar was located and the vehicle was traveling westbound from 75th and Yates Avenue. Of?cers onseca, who was the driver of?cer operating an unmarked police vehicle, drove east on 75th Street at the time in an unmarked CPD police vehicle. Of?cer Braun stated that he and Of?cer Fonseca saw the Jaguar coming towards their direction with two unmarked police vehicles10 behind it. The Jaguar and the unmarked squad cars turned north onto Merrill Avenue. Of?cer onseca turned north onto Merrill Avenue and became the third squad car behind the Jaguar. The Jaguar turned cast into an alley and came back around in a circle. As the Jaguar continued northbound on Merrill Avenue and approached 74th Street, Of?cer Braun observed a marked squad car, Beat 406C, Of?cers Coughlin and Torres, driving southbound on Merrill ?0 Of?cers Passarelli and Darling were the ?rst unmarked vehicle behind the Jaguar and Of?cers Lawson and Wojtan were the second unmarked vehicle behind the Jaguar. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Avenue. The driver of the Ja uar slowed down to a point, but then the Jaguar accelerated to go around the marked squad car. I Officer Braun then heard ten to eleven gunshots. Of?cer Braun stated that he did not know whether the police or an occupant of the Jaguar was shooting. Of?cer Fonseca drove onto the sidewalk on the west side of Merrill Avenue so that he and Of?cer Braun were out of the line of ?re. Of?cer Braun stated that he announced shots ?red over the air. The Jaguar continued to drive north and collided with another marked squad car, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, that was driving south on Merrill Avenue. The driver of the Jaguar, exited the vehicle and ran west through a gangway and into a backyard. Of?cer Fonseca and Of?cer Braun drove around to the alley in an effort to intercept_. Of?cer Braun then heard three or four more gunshots when he and his partner reached the entrance of the alley. Of?cer Braun heard via radio that was running northbound through yards on Merrill Avenue. At that time, Of?cer Fonseca reversed the squad car and proceeded north on Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Braun then heard that one subject was in custody in a backyard. Of?cer Braun recalled that he exited the vehicle and that he and other of?cers searched the area for shell casings and guns. Of?cer Braun stated that he did not go into the backyard where was placed into custody until much later after the shooting. (Att. 308) In a statement to IPRA on 16 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Arturo Fonseca, #10739, stated that on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Braun, were on routine patrol when he initially heard radio transmissions of of?cers following a gray BMW on 75th Street. Of?cers Fonseca and Braun were in the Vicinity of 7500 S. Jeffery Boulevard and decided to drive east on 75th Street. As Of?cer Fonseca drove east on 75th Street, he observed a Jaguar driving west on 75th Street towards his direction. Of?cer Fonseca then observed two unmarked police vehicles and the Jaguar. At that time, Of?cer Fonseca realized that of?cers were following a Jaguar and not the BMW. Of?cer Fonseca followed the Jaguar and became the third unmarked vehicle behind the Jaguar. Of?cer Fonseca did not recall his exact speed, but he did not believe he drove faster than 35 to 40 miles per hour. The Jaguar turned onto Merrill Avenue and drove in a circle back onto 75th Street. When the Jaguar turned back onto 75th Street, it turned back onto Merrill Avenue going north. At this time, Of?cer Fonseca observed the driver of the Jaguar,_ drive around a police vehicle, Beat 406C, Of?cers Coughlin and Torres. When drove past the right side of Beat 406C shots were ?red. Of?cer Fonseca did not know how many shots were ?red, but he believed it was between eleven to ?fteen gunshots. Of?cer Fonseca drove his onto the west curb of Merrill Avenue to take cover. Of?cer Fonseca did not know if the of?cers had discharged their weapons or if had ?red a weapon. Of?cer Fonseca continued driving over to the left (west) side of the grass near the sidewalk. Of?cer Braun stated that from his vantage point he observed the driver of the marked squad car, Of?cer Torres, on the side stepping away from the Jaguar. Of?cer Braun could not tell whether the of?cer was standing in the street or on the sidewalk. Of?cer Braun stated that he could not tell whether the driver of the Jaguar, came to a complete stop. INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log After the gun?re stopped, Of?cer Fonseca observed that the Jaguar had collided with a police vehicle, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker. exited the vehicle and ran to the west side of the street. The of?cers that were already out of their vehicles pursued on foot. At that time, Of?cer Fonseca drove off the sidewalk and turned west onto 74th Street towards the alley. During this time, Of?cer Fonseca heard more gun?re and then he heard someone say over the radio that was running north in the yards of Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Fonseca placed his unmarked vehicle in reverse and then drove north onto Merrill Avenue towards 73rd Street. When Of?cer Fonseca arrived on 73rd Street at the mouth of the alley, he heard on the radio that was in custody. Of?cer Fonseca drove back onto Merrill Avenue and searched the backyards with the other of?cers that arrived on the scene. During the search, Of?cer onseca observed _lying on the ground. Of?cer Fonseca stated that of?cers were attending to and someone requested an EMS over the radio. (Att. 291) In a statement to IPRA on 16 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Christopher Paschal stated he and other of?cers in the district had previously received information at roll call pertaining to a list of possible stolen vehicles that had been spotted in the area. According to Of?cer Paschal, on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Latisha Taylor, were on routine patrol when they heard via radio transmission that a BMW on the hot car list was spotted on Stony Island Avenue. Of?cer Paschal and Of?cer Taylor proceeded to the last known location of the BMW, but while en route they heard via the radio that a Jaguar, also on the hot car list, was spotted with a van or SUV following closely behind the Jaguar. Of?cer Taylor then drove toward the location of the Jaguar. Approximately ?ve seconds later, Of?cers Paschal heard via the radio that there was a crash and shots ?red by the police. Of?cers Paschal and Taylor activated their vehicle?s emergency lights and body cameras and headed to the area of 74th and Merrill Avenue. The of?cers arrived at the location and Of?cer Taylor parked in front of Of?cer Torres? and Of?cer Coughlin?s squad car. Of?cer Paschal stated that Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s squad car was also on scene and had apparently collided with a Jaguar. Of?cer Paschal noted that all parties had exited their vehicles and were not in the immediate area. Of?cer Paschal stated that Of?cer Taylor secured a Taser and a baton that she located on the passenger side of Of?cer Diaz?s and Baker?s squad car. Of?cer Paschal and Of?cer Taylor then went in different directions to locate the other of?cers. Of?cer Paschal went into a rear yard and observed the subject, injured on the ground. Of?cer Paschal added that was handcuffed and lying on his side with a book bag on his back. Of?cer Paschal recalled that there were a total of four of?cers in the backyard when he arrived, but the only of?cer he recognized was Of?cer Diaz. Of?cer Paschal stated that when he saw that was in custody and Of?cer Diaz was okay, he returned to the front yard and helped secure the scene. Of?cer Paschal stated that he did not have any discussion on scene with Of?cer Diaz or any of?cer(s) pertaining to what had occurred. (Att. 306) In a statement to IPRA on 16 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Latisha Taylor stated that, on 28 July 2016, she and her partner, Of?cer Paschal, were on patrol when Of?cers Diaz and Baker announced that they observed a Jaguar with stolen plates in the area. Of?cers Taylor and Paschal activated their body cameras and their vehicle?s emergency equipment and proceeded 10 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log toward the location where the Jaguar was sighted. Of?cers Diaz and Baker announced that the vehicle was going westbound and approaching 74th and Merrill Avenue.12 Of?cers Taylor and Paschal arrived at 74th and Merrill Avenue and parked behind a squad car assigned to Of?cer Torres and his partner, Of?cer Coughlin. Of?cer Diaz?s and Baker?s vehicle was also on the scene and had apparently collided with the Jaguar. Of?cer Taylor stated that she did not see any of?cers or the occupant(s) of the Jaguar in the immediate area, but an older male, now known as pointed in the direction of where the of?cers were located. At that time, Of?cer Taylor observed Of?cer Diaz in a gangway. Of?cer Diaz had spats of blood on his face and arms and could barely walk. Of?cer Baker came from the rear of a residence and was limping. An ambulance arrived and Of?cers Baker and Diaz met with paramedics. Of?cer Taylor stated that neither of?cer told her what occurred or identi?ed themselves as the shooting of?cer. According to Of?cer Taylor, she learned from the news that Of?cer Diaz, Coughlin, and Torres all discharged their weapons during the incident. Of?cer Taylor stated that she never saw the subject, (Att. 307) In a statement to IPRA on 19 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Overrian Montilla, #13985, stated that, on 28 July 2016, she and her partner, Of?cer Rauba, were on patrol in the vicinity of Stoney Island Avenue, when they heard a call on the radio related to of?cers following a stolen BMW. Of?cers Montilla and Rauba were not far from the pursuit and they continued to listen to the radio to see what direction they were headed. Based off the information they heard on the radio, the of?cers and the BMW were in the vicinity of 7600 or 7700 S. Stoney Island Avenue. One of the of?cers following the BMW indicated that he/she had lost sight of the vehicle. During this time, Of?cers Montilla and Rauba got another job related to the theft of a Jaguar. The of?cers immediately responded to the call and observed several squad cars with their emergency equipment activated. Of?cers Montilla and Rauba followed the vehicles to 7400 S. Merrill Avenue and observed a squad car involved in a collision with a black Jaguar. Of?cer Montilla stated she did not witness the actual traf?c accident. Of?cer Montilla exited the squad car and heard four gunshots close by. Of?cer Montilla did not know which direction the gunshots were coming from, but believed the gunshots came from behind some nearby houses. Of?cer Montilla noticed that the of?cers that were involved in the car crash were not in their vehicle. At that time, she observed a young man, now known as attempting to ease away from the scene. There was a citizen, holding a police badge and pointing at_. According to Of?cer Montilla, let her know that was part of the incident. Subsequently, Of?cer Montilla placed into custody. Of?cer Montilla requested an ambulance for because he was bleeding on his facial area and hands and said that he was hurting from the car accident. Paramedics arrived and transported to Of?cer Montilla stated that she stayed with her partner and and never went into the backyards on Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Montilla recalled that she observed Of?cer Baker injured on the scene, but she did not know the extent of his injury. (Att. 316) [2 Of?cer Taylor stated that she did not hear any of?cer announce shots ?red while en route to the scene as she was driving and focused on the road while Of?cer Paschal monitored the radio and gave her directions. 11 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log In a statement to IPRA on 19 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Szymon Hypta, #3117, stated that on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Gallegos, were on patrol when they received a radio transmission related to of?cers following a Jaguar that was possibly stolen. As Of?cers Hypta and Gallegos proceeded to the location, they heard another call over the radio of ?shots ?red.? According to Of?cer Hypta, when they arrived to the scene, the incident was over. Of?cers Hypta and Gallegos were initially told to locate Of?cer Baker, who was allegedly hurt during the incident. Soon thereafter, the observed Of?cer Baker with the paramedics. Of?cer Hypta recalled that he observed in a backyard handcuffed with of?cers surrounding him and securing the area. Of?cer Hypta stated that appeared to be injjured because there was blood on the ground next to him and he appeared to have a red stain1 on his back. Shortly thereafter, paramedics arrived on the scene and transported to the hospital. (Att. 292) In a statement to IPRA on 11 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Dennis Lanning, #11945, stated that on 28 July 2016, he was assigned to Area South Gang Enforcement of?ce, on light duty, in the 7th District. Of?cer Lanning was in the of?ce with Sergeant Poppish when Sergeant Poppish received a call from two people, Of?cers Darling and Passarelli, who are on their team. Of?cers Darling and Passarelli told Sergeant Poppish about an incident that just occurred on 74th and Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Lanning and Sergeant Poppish drove to the location to check on Of?cers Darling and Passarelli. When they arrived to the scene, Sergeant Poppish went to locate Of?cers Darling and Passarelli and Of?cer Lanning remained near the vehicle. Of?cer Lanning stated that he did not observe the police?involved shooting. (Att. 287) In a statement to IPRA on 19 August 2016, Witness Of?cer Ricardo Gallegos #19936, stated that, on 28 July 2016, he was assigned to a tactical team with his partners, Of?cers Hypta and Montes. Of?cer Gallegos was the driver of an unmarked vehicle, Of?cer Hypta was the front seat passenger, and Of?cer Montes was in the back seat. Of?cer Gallegos stated that during their patrol the of?cers heard over the radio that the police were pursuing a stolen Jaguar in the vicinity of 7400 S. Merrill Avenue. The of?cers then heard a report over the radio that shots had been ?red by the police and that an ambulance was needed for an of?cer. Of?cer Gallegos activated the emergency equipment and headed toward the above location. When he arrived on the scene, Of?cer Gallegos and his partners exited their vehicle and ran northbound along with other of?cers. Of?cer Gallegos observed that a black Jaguar and a marked police vehicle, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, had collided into each other. Of?cer Gallegos also observed Of?cer Diaz limping. Of?cer Diaz told the of?cers that he could not ?nd his partner, Of?cer Baker, and that Of?cer Baker was in some yard. Of?cer Gallegos and other of?cers ran into a yard, but did not locate Of?cer Baker. Of?cer Gallegos and other of?cers continued in the alley and then came back to Merrill Avenue. The of?cers then entered a yard, - S. Merrill Avenue, and encountered unknown of?cers who had an individual, in custody. was lying face down and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. Of?cer Gallegos observed that shirt was red from blood, but could not see the extent of injuries. Because Of?cer Baker was not in that yard, Of?cer Gallegos went to the front of the residence and overheard someone say that they had found Of?cer Baker 13' Of?cer Hypta could not con?rm if the red stain was blood. 12 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log and that he was being looked at by paramedics. An unknown of?cer from Of?cer Gallegos? unit informed him and his partners that the commander wanted them to stay on the scene. (Att. 293) In a statement to IPRA on 22 August 2016, the Witness Officer Jacqueline Montes #4155, stated that, on 28 July 2016, she was partnered with Of?cers Gallegos and Hypta. During their patrol, Of?cer Montes heard dispatch reporting a stolen vehicle and the of?cers decided to head in the direction of the vehicle. When they arrived at 74th and Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Montes heard over the radio that shots had been ?red by the police. Of?cer Montes headed to the driveway of a residence where many of?cers, including Of?cers Coughlin and Torres, were located. Of?cers Coughlin and Torres informed her that they had discharged their ?rearms. Of?cer Montes walked with the two of?cers and informed Sergeant Walker that Of?cers Coughlin and Torres had discharged their ?rearms. Of?cer Montes then contacted FOP on the two of?cers? behalf. Of?cer Montes stated that she did not ask the two of?cers what had happened and they did not tell her. Shortly afterwards, Of?cer Montes began lookin for shell cases on the ground. Of?cer Montes stated that she never observed the subject, or the arrestee,_ on the scene. (Att. 294) In a statement to IPRA on 22 August 2016, the Witness Of?cer Edward Rauba #17208, stated that, on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Montilla, were assigned to Beat 414 and he was the driver of their marked police vehicle. While the of?cers were on patrol, he heard over the radio that of?cers were following a stolen black Jaguar. Of?cer Rauba turned on the emergency lights and headed toward the vicinity of 75th Street, where the Jaguar had been spotted, in order to provide assistance. Upon reaching 75th Street, Of?cer Rauba observed an unmarked vehicle with its emergency lights on behind a Jaguar. Both vehicles then turned northbound and Of?cer Rauba paralleled the vehicles on an unknown street. Of?cer Rauba then turned westbound onto 74th Street. When Of?cer Rauba reached the intersection of 74th and Merrill Avenue, he observed that the Jaguar had crashed head on with a police vehicle, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, and then he heard several gunshots. Of?cer Rauba recalled that he heard some shots over the radio and other shots out in the open when he exited his police vehicle. Of?cer Rauba and his partner then observed an unknown individual, attempting to walk away from the crash. An unknown male,?, told Of?cer Rauba that was the passenger in the Jaguar. Of?cer Rauba pointed his ?rearm at - ?ordered him to the ground. complied and the of?cers handcuffed him and placed him inside their police vehicle. Because? had a bloody lip, Of?cer Rauba asked a paramedic to check him out. Of?cer Rauba eventually learned that the shots had been ?red by police of?cers. Of?cer Rauba did not observe the subject, on the scene and did not observe any of?cers discharging their ?rearms. After ?was transported away, Of?cer Rauba began to look around for a gun in the west alley of Merrill Avenue. Sergeant Walker later directed Of?cer Rauba to complete case reports and one arrest report and Of?cer Montilla completed the traf?c crash report. (Att. 295) 13 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 2. Civilian Witnesses Interviews: A Canvass Report, dated 29 July 2016, noted that a canvass of the area of the incident produced two witnesses, _and (Att. 32) In a statement with IPRA dated 01 August 2016, Witness stated that on 28 July 2016, at approximately 1935 hours, he was in the driveway of his home, located at - when he heard three to four gunshots. looked down his driveway and observed a police SUV heading southbound on Merrill Avenue. stated Merrill Avenue is a one way street that goes northbound. A couple of seconds later, _heard a big crash and then heard more gunshots. At that time, ran down his driveway toward the crash. As ran towards the crash, he observed two vehicles in what appeared to be a head on collision. One of the vehicles was a black two-door convertible Jaguar, which was facing north, and the other vehicle was the police SUV, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, which was facing south. observed a young man, now known as exiting the Jaguar and running westbound through a driveway with two uniformed of?cers chasing him. According to was looking back over his ri ht shoulder as he ran and appeared to be clutching a bag or something? in his right hand. ?stated ran down the west driveway of the second home from the corner.14 As continued to stand there, he observed another young man, now known as exit the Jaguar. stumbled out of the vehicle and ?hollered? at that the police were there and to stop. stopped and stared at _for a couple of seconds. At that time, a female of?cer, now known as Of?cer Montilla, approached and told him to get on the ground. complied and Of?cer Montilla handcuffed? and laced him in her vehicle. By that time, heard ?ve to six more gunshots. dthen ran back towards his home, which was about two doors down, and looked down the driveway of his neighbor?s home and observed police of?cers running. _stated he has video cameras on the outside of his home which captured his neighbor?s driveway, which is west of his home, where people were runnin stated he is a retired Chicago Police Of?cer and retired from CPD in 2014. i stated he does not know the of?cers involved in this incident. (Att. 59) In a statement to IPRA on 03 August 2016, the witness, stated that, on 28 July 2016, at approximately 1923 hours, she was at her residence at -. was in bed watching television on the second ?oor when she heard about four ?pops.? She stated that she did not know what those sounds were. then observed blue lights ?ashing outside and went to her window and parted the blinds. At that time, she observed at least three white male uniformed of?cers running southbound in the middle of Merrill Avenue. _eard three or four ?pops? and observed ?orange ?ames? coming out of the of?cers? ?rearms, but she did not see who the of?cers were shooting at. observed a ?ton? of of?cers running westbound in the driveway of the residence at - S. Merrill Avenue, which is directly across from her residence. She then heard additional shots and ducked down. 14 Now known as - S. Merrill Avenue. 14 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log When she looked out again, she observed of?cers coming from ?everywhere.? - observed of?cers running into the driveways of residences across the street from her house. Subsequently, _exited her residence. An ambulance was parked in front of S. Merrill Avenue and a stretcher with an unknown individual on it came from the backyard of that address. _stated that she did not observe the head-on collision with the police vehicle until the following morning. stated that she did not hear any other loud sounds prior to hearing the shots ?red. (Att. 62) Attempts to contact and interview the witness, were unsuccessful. - is represented by counsel in this matter. Requests to his attorney to arrange an interview were made via telephone and certi?ed letter. attorney did not respond to any of the requests. (Att. 290) 3. Accused Of?cer Interviews: In a statement with IPRA dated 23 September 2016, Accused Of?cer Michael Coughlin stated on 28 July 2016, he and his partner, Of?cer Jose Torres, were on 93rd and Stoney Island Avenue when they spotted a BMW. The of?cers ran the license plate number which revealed the vehicle was stolen. Of?cer Coughlin suspected the BMW was one of the vehicles stolen from the suburbs. The BMW took off and Of?cers Coughlin and Torres lost sight of the vehicle. Shortly afterwards, the of?cers observed the BMW again on 9lst and Stony Island Avenue. Of?cers Coughlin and Torres attempted to stop the BMW a second time, but the BMW took off and the of?cers lost sight of the vehicle again. Shortly afterwards, Of?cer Coughlin heard another unidenti?ed unit15 state it had eyes on a stolen 2002 Jaguar. Of?cers Coughlin and Torres drove in the direction of the Jaguar as the unidenti?ed unit called out the location of the Jaguar. The of?cers turned from 74th Street onto Merrill Avenue and observed the Jaguar driving northbound on Merrill Avenue as they drove southbound on the same street. According to Of?cer Coughlin, the Jaguar appeared as if it was going to stop, at approximately-, -, or - S. Merrill Avenue, because the front end of the vehicle nosedived. The of?cers stopped and exited their vehicle, at approximately - or - S. Merrill Avenue, and observed that the Jaguar was not stopping. Of?cer Coughlin estimated the Jaguar was traveling over 30 miles an hour. The driver of the Jaguar, now known as drove the Jaguar towards Of?cer Torres and accelerated.16 At that time, Of?cer Coughlin stated he was afraid for the life of Of?cer Torres. Of?cer Coughlin stated he believed Of?cer Torres had been struck by the Jaguar which could possibly have killed Of?cer Torres or seriously injured him. Of?cer Coughlin could not see where Of?cer Torres was, so he discharged his ?rearm17 at _because_ was using deadly ?5 Now identi?ed as Of?cers Darling and Passarelli. Of?cer Darling and Passerelli were both assigned to the same unmarked car, Car #1788, but had different beat numbers. Of?cer Darling was assigned Beat 6721F and Of?cer Passarelli was assigned Beat 6721C. ?6 Of?cer Coughlin stated he was unaware that there was a passenger in the Jaguar at that time. '7 Of?cer Coughlin stated he was a car length away from the Jaguar, which he estimated at four feet, when he initially started to discharge his ?rearm at the Jaguar. Of?cer Coughlin recalled that the longest distance was between 50 75 feet away as he discharged his ?rearm at the Jaguar. 15 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log force against Of?cer Torres. Of?cer Coughlin explained that made a decision to use the Jaguar as a deadly weapon by turning the vehicle into the path of where Officer Torres was standing and accelerating the vehicle}8 drove the Jaguar the of?cers? vehicle and another parked vehicle]9 striking both vehicles. Of?cer Coughlin stated he believed was intentionally trying to strike Of?cer Torres. The Jaguar passed by Of?cers Coughlin?s and Torres? vehicle. Of?cer Coughlin stated he continued to discharge his ?rearm because needed to be stopped and taken into custody immediately and he was concerned for the safety of citizens and of?cers in the area. Meanwhile, Of?cer Coughlin observed another police vehicle, Beat 406B which was occupied by Of?cers Diaz and Baker, driving south in the 7300 block of south Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Coughlin continued to discharge his ?rearm at the Jaguar until he determined Of?cers Diaz and Baker were getting too close and he did not want to endanger the of?cers or inadvertently strike them. _continued to drive the Jaguar north on Merrill Avenue and collided head on with Of?cers Baker?s and Diaz?s police vehicle, and Of?cer Coughlin heard Of?cer Torres discharge his ?rearm. After the collision, ?bailed?20 from the Jaguar, so Of?cer Coughlin decided to pursue ?with Of?cers Baker and Diaz. Of?cer Coughlin did not recall observing anything in ?5 hands. In addition, Of?cer Coughlin could not recall what verbal commands he gave to but he recalled giving verbal commands. Of?cer Coughlin stated he would have said something to the effect of ?stop, get on the ground.? Of?cer CoughIW into the driveway between - and - S. Merrill Avenue. When reached a fence in the backyard of - S. Merrill Avenue, he went over a wooden fence that was about six feet high. Of?cer Baker attempted to go over the fence and asked Of?cer Coughlin to assist him get over the fence. Of?cer Coughlin assisted Of?cer Baker over the fence by ?giving him a boost.? According to Of?cer Coughlin, when Of?cer Baker went over the fence he fell ?pretty hard.? At that time, Of?cer Coughlin heard gunshots, but he did not know who was shooting. Of?cer Torres told Of?cer Coughlin to ?go around? and an unknown voice over the radio stated_ was running back towards Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Coughlin proceeded east in the driveway between _and - S. Merrill Avenue and then north on Merrill Avenue. Subsequently, a citizen, now identi?ed as pointed in a northwest direction. Of?cer Coughlin ran towards the direction was pointing towards and while running he did a tactical reload of his ?rearm.21 Of?cer Coughlin recalled he reloaded his ?rearm as he pursued? because he was not sure ?how many rounds he had expended and he was taught in the academy that you want to have a fresh weapon in case you need to identify your weapon.? As Of?cer Coughlin reloaded his ?rearm, his expandable baton dropped ?3 Officer Coughlin stated mm the Jaguar did not drive towards him. 19 Blue Ford Expedition. license plate number 20 Ran 21 Of?cer Coughlin removed the gun magazine that was in his ?rearm and placed it in his left cargo pocket. He then replaced the gun magazine with a fully loaded gun magazine. 16 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log from his holster. Of?cer Coughlin ran into the backyard of - S. Merrill Avenue. In the backyard of- S. Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Coughlin observed _lying on the ground on his stomach and three of?cers22 placing into custody. Of?cer Coughlin did not observe with a weapon. Of?cer Diaz entered the backyard. Of?cer Coughlin checked on Of?cer Baker to ensure he was okay. According to Of?cer Coughlin, Of?cer Baker was in obvious pain. Of?cer Coughlin then heard someone state that_ was shot and someone request that an ambulance respond to the scene. Of?cer Coughlin also requested an ambulance for Of?cer Baker. Subsequently, Of?cer Coughlin walked back to his police vehicle. Sergeant Carroll responded to the scene and told Of?cer Coughlin to turn off his body camera. Of?cer Coughlin stated that prior to the date of the incident, he was given information during roll call about stolen vehicles taken from in the area of his police district or vehicles that were taken from an auto theft ring from the northern suburbs, such as Bolingbrook or Barrington. In addition, Of?cer Coughlin was told the stolen vehicles were being used in shootings, aggravated batteries with handguns, and homicides. Of?cer Coughlin stated that the ?rst indication he had of the Jaguar was when the LoJack system activated in Beat which was the vehicle occupied by Of?cers Diaz and Baker. Of?cer Coughlin stated that he ran the Jaguar?s license plate number on the PDT system once he heard the license plate number come over the air. Of?cer Coughlin was never told any information about the occupants in the Jaguar, _or or if they had a weapon. Additionally, Of?cer Coughlin did not have any information on how the Jaguar was stolen prior to the incident. Of?cer Coughlin stated he discharged his ?rearm at the Jaguar to incapacitate the driver, . According to Of?cer Coughlin, after the incident, he stated ?fuckin desk duty for 30 days now, motherfucker I shot? because he was frustrated. Of?cer Coughlin explained he did not join the police department to sit at a desk. Of?cer Coughlin further explained he liked working on the street and he is not the type of person to sit in an of?ce or do menial tasks. (Att. 336) In a statement with IPRA dated 23 September 2016, Accused Of?cer Jose Torres stated that, on 28 July 2016, he was working Beat with Of?cer Coughlin. While on patrol, Of?cer Torres observed a BMW. The of?cers ran the plate and then attempted to stop the BMW, but the BMW went around and Of?cers Torres? and Coughlin?s vehicle. The of?cers continued on patrol and heard information given over the radio from of?cers about a stolen Jaguar. Of?cers Torres and Coughlin, who were in the area of 95th and Jeffery Boulevard, agreed to head over towards the location where the Jaguar was last observed. As the of?cers proceeded to the location, they activated their lights and sirens. At some point, Of?cer Torres heard via radio an of?cer calling out directions of the Jaguar. Of?cer Torres heard that the Jaguar was traveling north on Merrill Avenue from 75th Street, so he turned on Merrill Avenue going south from 74th Street. When Of?cer Torres ?rst observed the Jaguar he stopped the police vehicle because he thought the occupants in the vehicle were going to stop and bail out of the vehicle. Of?cer Torres 22 Of?cer Coughlin could not identify the of?cers, but the of?cers are now identi?ed as Of?cers Wojtan, Passerelli, and Darling. l7 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log stated he assumed he was going to place the occupants in the Jaguar in custody and the incident would be over. However, the driver of the Jaguar, continued to drive towards Of?cer Torres? police vehicle. Of?cer Torres exited the police vehicle because he believed - was going to hit the police vehicle ?straight on.? According to Of?cer Torres, attempted to kill him by trying to run him over. Of?cer Torres got out of the way23 while ()l?ticer Coughlin started to discharge his ?rearm. Of?cer 'I'orres recalled that he did not sheet at the aguar24 as it was coating towards him because the incident happened so last and he does not know when he took his ?rearm out of the holster. Of?cer Torres then discharged his ?rearm once as the Jaguar drove north on Merrill.25 Of?cer Torres explained that he attempted to get an accurate shot to stop from "pressing on the gas" pedal.?26 Of?cer 'l'erres further elaborated that he discharged his ?rearm based on??s actions. He stated that it appeared that _was going to get either civilians27 or responding of?cers hurt or killed. Of?cer Torres stated that he only had one opportunity to shoot because he waited to take a well-aimed shot. Of?cer Torres did not discharge his ?rearm again because he observed another police vehicle, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, getting too close. Subsequently, the Jaguar crashed into the oncoming police vehicle occupied by Of?cers Diaz and Baker. After the collision, exited the Jaguar and ran. Of?cer Torres recalled that did not appear injured and he did not have anything in his hands at that time. Of?cer Torres gave verbal commands, but he could not recall what he said. Of?cer Torres pursued into a driveway28 with Of?cers Baker and Coughlin.29 When ran into the driveway, Of?cer Torres lost sight of him. Of?cer Torres ran into the driveway and observed Of?cer Baker attempting to hop over a wooden fence. Of?cer Torres stated he did not observe hop a fence, but he assumed that had scaled the fence Of?cer Baker was attempting to get over. Of?cer Coughlin attempted to jump over the fence, but was unsuccessful. At that time, Of?cer Torres heard an indeterminate number of gunshots. Of?cer Torres believed either responding of?cers or were shooting. Of?cer Torres ran back onto Merrill Avenue and saw a civilian. point and state that was going back on Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Torres then ran to the backyardmt where he heard screaming. In the backyard, Of?cer Torres observed of?cers with was on the ground lying face down. Of?cer Torres told _to place his hands behind his back or raise his hands. did not comply, so Of?cer Torres grabbed his hand and assisted in handcuf?ng 23 Of?cer Torres stated the incident happened fast, fractions of seconds, and that only his speed in stepping out of the way prevented him from getting ran over. 24 Of?cer Torres estimated that the speed was between 3t} 40 mph. 25 Of?cer Torres believed he was about feet away from the Jaguar when be discharged his ?rearm. 26 Of?cer Torres stated he hoped that discharging his ?rearm a_ would stop from stepping down on the gas pedal and result in the Jaguar stopping. Of?cer Torres stated at the time of the incident he did not observe any civilians in the area. 2 Of?cer Torres stated he ran behind Of?cer Coughlin and Of?cer Coughlin ran behind Of?cer Baker. 9 18 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Of?cer Torres could not recall receiving any information about the Jaguar prior to the incident, but recalled he was provided information regarding stolen vehicles from the suburbs while in roll call. Of?cer Torres recalled the Jaguar popped up on the LoJack System in another CPD vehicle, but he could not recall which police vehicle.31 In addition, Of?cer Torres stated he did not receive any information regarding the occupants of the Jaguar, and - prior to the incident. Of?cer Torres stated he does not feel he used a roadblock to stop According to Of?cer Torres, he believed that, if he stopped his vehicle, ?would stop the Jaguar and ?bail? out on foot. Of?cer Torres stated he was unaware he had mixed ammunition in his weapon. Of?cer Torres explained that he tries to utilize the gun range regularly and may have inadvertently mixed his ammunition while unloading his magazine. (Att. 337) In a statement with IPRA dated 26 September 2016, Accused Of?cer Jose Diaz stated that on 28 July 2016. he was dressed in unilbrm and assigned to Beat 406B. which was a marked police vehicle, driven by his partner, Officer Baker.32 Of?cer Diaz learned in rollcall that there were stolen vehicles in the 4th District area. As Of?cers Diaz and Baker were on patrol, Of?cer Diaz recalled observing a Jaguar with a distorted license plate.33 The of?cers followed the Jaguar and obtained the license plate number. Of?cer Diaz noti?ed dispatch that they were following the vehicle and ran the license plate number which revealed that the Jaguar was stolen. As the of?cers followed the Jaguar, the LoJack System in their marked police vehicle went off, which indicated that there was a stolen vehicle in the area. Another vehicle, which Of?cer Diaz believed was a Buick Rendezvous, cut off Of?cers Diaz and Baker and the Jaguar took off. Of?cers Diaz and Baker then lost sight of the Jaguar. Of?cers Diaz and Baker noti?ed dispatch that they lost sight of the Jaguar. Of?cer Diaz contacted the LoJack Company in order to learn how to process and read the system. The of?cers stopped their marked vehicle and attempted to get a better read with the LoJack System. At that time, Sergeant Walker drove up and spoke with the of?cers and Of?cers Diaz and Baker informed Sergeant Walker about what they were doing. As the of?cers spoke to Sergeant Walker, Of?cer Diaz heard an unidenti?ed unit state they spotted the Jaguar and provided pinpoint directions. Of?cer Diaz told Of?cer Baker to turn the marked police vehicle around and the of?cers eventually proceed to drive east on 73rd Street and then south on Merrill Avenue. As the of?cers drove south on Merrill Avenue,34 Of?cer Diaz heard gun?re35 and observed the Jaguar driving in his direction.36 Of?cer Diaz told Of?cer Baker that he believed 31 The LoJack System was located in Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s police vehicle, Beat 406B. 32 Of?cer Diaz stated he typically worked with Of?cer Baker and has been working with him for approximately two years. 33 Of?cer Diaz could not recall exactly why the license plate looked distorted, but stated he believed it was something with the plastic or writing. 34 Merrill Avenue is a one way street going north. Of?cer Diaz stated he and Of?cer Baker decided to drive south on Merrill Avenue because it was the fastest way to get to the location where the Jaguar was located. 35 Of?cer Diaz stated he could not recall how many gunshots he heard. but stated he heard a bunch of shots. 36 Of?cer Diaz stated he believe Of?cer Baker was driving 40 and the Jaguar may have been travelling 40 mph. 19 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log the oecupant(s) in the Jaguar were shooting at them and Of?cer Baker told Of?cer Diaz to get down. Of?cer Diaz stated he did not see anyone in the Jaguar discharging a weapon, but explained that he believed the oecupant(s) in the Jaguar were shooting at him because the gunshots were directly in front of him and he believed that the bullets were coming by him and his partner.37 At that time, Of?cers Diaz and Baker leaned over the center console to protect themselves. Of?cer Diaz then heard a loud explosion.38 After the explosion, Of?cer Diaz opened his eyes39 and sat up. Of?cer Diaz realized Of?cer Baker had exited their marked police vehicle. Of?cer Diaz believed that he had been ?red upon and did not know if the offenders were still coming for him or his partner, so he decided to exit the marked police car. Of?cer Diaz attempted to open his passenger side door, but the door did not initially open. Of?cer Diaz managed to get out of the marked police vehicle and observed an of?cer, who he believed was Of?cer Baker 0 at the time, running into a yard.41 At that time, Of?cer Diaz stated he was a little bit disoriented and his taser fell off by his marked police vehicle. Of?cer Dian decided to run westbound into an adjacent yard in order to get to the alleyfn As Of?cer Diaz ran westbound into a yard,? he observed a male subject, jump over a wooden fence.?H jumped over the fence and ?kind of" hit the ground in a squat position with both of his hands on the ground.45 As stood up, Of?cer Diaz stated to ?Show me your fucking hands. Don?t fucking move, show me your fucking hands.? ?1 reached for his left sider?waist??r1 and Of?cer Diaz discharged his firearm. Of?cer Diaz explained he believed was attempting to engage him again. Of?cer Diaz was under the impression that he had been shot at or shot, and he did not know if he had been hit or if Of?cer Baker had been hit. Of?cer Diaz explained that his ?rst two shots came one after the other, and then there was a pause and a third gunshot followed by a fourth gunshot, and possibly a fifth gunshot.47 Of?cer Diaz recalled that there was time in between his gunshots because he was moving and running, but he recalled that all of his gunshots were ?red from the backyard of He also was being careful not to fall or trip over anything in the yard. continued to north through the backyard of - then jumped over a fence and landed in the backyard of 37 Upon inquiry, Of?cer Diaz denied observing Of?cers Coughlin or Torres discharge their ?rearms, but admitted that he did not directly observe any occupants in the Jaguar discharge a Weapon. 38 The load explosion was the collision oflhe Jaguar and the officers? marked police vehicle. 39 Of?cer Diaz stated he does not recall if he blacked out or not. 40 Of?cer Diaz stated after reviewing video footage from the incident he believes it was now Of?cer Coughlin. 41 The location ol'this yard is now known as_. 42 Officer Diaz stated he and Of?cer Baker have "this thing" where if an offender is running they split up and try to converge at some point in order to trap the offender. 4" The location of this yard is now known as?, which was adjacent 44 Of?cer Diaz stated at that point he and? were ?kind of? faein each other. 45 Of?cer Diaz stated at that time he did not observe anything ind?s hands and he did not observe anything fall out of his hands. 46 Of?cer Diaz stated he did not see anything in waist area because hands were covering that area. 47 Of?cer Diaz?s TRR documented he discharged his ?rearm ?ve (5) times. 20 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log According to Of?cer Diaz, at that time, he did not see any indication that _had been shot. Of?cer Diaz could no longer see and attempted to jump over the fence, but he could not because of intense throbbing to his right leg. Of?cer Diaz stated that he could not recall if his ?rearm discharged as he attempted to go over that ?ance.48 At that time, Of?cer Diaz heard an unidenti?ed of?cer state, ?He?s going back towards Merrill,? and Of?cer Diaz ran back around towards Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Diaz ran north on Merrill Avenue and then west into another yard.? As Of?cer Diaz entered the backyard of - where he observed several officers50 placing into custody?. - was lying face down on the ground. Of?cers were telling ?don?t fucking move? and ?put your hands behind your back.? At that time, Of?cer Diaz called a ?bitch ass motherfucker.? According to Of?cer Diaz, he called a ?bitch ass motherfucker? because he was angry and frustrated and there were a lot of emotions going through him at that time. Of?cer Diaz then attempted to kick with his foot as was lying face down on the ground.52 Of?cer Diaz explained that, at that time, he was unaware that had been shot because he did not see any blood or anything from his angle. After Of?cer Diaz kicked at the backpack was wearing on his back moved and Of?cer Diaz observed blood. Of?cer Diaz realized?had been shot and requested assistance. Of?cer Diaz claims that he sustained back spasms, spasms in his neck, multiple bruising on his left side, and multiple contusions on the right side of his body from hip to his ankle and on his right elbow. Of?cer Diaz went to _for medical treatment. Of?cer Diaz stated that he was assigned his body worn camera approximately a week to a week and a half prior to the incident. Of?cer Diaz stated that he realized his body camera was not on when he exited the backyard of so he decided to activate his body camera when he exited the backyard because it should have been on the entire time. Of?cer Diaz stated he did not feel that he failed to activate his body camera because he did not have time nor did he think to activate the camera under the circumstances he faced. Of?cer Diaz recalled that after the incident he made a statement stating he was ?going to get cruci?ed.? Of?cer Diaz explained that he made the statement because, after the incident, he was informed that a weapon was not recovered from Of?cer Diaz referenced the current climate in the media regarding police shootings, and the shootings of unarmed black men in particular. (Att. 338) 48 A shell casing was recovered in the backyard of Of?cer Diaz stated he attempted to go over the fence that separated- and? with his ?rearm and maybe a shell casing was on him when he attempted to go over that fence. 49 The location of this yard is now known as which was three doors north of? 50 Of?cer Diaz recalled Of?cers Torres and Baker being in the backyard, but could not recall the names of the other of?cers in the backyard. 5 Of?cer Diaz stated he could not recall if was already handcuffed or being handcuffed. 52 Of?cer Diaz stated he believed his foot made contact with either shoulder or the backpack on his back. 21 1N DEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log In a statement with IPRA dated 05 October 2016, Accused Officer Mohammad Baker stated that he learned during roll call on July 28, 2016, that a number of stolen vehicles from a car-theft ring had been spotted in the area earlier that day. Of?cer Baker and his colleagues were provided a list of approximately ?ve to ten stolen vehicles to look out for. Of?cer Baker?s police vehicle was equipped with a LoJack system, which would alert them whenever a stolen vehicle was detected in the area. While on another assignment, Of?cer Baker stated that he and his partner, Of?cer Diaz, heard via radio transmission that a stolen vehicle, a black Jaguar, had been sighted in the area. Of?cer Baker drove in the direction where the Jaguar was seen in an effort to intercept the vehicle. Of?cer Baker drove south on Merrill Avenue and observed a police of?cer, now known to be Of?cer Torres, standing on the southeast comer of 74th and Merrill Avenue. At the same time, Of?cer Baker observed a black Jaguar driving north on Merrill Avenue, approaching Of?cer Baker?s squad car. According to Of?cer Baker, he believed that the Jaguar struck, or attempted to strike Of?cer Torres because the Jaguar swerved and Of?cer Torres either fell or dove to the ground. Simultaneously, Of?cer Baker heard approximately seven to ten gunshots. Of?cer Baker stated that the Jaguar approached him and Of?cer Diaz?s vehicle at a high rate of speed, and Of?cer Baker believed that he and Of?cer Diaz were being shot at.53 Of?cer Baker stated that he slammed on the brakes and attempted to stop his vehicle and the Jaguar struck his squad car head-on.S4 Of?cer Baker exited his squad car and observed the subject, exit the driver?s side of the Jaguar. ?ed and Of?cer Baker pursued on foot. disregarded Of?cer Baker?s verbal commands to stop and show his hands. ?ran up a driveway and jumped a fence.55 Of?cer Baker attempted to jump the fence, but struggled. Of?cer Coughlin appeared and gave Of?cer Baker a boost over the fence. Of?cer Baker stated that he heard approximately three to ?ve gunshots as he went over the fence into a residential yard. After he could not locate Of?cer Baker jumped a second fence that led to the alley and continued to search for?. Of?cer Baker stated that he saw an of?cer enter a backyard one or two houses north of Of?cer Baker?s location. Of?cer Baker entered the same yard and then fell to his knee in ain. Of?cer Baker observed approximately ?ve to ten officersS? in the backyard and saw in custody. Of?cer Baker stated that he did not have a verbal or physical interactiun will] - in the backyard. Of?cer Baker stated that he did not hear any Department member direct derogatory language at and he did not observe any of?cer kick or physically maltreat Of?cer Baker did not discharge his ?rearm during the incident. Of?cer Baker stated that he later learned that Of?cers Coughlin, Torres and Diaz discharged their 53 Of?cer Baker stated that he did not observe the of?cer on the southeast comer point or discharge a weapon. 54 Of?cer Baker stated that he and Of?cer Diaz burn ed heads, and his head struck the dashboard. 55 The driveway was between? and _jumped the fence at - 56 Of?cer Diaz was one of the of?cers in the backyard. Of?cer Baker stated that he recognized the other of?cers, but did not know any of them personally. 22 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log weapons, but he did not witness it. Of?cer Baker stated that paramedics examined him and transported him to for evaluation. According to Of?cer Baker, he was wearing his body worn camera at the time of this incident, but he forgot to turn on the camera and therefore did not record the incident. Of?cer Baker stated that when he encountered the Jaguar, his focus was on maintaining control of his squad car and ensuring the safety of him, his partner, and any civilians in the area. (Att. 319) B. Department Reports The IPRA Preliminary Report and the Major Incident Noti?cation Report provided an account of the incident similar to the introduction of this report. (Att. 4, 233) The Arrest Report for documented he was arrested on 28 July 2016, at 1936 hours, at and charged with Receive/Possess/Sell Stolen Vehicle. The arresting of?cers were Of?cer Oberrian Montilla, #13985, and Of?cer Edward Rauba, #17208. The Arrest Report states that knowingly had in his possession a black Jaguar convertible, while not being entitled to or having permission from the owner/victim, now known as to be in possession of vehicle. The vehicle, a 2002 Jaguar with license plate was reported stolen to Bolingbrook Police Department on 28 July 2016. - - was a passenger in the Jaguar. ?was taken into custody and searched by Of?cer Rauba. Subsequently, was transported to via ambulance where he was treated and released. (Att. 17) According to Of?cer Coughlin?s Tactical Response Report (TRR), completed by Of?cer Coughlin, ?posed an imminent threat of battery and used force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Of?cer Coughlin responded with member?s presence and the discharge of his ?rearm nine (9) times.57 (Att. 9) According to Of?cer Coughlin?s Of?cer?s Battery Report (0BR), on the date, time, and location of the incident, Of?cer Coughlin was on-duty when he came into contact with - -. used a vehicle, Jaguar, as a weapon by attempting to strike an of?cer with the vehicle. Of?cer Coughlin did not sustain any injuries. (Att. 10) According to Of?cer Baker?s TRR, completed by Of?cer Baker, _attacked with a weapon by using his vehicle,58 as a weapon, and used force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Of?cer Baker did not respond with any use of force or verbal commands. (Att. 11) According to Of?cer Baker?s 0BR, on the date, time, and location of the incident, Of?cer Baker was on-duty when he came into contact with_. Of?cer Baker sustained non-fatal minor injury (bruises/swelling/minor abrasions). (Att. l2) 57 Of?cer Coughlin erroneously checked ?yes? for Box 40c (Did the discharge result in a self-in?icting injury?) 58 Now known as a Jaguar. 23 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 5 According to Of?cer Diaz?s TRR, completed by Of?cer Diaz, used force likely to cause death or great bodily harm and had a weapon. Of?cer Diaz responded by discharging his ?rearm ?ve (5) times-f" (Au. According to Of?cer Diaz?s OBR, on the date, time, and location of the incident, Of?cer Diaz was on-duty when he came into contact with used a vehicle, Jaguar, as a weapon by attempting to strike an of?cer with the vehicle. Of?cer Diaz sustained non-fatal minor injury (bruises/swelling/minor abrasions). (Att. 14) According to Of?cer Torres? TRR, completed by Of?cer Torres, posed an imminent threat of battery and used force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Of?cer Torres responded with member?s presence and the discharge of his ?rearm one (1) time.61 (Att. 15) According to Of?cer Torres? 0BR, on the date, time, and location of the incident, Of?cer Torres was on-duty when he came into contact with used a vehicle, Jaguar, as a weapon by attempting to strike an of?cer with the vehicle. Of?cer Torres did not sustain any injuries. (Att. 16) Original Case Incident Report, RD Battery Aggravated PO: Other Dangerous Weapon Assault Aggravated PO: Other Dangerous Weapon, completed on 29 July 2016 by Of?cer Edward Rauba, #17208, documented all of the involved parties? information. (Att. 6) Original Case Incident Report, RD Law Enforcement Related Death: Of?cer Involved Shooting, completed on 29 July 2016 by Detective Frank Casale, #21041, notated the death of? and that IPRA was investigating the incident. (Att. 7) Original Case Incident Report, RD Non-Criminal Subject Speci?ed Foreign Recovery: Automobile, completed on 29 July 2016 by Of?cer Edward Rauba, #17208, documented the 2002 Jaguar, new?, was found to have been reported stolen to Bolingbrook Police Department by . (Att. 8) Attendance and Assignment Sheets for the 4th District Police Station, 3rd Watch, documented on 28 July 2016, Of?cer Coughlin and Of?cer Torres were both assigned to work Beat Car #9031, and started their tour of duty at 1530 hours. Of?cer Baker and 59 During his interview with IPRA, Of?cer Baker stated that his OBR was incomplete, in that he should have checked the box marked, ?pursuing/ arresting offender? and ?of?cer struck with vehicle? for type of activity and type of weapon/ threat, respectively. Of?cer Baker added that he had just been released from and was under the in?uence of Morphine at the time he completed the OBR. 60 In his statement to IPRA, Of?cer Diaz stated his TRR should have documented ?did not follow verbal direction and he used also used member?s presence to subdue In addition, Box 400 (Did the discharge result in a self-inflicting injury?) was erroneously checked because he did not sustain a self-in?icted injury. 6? Of?cer Tones stated he checked Box 40:: erroneously because he did not sustain a self-in?icted injury. 24 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Of?cer Diaz were both assigned to work Beat Car #8761, and started their tour of duty at 1530 hours. (Att. 41) A Breathalyzer Test for Of?cers Coughlin, Torres, and Diaz revealed that their BAC62 was .000 on 28 July 2016. The of?cers also submitted to a drug test which revealed no drugs in their systems. (Att. 75) Training Records from CPD Bureau of Organizational Development Education and Training Division documented Of?cers Diaz, Baker, Coughlin, and Torres completed the Body Worn Camera Orientation Program on 16 June 2016. On 23 June 2016, Of?cers Diaz, Baker, and Torres completed training for Body Worn Cameras Part 1: Law and Policy and Body Worn Cameras Part 2: Operating the Device. Of?cer Coughlin completed training for Body Worn Cameras Part 1: Law and Policy on 20 June 2016 and Body Worn Cameras Part 2: Operating the Device on 26 June 2016. (Att. 298, 349) A Bureau of Internal Affairs Report documented that Of?cers Coughlin and Torres were both relieved of their police powers on 29 July 2016. Of?cer Diaz was relieved of his police powers on 30 July 2016. (Att. 76, 77) CPD Hot Desk Inquiries documented that on 28 July 2016, at 1827 and 1919 hours, Of?cer Diaz ran license plate number which belonged to the Jaguar. On the same date, at 1830, 1832, and 1931 hours, Of?cer Paschal ran the license plate number to the Jaguar. (Att. 106) Illinois Traffic Crash Report, HZ-368887, documented that was driving a Jaguar (unit 1) that struck a Ford Expedition (unit 2)63 and a marked police vehicle64 (unit 3). Unit 1 continued and struck another vehicle-65 (unit 4) in a head on collision. (Att. 247) A Bolingbrook Police Department Case Report, documented that on 28 July 2016, at 0555 hours, Bolingbrook Police Of?cer Nicholas Schmidt was dispatched to 473 Delaware Circle regarding a motor vehicle theft. Of?cer Schmidt met with - and who stated that their black Jaguar bearing license plate number 10 was par ed in their garage, was missing and the garage door was opened. - reported that the keys to the Jaguar may have been in the glove compartment. The Jaguar was equipped with a LoJack system and the system was activated. (Att. 250 ,3 00) Taser Axon Executive Summary documented that Of?cer Diaz?s and Baker?s Body? Worn Cameras66 did not appear to be physically damaged. Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s Body-Worn Cameras were tested for functionality, proved to be operating and logging engineering data as expected, and did not record the incident that took place on 28 July 2016, at 62 Blood Alcohol Content 63 Vin Number 64 Beat 406C - Of?cers Coughlin and Torres. 65 Beat 406B - Of?cers Baker and Diaz. 66 Of?cer Diaz had Body Camera Of?cer Baker had Body Camera X81032805. 25 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log approximately 1935 hours, because the event button was not double tapped at the time of the incident. (Att. 253, 304) C. Medical Information The Chicago Fire Department (CFD) Ambulance Reports documented on 29 July 2016, at approximately 1952 hours, paramedics in CF Ambulance #70 arrived at the scene and observed laying supine, alert, and oriented with a single gunshot wound to the right side of his back. was transported to _for medical treatment. (Att. 78) The CFD Ambulance Reports documented on 29 July 2016, at approximately 1952 hours, paramedics in CFD Ambulance #38 arrived at the scene and were informed that Of?cer Diaz was a front seat passenger involved in a motor vehicle accident. Of?cer Diaz was ambulatory and com lained of left leg and arm pain. The paramedics transported Of?cer Diaz to for medical treatment. (Att. 79) The CFD Ambulance Reports documented on 29 July 2016, at approximately 1952 hours, paramedics in CFD Ambulance #38 arrived at the scene and were informed Of?cer Baker was a restrained driver in a motor vehicle accident with offenders attempting to ?ee a scene. Of?cer Baker was ambulatory on the scene. The paramedics transported Of?cer Baker to due to ?mechanism of injury.? (Att. 80) The CFD Ambulance Reports documented on 29 July 2016, at approximately 1959 hours, paramedics in CFD Ambulance #50 arrived at the scene and observed handcuffed and getting out of a squad car. Paramedics were informed was a restrained passenger of a vehicle that struck a squad car head on at a high rate of speed. complained of right hand numbness, mouth pain, and a scrape to his right hip. also had an abrasion to his lip which was bleeding. _self-extricated himself from the vehicle and was ambulatory on the scene. The paramedics transported - _to?for medical treatment. (Att. 81) Medical Records from _documented that Of?cer Jose Diaz sustained pain to his right side and complained of a headache after possibly striking his head against his partner?s inside the police vehicle during a head-on collision. Of?cer Diaz stated to hospital personnel that he was the passenger and was restrained with the deployment of the air bag and encroachment of front dashboard. Of?cer Diaz added that he had been turned in his seat and his right side was facing outward due to hearing gunshots prior to the accident. Of?cer Diaz was diagnosed as being involved in a motor vehicle collision. (Att. 229) Medical Records from _documented that Of?cer Mohammad Baker informed hospital personnel that he was the driver of a police vehicle during a vehicle pursuit when a head-on collision with another police vehicle occurred. Of?cer Baker complained of pain to his right upper and left lower extremities. Of?cer Baker was diagnosed as being involved in a motor vehicle collision and 2mm nodule in the right lower lobe. (Att. 230) 26 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Medical Records from documented that was transported to the hos ital on 28 July 2016, at approximately 2045 hours. Hospital personnel noted that dwas in a direct collision with another car and the airbag deployed. also related he ?stole a car with friends and was sitting in passenger seat? and ?he was able to climb out of car with ease.? sustained an abrasion to right hip and an abrasion to left lower lip. was diagnosed as being involved in a motor vehicle collision. (Att. 259) Medical Records from documented that - was transported to the Emergency Department with a gunshot wound to the right lateral ?ank. was declared dead in the on 28 July 2016. at 2108 hours. (Att. 228) The Of?ce of the Medical Examiner?s Report of Postmortem Examination M.E. Case #2016-03676, for_ by MD, documents an entrance gunshot wound on the right side of ?s back with no associated exit wound. A copper-colored, jacketed, deformed bullet was recovered from the soft tissue of the right side of his chest. An examination of the skin surrounding the wound revealed no evidence of close-range ?ring. The report also noted abrasions on left cheek, right shoulder, right elbow, and the right side of his chest. The toxicology report was negative. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back and the manner of death was homicide. (Att. 136, 260) D. Of?ce of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) OEMC Event Queries and Police Radio Transmissions were collected and made part of this case ?le. The following is a summary of the relevant audio recordings. I 07:40:24 a caller reported she observed kids between the age of 17 to 19 years of age. The caller reported one of the kids stole a tan vehicle, license plate and had sped through a lot and jumped out of the car. The same subject ran to 75th Street in between Colfax and Exchange. The caller went on to report that was the second day in a row that they (kids) had been coming and stealing cars and dropping them off. . 07:27:53 p.m. Police Transmissions Of?cer Diaz:68 4 0 6 Boy. DSP: 0 6 Boy. Of?cer Diaz: Yeah we got eyes on that Jaguar that stolen 29 Jaguar we're heading uh east on 77' uh and Colfax. DSP: Okay 4 0 6 Boy it's a BMW do you have eyes on that Of?cer Diaz: 10-4 we got eyes on it, (inaudible) goin? northbound. DSP: Okay we're on Colfax goin? northbound, 4 0 6 Boy has eyes on the 4 0 6 Boy has eyes on it. Of?cer Diaz: Cops available? 67 Operating Room 68 Now known as Of?cer Diaz. Beat 406B was Of?cers Diaz and Baker. 27 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Of?cer Diaz: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Of?cer Diaz: DSP: Of?cer Diaz: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer DSP: Of?cer Diaz: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: 4 6 Adam show us goin?. We got 4 6 Adam goin' as well. What's your location 0 6 Boy? Helicopter said they need ?ve minutes before they in our area. What's your location 0 6 Boy? Squad (inaudible) that job on uh westbound on 77th Street. Okay it?s a BMW, are you guys lookin? at a Which car squad? Are you guys lookin' at a gray BMW with Notre Dame plates? 420 (inaudible) black Jaguar. No that's the car that was stolen from 4 6 Charlie. Lookin? for a gray BMW with Notre Dame plates. (inaudible) Okay 4 0 6 Boy do you have that black, uh the gray BMW with Notre Dame plates? Jaguar (inaudible) Okay 10?4. 4 0 6 Boy what's your location? We?re on uh 77th going uh westbound from Yates. Okay 77 goin' westbound from Yates. What's the plate on that Jaguar? Standby. 4 2 5 David show us at 77. 4 2 5 David 10-4. You're on 77th as well? Okay where are they at? 4 (a 6 Boy what's your location? They was last 2 goin' westbound from 77t . (inaudible) we?re on uh 7 5 and Oglesby right now. They're now on 7 5 and Oglesby. And 4 6 Boy are you behind the car? We lost ?em um tryin' to ?nd the (inaudible) Okay 10 - 4. Last seen at 7 5 and Oglesby. It was a black Jaguar. Last seen at 7 5 and Oglesby. Black Jaguar plate is With a plate of Last seen around the area of 7 5 and Oglesby. 406Boy.406Boy. Go ahead 0 6 Boy. Be advised there's like a I wanna say a tan gold SUV that was with'em traveling really close to ?em. So uh just be advised. 28 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: Unidenti?ed Of?cer DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer DSP: Of?cer Diaz: went west. DSP: Of?cer Diaz: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: COP: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: Okay and be advised it's a gold or tan SUV that's travelin' with 'em at a high rate of Speed. Last seen at 7 5 and Oglesby. And just to con?rm the plate is as in orrect? 10-4. 420. 420 go ahead. (inaudible) the car went westbound, the van was not behind it. 0 6 Boy did you copy? Yeah they kept goin' north at a high rate of speed and the uh the Jaguar Okay 10- 4. 4 0 6 Boy. 0 6 Boy. Go ahead. Yeah that's a convertible top. Convertible top Jaguar. 10-4. What color is it? It's a black Jaguar. That's the one we ran the Lojack on earlier. Last seen in the area of 7 5 and Oglesby with a plate of-as in - -. There?s s?posed to be a gold or a tan SUV that's ridin' along with it as well at a high rate of speed. What's the plate on that Jaguar? The plate isl as in,'as in las in?. All right he's goin' westbound 7 5 from Luella. Comin' up on Paxton. Okay we got 'em goin' westbound from, on 7 5 from Luella comin' up on Paxton. All right squad he's gonna be goin' 7 5 and Merrill he's goin' northbound. Northbound 7 5, from 7 5 and Merrill. Hittin' the north alley of Merrill, I'm sorry north alley of 7 9. Hit the north alley of 7 9. Sorry 7 5. 7 5 and Merrill. In the north alley from 7 5 and Merrill. Back on 75th, comin' back on 75th right now. Goin? back to 75. What?s your location now? Goin' back on northbound Merrill. He's goin'in circles. Someone stay on 75 street goin? towards 7 4 now. 29 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 5 DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidentified Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Unidenti?ed Of?cer: DSP: Okay. The (inaudible) you guys got. You got ?em you got ?em Okay someone has em. He?s goin? northbound on Merrill. Someone has ?em (inaudible) do, do we have ?em? Squad (inaudible) he's runnin? . He's - - We got ?em runnin?. (inaudible) We got ?em runnin?, gimme a description. Gray shirt, male black, short hair. Male black, gray shirt -- (inaudible) Male black, gray shirt, short hair. Where's he at now. (inaudible) Where?s he at now? Male black, short hair, gray shirt. Comin? back to Merrill, comin? back to Merrill. He's goin? back to Merrill. Goin? back to Merrill. Lookin? for a male black, short hair, gray shirt. (inaudible) (inaudible) goin? north in the yards. Goin' north in the yards, goin? north in yards. Lookin? for a male black, short hair, gray shirt. You got the air. (inaudible) we got ?em in the yard. He got ?em in the yard. What?s your locationcustodycustody. When you get your um address let me know. 73 51 7351 on Merrill? Um yeah. I'm sorry. We got one in custody. We need EMS. Okay we need an EMS. 6 boy emergency. Squad 6 (inaudible) offender is in the yard Uh roll an ambulance for ?em. Need additional ambulance for a PO - Additional ambulance for an injured PO. Okay. 6 Boy shots ?red by the police. Okay we got shots ?red by the police and we need a ambulance for the offender and a P0. 30 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Unidenti?ed Of?cer: Yeah I believe the offender's been shot also. (Att.133) E. Forensic Evidence The Evidence Technician Photographs and Video depicted the scene of the shooting from various angles and the recovered evidence. (Att.118?127) CPD Crime Scene Processing Reports 309539 and 309569 completed on 30 July 2016 document the evidence identi?ed, collected, and inventoried in connection with this incident. A summary of that information is as follows: Of?cer Torres? gun, a Glock model 17, 9mm semi?automatic pistol, 4 barrel, Inventory #13737345, was collected and inspected. The gun magazine in the Glock had a seventeen (17) shot capacity and there were ?fteen (15) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge cases removed from the magazine, one (1) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge case recovered from the magazine, and one (1) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge case recovered from the chamber of the Glock. Of?cer Coughlin?s gun, a Glock model 19, 9mm semi-automatic pistol, 4 barrel, Inventory #13737291, was collected and inspected. The gun magazine in the Glock had a ?fteen (15) shot capacity and there were ?fteen (15) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge cases removed from the magazine and one (1) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge case recovered from the chamber of the Glock. A second gun magazine, which had a capacity of seventeen (17), was recovered Of?cer Coughlin?s vest pocket and there were eight (8) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge cases removed from that magazine. Of?cer Diaz?s gun, a Glock model 17, 9mm semi-automatic pistol, 4 1/2 barrel, Inventory #13737377, was collected and inspected. The gun magazine in the Glock had a seventeen (17) shot capacity and there were twelve (12) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge cases removed from the magazine and one (1) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge case recovered from the chamber of the Glock. There were several ?red cartridge cases, Inventory #13737260, #13737285, #13737413, and #1373 7423, recovered. One (1) WIN 9mm Luger ?red cartridge case was recovered from the street at Seven (7) WIN 9mm Luger ?red cartridge cases were recovered from the street at One (1) WIN 9mm Luger ?red cartridge case was recovered from the rear yard lawn of One (1) WIN 9mm Luger ?red cartridge case was recovered from the rear yard lawn near the garden box of- and One (1) WIN 9mm Luger ?red cartridge case was recovered from the rear driveway pavement of Fired bullets, Inventory #13737289, 13737440, and 13737791, were recovered from the sidewalk pavement at from the pressboard in the garage of - and from the body of at the Medical Examiner?s of?ce. 31 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Metal fragments, Inventory #13737316, 1373 7334, and 13737791, were recovered on the street pavement at and inside the aguar69 on the front passenger seat, the ?oor of the passenger side between the passenger seat and running board, the passenger door speaker by window, and from the side of the front passenger seat. (Att.50,116) The Illinois State Police (ISP) Laboratory Report, dated 06 September 2016 documented Of?cer Diaz?s gun, a Glock model 17, 9mm Luger semi-automatic pistol, serial a gun magazine, and thirteen (13) Winchester 9mm Luger un?red cartridge cases were examined. Of?cer Diaz?s weapon was operable and test ?red. Of?cer Torres? gun, a Glock model 17, 9mm Luger semi-automatic pistol, serial a gun magazine, sixteen (16) Winchester 9mm Luger un?red cartridge cases, and one (1) Winchester 9mm Luger un?red cartridge case were examined. Of?cer Torres? weapon was operable and test ?red. Of?cer Coughlin?s gun, a Glock model 19, 9mm Luger semi-automatic pistol, serial two gun magazines, and twenty-four (24) Winchester 9mm Luger un?red cartridge cases were examined. Of?cer Coughlin?s weapon was operable and test ?red. One ?red bullet,70 Inventory #13737791, was examined and revealed the bullet was ?red from Of?cer Diaz?s ?rearm. Eight (8) Winchester 9mm Luger I ?red cartrid cases, Inventory #13737285 and 13737260, recovered from -and were examined and revealed the ?red cartridge cases were ?red from Of?cer Coughlin?s ?rearm. Three (3) Winchester 9mm Luger ?red cartridge cases, Inventory #13737413 and 13737423, recovered from- and were examined and revealed the ?red cartridge cases were ?red from Of?cer Diaz?s ?rearm. (Att.320) ISP Supplemental Report, Case #5786-16-1062, documented that on 15 August 2016, ISP Crime Scene Investigator Darrell Stafford processed the 2002 black Jaguar, license plate number There were three defects consistent with bullet holes in the trunk. Four defects consistent with bullet holes were located on the driver?s side of the vehicle behind the driver?s door. The rear windshield had been shattered and only a small amount of glass remained around the outer edges. Digital images produced as a result of the ISP Trajectory Analysis illustrates the path and angle of the ?red bullets as they struck the Jaguar: 69 The location was documented as . 70 The ?red bullet was recovered from the body of at the Medical Examiner?s of?ce. 32 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 33 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log On 09 August 2016, ISP Crime Scene Investigator Stafford processed Beat Of?cer Coughlin?s and Of?cer Torres? marked police SUV, which revealed a defect on the hood of the vehicle consistent with a bullet entrance. The bullet traveled from the passenger side of the vehicle to the driver?s side with a downward angle. In addition, there were two additional defects observed on the driver?s side headlight. In addition, on 09 August 2016, ISP Crime Scene Investigator Daniel Garcia processed Beat Of?cer Diaz's and Of?cer Baker?s marked police SUV, which revealed no apparent signs of gun?re defects. The vehicle had excessive front end damage and was not drivable. The front passenger door did not open fully due to damage and the driver and passenger air bags were deployed. (Att. 353-54, 357) F. Video Evidence A Police Observation Device (POD) search was met with negative results because there are no PODs in the vicinity of the location of incident. (Att. 28) Body-Worn Camera footage from Of?cer Coughlin depicted him exiting the passenger side of his marked police SUV with his ?rearm in his right hand. After he exited, the Jaguar was observed approaching the marked police SUV. As the Jaguar approached, Of?cer Coughlin discharged his ?rearm once from the passenger side of the marked police SUV. The Jaguar continued to proceed between a parked vehicle, Ford Expedition, and the driver?s side of Of?cer Coughlin?s marked police SUV. As the vehicle drove between the two cars, Of?cer Coughlin discharged his ?rearm again, this time as he stood in front of his marked police SUV. At that time, Of?cer Torres is observed in the camera?s view. The Jaguar continued to drive away and Of?cer Coughlin ?red several more shots. Of?cer Coughlin then ran after the Jaguar while yelling ?shots ?red by the police.? The Jaguar subsequently struck head-on an oncoming marked police vehicle, Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker. After the collision, a male subject, was observed exiting the driver side of the Jaguar and an of?cer, Of?cer Baker, exited the driver side of Beat 406B. proceeded to run west in a drivewa located at Of?cer Coughlin continued to run towards with Of?cer Baker in front of him. The of?cers ran through the same driveway to pursue Of?cer Baker was observed attempting to go over a wooden fence, but struggled to get over the fence. Of?cer Coughlin assisted Of?cer Baker getting over the fence. After Of?cer Baker got over the fence, ?ve gunshots could be heard.73 Of?cer Coughlin attempted to get over the same fence, but was unable to. Shortly afterwards, Of?cer Coughlin retreated down the driveway going east and then north on Merrill Avenue. As Of?cer Coughlin ran north on Merrill Avenue, he performed a tactical reload. Of?cer Coughlin and Of?cer Torres then proceeded to go west through another driveway, located at and then entered that backyard. In the backyard, several of?cers, now 71 2014 White Ford interceptor with license plate number 1 Car #9031 72 2013 White Ford interceptor with license plate number I 86,? Car #9186 73 The cadence ofthe gunshots indicates that the shots were not ?red in rapid succession. 34 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log identified as Of?cers Diana, Wojtan, and Darling, are observed. An of?cer, now known to be Officer Diaz.M was heard stating, ?Bitch ass motherfucker,? and ?Fuckin? shoot at us.? Of?cer Coughlin then turned around and another of?cer, now known as Of?cer Baker, appeared to be on his knees. Subsequently, Of?cer Diaz requested an ambulance and Of?cer Coughlin requested ?an additional ambulance for a Another of?cer, now identi?ed as Of?cer Lawson, entered the same backyard from a rear fence. Of?cer Diaz then reported via radio, ?406B0y, shots ?red by the police.? Of?cer Torres asked Of?cer Coughlin ?did he shoot? and Of?cer Coughlin replied, ?Yea.? Of?cer Diaz then stated, ?They shot at us too right?? Of?cer Coughlin further stated, shot at the car after it almost hit you,? while pointing in Of?cer Torres? direction. Of?cer Coughlin exited the backyard and walked onto Merrill Avenue. While walking onto Merrill Avenue, Of?cer Coughlin told an of?cer, ?Just one guy. He almost hit my partner, so I fucking shot at him.? ?Fuck man I?m gonna be on the desk for thirty got damn days. Fucking desk duty for thirty days, motherfucker.? Additionally, body-wom camera footage from before the incident captured Of?cer Torres stating to Of?cer Coughlin ?he almost hit you dude? and Of?cer Coughlin responds ?Yep, if he would have got closer I would have shot.? (Att.176, 177) Of?cer Torres body-worn camera captured Of?cer Torres near or on the east parkway on Merrill Avenue as the Jaguar drove past. Just after the Jaguar continued to drive away, Of?cer Torres discharged his ?rearm. Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s marked police vehicle can be observed approaching south on Merrill Avenue as the Jaguar drove away north on Merrill Avenue. Subsequently, was placed in custody in the backyard of Avenue. While was being placed in custody, it appears that Of?cer Diaz kicks at or towards as Officer Diaz states words to the effect of, ?Bitch ass motherfucker, fuckin? shoot at us.?75 (Att. 176, 177) Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s body-worn cameras did not capture the incident. Of?cer Diaz?s body-worn camera only depicted the events that transpired after the incident. Of?cer Diaz body-worn camera footage does contain comments made about the shooting in the immediate aftermath thereof. Of?cer Diaz and Of?cer Baker discuss the fact that they believed they had been shot at and that Of?cer Diaz shot The footage is made part of this investigation and the audio transcriptions were also obtained. (Att. 176-223, 262-63, 302) Surveillance Footage76 from _s home, located at -, depicted a marked police SUV, now known as Beat 406B, Of?cers Diaz and Baker, going south on Merrill Avenue.77 Several seconds later,78 a subject, now known to be Of?cer 74 In his statement to IPRA, Of?cer Diaz identi?ed himself as the of?cer making the statements. 75 This footage can be observed on Of?cer Torres? body-wom camera, two minutes and thirty-nine seconds (02:39) into the video. In addition, Of?cer Diaz can also be heard making the same statements on Of?cer Coughlin?s body? wom camera. 76 The video footage is not time stamped. 77 The marked squad car was ?rst observed going south on Merrill Avenue at seven minutes and ?fty-?ve (07:55) seconds into the video. 78 Speci?cally at eight minutes and eighteen seconds (08:18) into the video. 35 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 5 Diaz, was observed going west in the driveway of A male subject, now known to be was observed jumping over a fence in the backyard of -. After jumping over the fence, landed in the backyard of? Avenue and ran north into the backyard of ?.79 Subsequently, Of?cer Diaz was observed in the backyard by the fence of a few seconds after - -jumped over the tense. Of?cer Diaz did not jump the fence; it appears that he stands near it and may be reaching over it with his ?reamt?o Of?cer Diaz was next observed running east in the driveway of and then north on Merrill Avenue. Additional of?cers responded to the scene and were observed going to the rear of the home at -. (Att. 34, 318) In-Car Camera footage from Of?cer Coughlin?s and Of?cer Torrcs? marked police SUV, Beat captured the Jaguar driving towards Of?cers Coughlin and Torres marked police vehicle. The Jaguar maneuvers to the right, which is the driver?s side of Beat 406C, between a parked vehicle and Beat 406C. Of?cer Coughlin was then observed standing in front of his marked police SUV discharging his ?rearm several times towards the Jaguar. The Jaguar is no longer in the camera?s view. Of?cer Coughlin moved to the driver side of his marked police SUV and was no longer observed in the camera?s View. (Att. 235) In-Car Camera footage from Of?cers Diaz? and Baker?s marked police SUV, Beat captured the head on collision with the Jaguar that _was driving. A couple of seconds before the collision, Of?cer Diaz or Of?cer Baker was heard stating, ?Watch out, watch out? and ?Shots ?red.? (Att. 234) In-Car Camera footage from other responding units only captured the aftermath of the incident. (Att. 234, 235, 264-83) A request for CPD Helicopter Footage was met with negative results because no video or audio footage captured the incident. (Att. 90, 246) G. Civil Proceedings In the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, Case a complaint ?led in the United States District Court, the mother of alleged that on 28 July 2016,_was in a vehicle in the area of East 74th Street and South Merrill Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, when of?cers attempted to effect a traf?c stop of the vehicle and, without lawful justi?cation or excuse, ?red at striking him in the back and killing him. further alleged that the of?cers? actions were intentional, willful and wanton, and/or committed with reckless indifference and disregard for rights, and were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. In the First Amended Complaint ?led in the United States District Court, named Of?cer Jose Diaz and the City of Chicago as defendants. alleged that during a motor vehicle pursuit of vehicle, Of?cers Jose Torres and Michael Coughlin stopped their vehicle, exited, and discharged their ?rearms at _s vehicle. _then exited 79_was subsequently placed into custody at that location. 80 A ?red casing from Of?cer Diaz?s weapon was later found in the backyard of 36 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log the vehicle and ?ed into a yard while being pursued on foot by Of?cer Diaz. Of?cer Diaz then discharged his ?rearm approximatel ?ve times at who was unarmed. was struck once in the back. further alleged that as _was lying on the ground bleeding and being handcuffed, Of?cer Diaz kicked him in the upper body without lawful justi?cation or excuse. In the Second Amended Complaint ?led on 4 October 2016, _added the City of Chicago as a Defendant to her Willful and Wanton Claim (XI). In the Third Amended Complaint, amended/corrected the caption to re?ect that had been appointed Supervised Administrator of estate. The case remains pending. (Att. 296, 299, 360, 361). 37 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Signatures For Factual Summary: Al vestigamr a Approved: Joshua Hunt Deputy Chief, IP RA 38 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log IV. ANALYSIS A. APPLICABLE RULES AND LAW: 1. Chicago Police Department 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 6: Disobedience of any order or directive, whether written or oral. Rule 8: Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty. Rule 9: Engaging in any unjusti?ed verbal or physical altercation with any person, While on or off duty. Rule 10: Inattention to duty. 2. Use of Force General Order G03-02-02 sets forth the force options that CPD of?cers may use when interacting with cooperative subjects, resistive subjects ("resisters"), and assailants. General Order provides that CPD of?cers are only permitted to use direct mechanical strikes such as punching and kicking on assailants. An assailant is a subject who is using or threatening the imminent use of force against himself/herself or another person. 3. Use of Deadly oree Consistent with Illinois state law as codi?ed at 720 ILCS 5/7-5, according to the Chicago Police Department?s General Order 03-02-03, Section II, A: A sworn member is justi?ed in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary: 1. to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person, or: 2. to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be arrested: a. has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony which involves the in?iction, threatened in?iction, or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm or; b. is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or; 39 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log c. otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or in?ict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay. General Order 03?02-03, Section titled ?Department Prohibitions for Use of Deadly Force? states that use of ?rearms in the following ways is prohibited: A. Firing into crowds. B. Firing warning shots. C. Firing into buildings or through doors, windows, or other openings when the person ?red at is not clearly Visible. D. Firing at a subject whose action is only a threat to the subject himself attempted suicide). E. Firing at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only force used against the sworn member or another person. Finally, General Order 03-02-03, Section IV, titled ?Af?rmation of Protection of Life Policy? states that ?[s]wom members will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the restrictions of this directive.? Determinations regarding the potential use of excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment?s objective reasonableness standard. The question is whether the of?cer?s actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Graham v. Connor, 490 US. 386, 397 (1989); see Estate of Phillips v. City of Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2003). The following factors are instructive in making the determination of whether an of?cer?s use of force is reasonable: (1) ?the severity of the crime at issue,? (2) ?whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the of?cers or others;? and (3) ?whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by ?ight.? Graham, 490 US. at 396 (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US. 1, 8-9 (1985). The analysis of the reasonableness of an of?cer?s actions must be grounded in the perspective of ?a reasonable of?cer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight? and ?allow for the fact that police of?cers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.? Plumho? v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The analysis must take into account the totality of the circumstances confronting the of?cer, rather than just one or two factors. Plumhoff, 134 S. Ct. at 2020; see also Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 2003) 3. Emergency Use of Department Vehicles General Order, G03-03-01 applies to motor vehicle pursuits. General Order, G03-03-01 prohibits ?Roadblocks? during the course of a motor vehicle pursuit. General Order G03-03-01 40 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log de?nes roadblocks as ?[a]ny method, restriction, or obstruction used or intended for the purpose of preventing passage of a motor vehicle.? General Order G03 -03-01 de?nes motor vehicle pursuit as active attempt by a sworn member operating an authorized emergency vehicle to apprehend any driver or operator of a motor vehicle who, having been given a visual and audible signal by the of?cer directing such driver or operator to bring his or her vehicle to a stop, fails or refuses to obey such direction, increases or maintains his or her speed, extinguishes his or her lights, or otherwise ?ees or attempts to elude the of?cer.? General Order, G03-03-02 applies to Emergency Vehicle Operations Nonpursuits. General Order, states in relevant that ?When engaged in nonpursuit emergency vehicle operation, the operator of a marked vehicle will: . . . adhere to basic traf?c-safety practices.? General Order, G03-03-02 applies to an ?emergency situation?, that: (1) is encountered on-view, or; (2) otherwise comes to the attention of the vehicle operator after the unit receives an assignment from OEMC. 4. Body Camera Special Order, 803-14, V, and E, Body Worn Cameras, reads in part: Department members assigned a BWC will: 2. activate the system to "event" mode to record an entire on-scene incident. Department members assigned a BWC: 1. will activate the system to event mode to record the entire incident for all: a. routine calls for service; b. investigatory stops; c. traf?c stops; d. traf?c control; e. foot and vehicle pursuits; f. emergency driving situations; g. emergency vehicle responses to in-progress or just-occurred dispatches where ?eeing suspects or vehicles may be captured on video leaving the crime scene; h. high-risk situations, including search warrants; i. situations that may enhance the probability of evidence-based prosecution; j. situations that the member, through training and experience, believes to serve a proper police purpose, for example, recording the processing of an uncooperative arrestee; k. any encounter with the public that becomes adversarial after the initial contact; and 1. any other instance when enforcing the law. 5. Ammunition Directive U04-02 requires that ?rearms be ?fully loaded with only one manufacturer and style of prescribed ammunition (same bullet type and grain weight).? 41 IN POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log B. Analysis of the Allegations against Of?cer Coughlin 1. Of?cer Coughlin unreasonably discharged his ?rearm into a moving vehicle and at or in the direction of Of?cer Torres, Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz in violation of Rules 6 and 10. The evidence demonstrates that Of?cer Coughlin discharged his ?rearm nine (9) times on 28 July 2016.81 Of?cer Coughlin stated that he believed _ran over Of?cer Torres with the Jaguar and that reckless driving posed an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm to other CPD of?cers and civilians.82 Of?cer Coughlin asserted that he ?red at the driver of the Jaguar to ?incapacitate? him and protect others from death or great bodily harm.83 However, as outlined below, IPRA ?nds that Of?cer Coughlin?s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. Of?cer Coughlin would not have unreasonably endangered himself or any other person by failing to discharge his ?rearm at or into the Jaguar. Therefore, Of?cer Coughlin was required to comply with CPD General Order 03 -O3-02?s prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle. a. General Order 03-03-02 only permits CPD of?cers to ?re at or into a moving vehicle when the failure to ?re would unreasonably endanger the of?cer or another person. CPD General Order 03-02-03 must be interpreted sequentially and as a whole. Section I of General Order 03 -02?03 sets forth the purpose of the directive. Section II of General Order 03- 02?03 lays out speci?c circumstances when the use of deadly force is justi?ed.84 However, Section of General Order 03-02?03 then expressly prohibits CPD of?cers from using ?rearms in speci?c situations. Section of General Order 03-02-03 unambiguously and explicitly prohibits of?cers from ?[?iring at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only force used against the sworn member or another person.?85 In other words, even when the use of deadly force is otherwise justi?ed and permitted pursuant to Section II of General Order 03-02-03, Section still prohibits of?cers from ?ring at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle itself is the only force used against the of?cer or another person. Finally, Section IV of General Order 03-02-03 provides that of?cers shall not endanger themselves or another person in order to comply with the prohibitions contained in Section 111.86 In other words, CPD of?cers do not have to comply with Section of 3? Att. 9; Att. 116; Att. 336 at 23-24. ?2 Att. 336 at23-24. 83 Id. 84 See supra Section 85 1d. 42 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log General Order 03-02?03?s prohibitions when the failure to use their ?rearm would unreasonably endanger the of?cer or another person. The exception to the prohibition on ?ring into moving vehicles contained in Section IV of General Order 03-02-03 must be read in context of General 03?02-03 as a whole.87 Unlike Section II which permits the use of deadly force when the of?cer reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person, Section IV applies only when the officer's failure to use deadly force would unreasonably endanger the of?cer or a third party. 33 This inverted phrasing is not accidental and it is a tenant of statutory interpretation that ?[e]ach word, clause, and sentence should be given effect so as not to be rendered super?uous.? Chicago Teacher?s Union, Local No. 1. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112566, ll 15. Furthermore, the Superintendent speci?cally modi?ed General Order 03- 02- 03 in 2015 to remove language that permitted of?cers to tire into a moving vehicle simply to prevent death or seriously bodily 1njury to an of?cer or another person. 39 The current version of CPD General Order 03-02-03 closely mirrors the 2006 model policy promulgated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and many other police departments; 1n prohibiting the use of ?rearms against a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only threat.m These policies reconggnize9 that experts ?nd ?ring into a moving vehicle to be extremely dangerous and usually ir19e2ffective.91 First, bullets ?red from handguns are unlikely to be effective against an automobile.92 Second, if the driver 1s hit by gun?re, the vehicle IS likely result to crash in an uncontrolled manner.9 3Third, it is extremely dif?cult to hit a driver In a moving vehicle with a bullet and there 13 a signi?cant risk ol accidentally striking a passenger or bystander with gun?re.94 Fourth if the dr'iver 15 not hit by Lunt' re tie/she 1s likely to drive even mete recklessly to escape thereby 1nc1easing the danger the vehicle itself poses to of?cers, other occupants, and bystanders.95 Finally, ?ring at a moving vehicle may lead other officers 1n the 87 See Kraft, Inc. v. Edgar, 138 Ill. 2d 178, 188 (1990) ascertaining the meaning of a statute, the statute should be read as a whole with all relevant parts considered?). Courts apply the same rules Of construction to administrative rules and regulations as they do to statutes. Hetzer v. State Police Merit Board, 49 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 1047 (1977). 88 Notably, Section IV also does not include any language that tracks the second prong of Section II which permits of?cers to use deadly force to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape under speci?ed circumstances. 89 Compare CPD General Order 03-02?03 (effective date 10 February 2015) to CPD General Order 03 -02-03 (effective date 1 October 2002). 90 OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, MODEL POLICY: USE OF FORCE 1 (Feb. 2006), available at 9? See IACP LAW POLICY CTR., USE OF FORCE: CONCEPTS AND ISSUES PAPER 7 (updated Feb. 2006), available at 827-useofforcepaper.html.; John A. Grosst, Essay: Unguided Missiles: Why The Supreme Court Should Prohibit Police O?icers From Shooting at Moving Vehicles, 163 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 135 (2016). 92 See IACP LAW POLICY CTR., USE OF FORCE: CONCEPTS AND ISSUES PAPER 7 (updated Feb. 2006), 93 Id. 94 Id. 95 This occurred with_ in this case._ sped up to dangerous speeds after Of?cer Coughlin began discharging his ?rearm. 43 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log area to mistakenly believe that the gun?re is coming from the vehicle itself which increases the risk that another of?cer will mistakenly use deadly force on an unarmed subject.96 To apply the exception to the prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle broadly would make the prohibition entirely meaningless. The use of a vehicle as force inevitably puts of?cers and civilians at risk of death or great bodily harm. The exception would swallow the rule. IPRA will not interpret General Order 03-02?03 to make the prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle super?uous.97 Read in context, the exception applies narrowly to cases where speci?c, unusual facts and circumstances demonstrate that complying with the prohibition would unreasonably endanger the of?cer or another person. b. In light of General Order 03-02-03?5 prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle, a reasonable of?cer would not have discharged his or her ?rearm under the facts and circumstances that confronted Of?cer Coughlin. IPRA ?nds that based on the totality of the circumstances facing Of?cer Coughlin at the time he discharged his ?rearm, a reasonable of?cer would not have believed that complying with CPD General Order 03 -02-03?s prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle would unreasonably endanger himself/herself or another person and therefore would have complied with the prohibition. A reasonable of?cer would have not ?red at or into the Jaguar under circumstances Of?cer Coughlin faced for a number of reasons. First, Of?cer Coughlin had no speci?c information from which to discern that the driver and/or occupant(s) of Jaguar had committed or would commit a Violent crime prior to the incidental; Officer Coughlin stated that he did not know anything at all about _or - _prior to the incident and that he merely knew that the Jaguar had been reported stolen.99 Possession of a stolen automobile is not a forcible felony. mo Second, Of?cer Coughlin did not know whether the Jaguar contained occupants besides the driver and did not take into account the risk gun?re posed to possible occupants.101 A reasonable of?cer would not ?re at or into a moving vehicle without ?rst assessing the risk of killing or causing great bodily injury to an occupant whether through gun?re or a crash. A reasonable of?cer would recognize that an occupant in a stolen vehicle may not even have knowledge that the vehicle is stolen and regardless an occupant is not in a position to control and/or stop the vehicle. To the extent Of?cer Coughlin believed he could simply ?re at the driver 96 This occurred with Of?cer Diaz in this case. 97 See Kraft, Inc, 138 Ill. 2d at 188 statute should be construed so that no word or phrase is rendered superfluous or meaningless?). 98 Of?cer Coughlin did note generally that stolen vehicles were being used for aggravated batteries and homicides and that he had recovered ?rearms from a driver and occupant of a stolen vehicle previously. See Att. 336 at 78-79. 99 Att. 336 at 33-38, 67. See 720 ILCS 5/2-8. 10? Att. 336 at 38-39, 74. 83-84. 44 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log of the Jaguar without a signi?cant risk of accidentally striking any occupant, his belief was unreasonable. 102 Next, the incident occurred during the daylight hours on a residential street where pedestrians and other motorists were likely to be present. This signi?cantly increased the risk of ?ring at or into the Jaguar. A reasonable of?cer would know that it is extremely dif?cult to hit a speeding automobile thereby increasing the risk of accidentally striking an innocent bystander or motorist.103 Moreover, a reasonable of?cer would know that even if the driver is struck, the vehicle is likely to crash an uncontrolled fashion, again putting bystanders and other motorists at great risk. Of?cer Coughlin stated he did not take this into account.104 Furthermore, Of?cer Coughlin did not know Of?cer Torres? whereabouts at the time he ?red his initial shots.105 Of?cer Coughlin?s belief that the Jaguar had run over Of?cer Torres was based on conjecture and speculation and not direct observation. Of?cer Torres responded appropriately and pursuant to his training by stepping out of the way of the Jaguar. The prior version of CPD General 03-02-03 which actually permitted CPD of?cers to ?re at or into moving vehicles to prevent death or great bodily injury expressly required CPD of?cers to nonetheless step out of the way of an oncoming vehicle when the vehicle was the only force used against the of?cer. A reasonable of?cer would assume their fellow of?cer would respond to the threat of the oncoming vehicle by stepping out of the way. A reasonable of?cer would also have been very concerned about the risk of accidentally hitting his partner and would ensure that he or she had a clear line of sight before making the conscious decision to shoot for safety purposes. Indeed, Of?cer Coughlin?s body camera footage clearly shows Of?cer Torres directly in Of?cer Coughlin?s line of sight and Of?cer Coughlin nearly accidentally struck him and did accidentally strike his own police vehicle'm Additionally, a reasonable of?cer would have recognized that the use of ?rearm against the Jaguar would not have been likely to protect human life. Of?cer Coughlin provided somewhat inconsistent testimony on whether he believed Of?cer Torres had already been hit or was just about to be hit by the Jaguar when he began to discharge his ?rearm.107 In any event, Of?cer Coughlin could not articulate how discharging his weapon at could have protected Of?cer Torres from serious bodily injury or death when the vehicle had already almost reached Officer Torres? position; a reasonable of?cer would have understood it would not have")8 Video footage shows that by the time Officer Coughlin began ?ring at the car it had 102 Indeed, the ISP bullet trajectory analysis shows that multiple bullets nearly struck See Att. 353. Furthermore, although no other occupants were in the Jaguar, Of?cer Coughlin did not know this at the time he shot. Even assuming arguendo that Of?cer Coughlin could aim a shot directly at the driver, an occupant sitting in the backseat behind the driver would have been in Of?cer Coughlin?s direct line of sight when he ?red at the Jaguar as it drove away from him and towards Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s police vehicle. '03 Indeed, Of?cer Coughlin himself noted that he did not think he had struck Mr. O?Neal with any of his shots ?because uh I was ?rin? at a moving target.? ?04 Art. 336 at 53. Att. 336 at 47-48, 51, 77. ?06 Att. 177 at Att. 354. ?07 Compare Att. 336 at 23, 46-47, 72, 97 with Att. 336 at 73. 1d. at 72-73. 45 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log almost reached Of?cer Torres? ap roximate position and even if Of?cer Coughlin had successfully ?incapacitated? with his ?rst shot as he intended, there would have no opportunity for the Jaguar to even slow down, let alone stopmg Of?cer Coughlin?s statement after the shooting incident, shot at the car after it almost hit you,? while pointing in Of?cer Torres? diregtion suggests that Of?cer Coughlin may have actually ?red at the Jaguar in retaliation. Of?cer Coughlin continued to ?re in the direction of the Jaguar even when it drove away.111 The immediate danger had already passed at~this time and the Jaguar no longer constituted a threat to Of?cer Torres. The possibility that might continue to drive recklessly is not suf?cient justi?cation especially when the CPD General Order 03?02-03 only permits of?cers to ?re at or into a moving vehicle when the failure to do so would ?unreasonably endanger? the of?cer or another person. See Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2005) (?nding that an of?cer would not be justi?ed to ?re into a moving vehicle after it passed because the vehicle did not pose an immediate threat to the of?cer once it passed him). A reasonable of?cer would recognize that he or she is not likely to hit the driver and the driver is likely to react to the gun?re by driving more recklessly out of fear for their own life thereby escalating the threat the vehicle poses to others. Furthermore, a reasonable of?cer would understand that even if his or her gun?re struck the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle would likely subsequently crash in an uncontrolled fashion putting others at great risk of death or bodily harm. Next, Of?cer Coughlin knew that the Jaguar was driving in the direction of Of?cer Baker?s and Of?cer Diaz?s police vehicle but ?red anyway.112 A reasonable of?cer would have been concerned about accidentally hitting the CPD vehicle driving towards the Jaguar especially in light of the low probability of a bullet ?red from a handgun actually penetrating steel automobile, penetrating the back and front seats, and then striking the driver in a vehicle that is speeding away at a high rate of speed. Indeed, Of?cer Coughlin himself stated that when he encountered in the backyard of that he did not believe he had struck _for these exact reasons. While Of?cer Coughlin undoubtedly had to make a quick decision on whether to ?re at or into the Jaguar, this alone cannot justify his actions. CPD of?cers are prohibited from ?ring at or into a moving vehicle and cannot simply disregard the prohibition every time the vehicle poses a threat of death or bodily injury. In light of the prohibition, a reasonable of?cer would not have ?red any shots at or into the Jaguar based on the facts and circumstances faced by Of?cer Coughlin. Art. 177 at 35:152; Art. 235 at 7:23:49 p.m. "0 Art. 177 at 37:18-37:202. Att. 177 at ?2 Art. 336 at 52-53. ?3 Id. at 81-82. 46 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log c. Of?cer Coughlin ?red at or into a moving vehicle and at or in the direction of Of?cer Torres, Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz. Although Of?cer Coughlin asserts that intended to shoot only at the driver of the Jaguar, the video footage, bullet trajectory report from the ISP, and CPD Crime Scene Processing Reports clearly demonstrate that Of?cer Coughlin ?red at or into the Jaguar and at or in the direction of Of?cer Torres, Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz.114 Below are screenshots from Of?cer Coughlin?s body camera footage. ?4 See Att. 177; Att. 234, Att. 235. 47 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 1113137:- 1:11: 21119 3? 48 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log As explained above, none of Of?cer Coughlin?s nine shoots were justi?ed under CPD General Order 03-02-03 and therefore Of?cer Coughlin violated Rules 6 and 10 when he ?red at or into the Jaguar and at or in the direction of Of?cer Torres, Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz. 2. Of?cer Coughlin brought discredit to CPD by stating words to the effect of, ?Fuck, man I?m gonna be on the desk for thirty goddamn days now. Fucking desk duty for thirty days now. Motherfucker. I shot? in violation of Rule 2. The footage from Of?cer Coughlin?s body worn camera demonstrate that Of?cer Coughlin stated words to the effect of, ?Fuck, man I?m gonna be on the desk for thirty goddamn days now. Fucking desk duty for thirty days now. Motherfucker. I shot.?115 Of?cer Coughlin admitted he made this statement and stated he made out '6 Of?cer Coughlin?s statement was completely inappropriate and brought discredit to CPD. The statement demonstrates a lack of professionalism and a lack of empathy and respect for - who Of?cer Coughlin knew had just been shot.117 Frustration is not an adequate justi?cation. Therefore, Of?cer Coughlin violated Rule 2 when he stated words to the effect Fuck, man I?m gonna be on the desk for thirty goddamn days now. Fucking desk duty for thirty days now. Motherfucker. I shot.? ?5 Att. 177 at 39352 ?6 Art. 336 at 77. ?7 Att. 177. 49 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log C. Analysis of the Allegations against Of?cer Torres 1. Of?cer Torres used his police vehicle to obstruct the passage of another vehicle in violation of Rule 6. . The in-camera footage from Beat 406C shows that Of?cer Torres drove south on the ?a one way northbound street?directly towards the Jaguar before stopping his police vehicle in the middle of the road with a parked car southeast of his vehicle?s position.?8 Of?cer Torres denied that he intended to use his police vehicle to block the path of the Jaguar.119 However. his own admission suggests otherwise. During Officer ?l'orres" interview with IPRA, Supervising Investigator Hunt asked, ?You ?gured that if you stopped [your police vehicle] he?d stop and bail?? Of?cer Torres responded ?correct.? This response re?ects Of?cer Torres? intent to obstruct the Jaguar?s passage. In any event, Of?cer Torres stopping his vehicle in the middle of Merrill Avenue with another vehicle parked immediately to the southwest clearly resulted in a roadblock and created an extremely dangerous situation. CPD General Order 03-03 -01 prohibits the use of roadblocks during pursuits. A roadblock is any method, restriction, or obstruction used or intended for the purpose of preventing passage of a motor vehicle.120 It is not clear whether Of?cer Torres was engaged in an ?active pursuit? because the CPD vehicles trailing the stolen Jaguar had not yet radioed in that they were engaged in a pursuit121 and it does not appear ('Jt??cer 'I'nrres had activated his police vehicle?s siren}22 However, it is not necessary to determine whether Of?cers Torres was engaged in a ?pursuit? because even when engaged in nonpursuit emergency vehicle operation, the operator of a marked vehicle is required to adhere to ?basic traf?c safety practices? pursuant to CPD General Order 03-03-02. When Of?cer Torres spotted the stolen Jaguar being trailed by CPD vehicles with their lights and sirens on, he encountered an emergency situation. Therefore, at a minimum, he was required to adhere to ?basic traf?c safety practices.? It is axiomatic that when a roadblock is prohibited even when an of?cer is authorized to engage in a pursuit, that a roadblock does not adhere to ?basic traf?c safety practices? and cannot be used when an of?cer is merely engaged in nonpursuit emergency vehicle operation.123 Instead of adhering to basic traf?c safety practices, Of?cer Torres decided to use his police vehicle as a roadblock to obstruct the passage of the Jaguar in order to get _to ?stop An. 235. ?9 Att. 337 at 50-51. 120 See General Order 03-03-01. ?21 Of?cer Darling was driving the police vehicle immediately behind the Jaguar and he turned on his vehicle?s emergency equipment shortly after the Jaguar turned northbound onto Merrill Avenue, a few seconds before the Jaguar encountered Of?cer Torres? and Of?cer Coughlin?s police vehicle. Att. 305. However, Of?cer Coughlin stated in his interview that he believed that he and Of?cer Torres were engaged in a pursuit. Att. 336 at 86. '22 Of?cer Torres stated that he did activate his sirens and lights when trying to get to the aguar?s location, but stated he may have deactivated the sirens. Att. 337 at 35-3 6. Based on the in-camera footage from the Beat 406C police vehicle, it appears Of?cer Torres did deactivate his police vehicle?s siren before encountering the Jaguar. Att. 235. 123 Although recognizes that of?cers may sometimes violate certain traf?c laws when engaged in legitimate police activities, it notes that traveling the wrong way down a one way street and stopping in the middle of the road also violates a number of traf?c laws. See 625 ILCS 5/11-708 (permitting a vehicle only to drive in the designated direction on a one way street); 625 ILCS 5/11-503 (prohibiting reckless driving). 50 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log and bail.? Therefore, IPRA ?nds that Of?cer Torres used his police vehicle to obstruct the passage of another vehicle in violation of Rule 6. 2. Officer Torres unreasonably discharged his ?rearm at or into a movin vehicle and at or in the direction of - h, Of?cer Torres, Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz in violation of Rules 6 and 10. The evidence demonstrates that Of?cer Torres discharged his ?rearm one (1) time on 28 Jul 2016.124 Of?cer Torres stated that the he believed tried to run him over and that h?s reckless driving posed an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm to other CPD of?cers and civilians.125 Of?cer Torres asserted that he ?red at the driver of the Jaguar in order to protect others from death or great bodily harm.126 However, as outlined below, IPRA ?nds that Of?cer Torres? actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. Of?cer Torres would not have unreasonably endangered himself or any other person by failing to discharge his ?rearm at or into the Jaguar. Therefore, Of?cer Torres was required to comply with CPD General Order 03-02-03?3 prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle. a. In light of General Order 03-02-03?s prohibition on firing at or into a moving vehicle, a reasonable of?cer would not have discharged his or her ?rearm under the facts and circumstances that confronted Of?cer Torres. A reasonable of?cer would have not ?red at or into the Jaguar under circumstances Of?cer Torres faced for the same reasons explained above for Of?cer Coughlin. First, Of?cer Terres had no speci?c information from which to discern that the driver andIor occupant(s) of Jaguar had committed or would commit a violent crime prior to the incident.?17 Second, Of?cer Torres did not know whether the Jaguar contained any other occupants besides the driver and did not take into account the risk gunfire posed to other occupants. 123' Third, ?ring a gun at a vehicle driving away on a residential street during the day is likely to only increase the danger the vehicle itself poses to others and adds the additional danger of stray gun?re striking a bystander. Fourth, Of?cer Torres knew the Jaguar was driving away from him and in the direction of Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s police vehicle but ?red anyways.129 ?24 Att. 9; Art. 116; ?24 Att. 337 at 24. ?5 Att29-30, 37. 44, 71. Admittedly, Of?cer Torres did note that a lot of stolen vehicles ?end up havin weapons52-53. Of?cer Torres did assert that he ?red only at the driver of the vehicle and not at Id. at 68. Even assuming arguendo that Of?cer Torres could aim directly at the driver, an occupant sitting in the backseat behind the driver would have been in Of?cer Torres? direct line of sight when he ?red at the Jaguar as it drove away from him and towards Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s police vehicle. Of?cer Torres had no idea there was no occupant in the backseat behind the driver because he could not see through the windows. Id. at 52-5 3. 129 Of?cer Torres stated that Of?cer Diaz?s and Of?cer Baker?s was not in his ?line of sight?, but admitted it was driving towards the Jaguar. Id. at 47, 55. 51 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Although undoubtedly, Of?cer Torres had to make quick decision on whether to ?re at or into the Jaguar, Of?cer Torres knew of the prohibition on ?ring at or into a moving vehicle and should not have contravened the prohibition simply because of the general threat the Jaguar?s reckless driving posed to others. A reasonable of?cer would not have ?red under the circumstances faced by Of?cer Torres. b. Of?cer Torres ?red at or into a moving vehicle and at or in the direction of Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz. Of?cer Torres? body camera footage demonstrates that Of?cer Torres ?red at or into the Jaguar and at or in the direction of Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Below is a screenshul from Of?cer Torres? body camera footage. ?b.2015?T?7f' I 'r ?a Jnx?na some explained above, Of?cer Torres? one shot was not justi?ed under CPD General Order 03-02? 03 and therefore Of?cer Torres violated Rules 6 and 10 when he ?red at or into the Jaguar and at or in the direction Of?cer Baker, and Of?cer Diaz. ?30 See Art. 177 at 35:062. 52 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 3. Officer Torres improperly loaded his ?rearm with mismatched ammunition. After the of?cer-involved shooting, CPD Forensics processed Of?cer Torres? ?rearm, a Glock; Model 17; 9MM semi?automatic pistol. The CPD report shows that ?fteen (15) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge cases were recovered from the magazine, one (1) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge case was recovered from the magazine, and one (1) WIN 9mm Luger caliber un?red cartridge case was recovered from the chamber of the Glock. Of?cer Torres could not explain why he loaded his ?rearm with mismatched ammunition. Regardless, Directive UO4-02 requires that CPD ?rearms be fully loaded with only one manufacturer and style of prescribed ammunition. Of?cer Torres violated Directive 04-02 by mixing Win 9mm Luger caliber ammunition with Win 9mm Luger ammunition. D. Analysis of the Allegations against Of?cer Diaz 1. The use of deadly force by Of?cer Diaz was objectively reasonable and within policy as outlined by Chicago Police Department?s General Order 03-02-03, a. Of?cer Diaz faced perilous circumstances just prior to the shooting incident. Of?cer Diaz?s actions must be viewed in context, taking into account the totality of the circumstances he faced. Of?cer Diaz faced an extremely tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation. Of?cer Diaz perceived that the shots were ?red from the Jaguar or at least from direction of the Jaguar.?3l Of?cer Diaz's perception was objectively reasonable. While the gun?re actually emanated from Of?cer Coughlin and Of?cer Torres, Of?cer Diaz did not know that.?2 Of?cer Diaz stated that he was focused on the Jaguar driving towards his police vehicle at a high rate of speed and did not see Of?cer Coughlin, Of?cer Torres, or any other CPD of?cers.133 IPRA ?nds Of?cer Diaz?s testimony on this issue to be credible. Of?cer Diaz?s angry statement in the backyard of immediately following the shooting??Bitch ass motherfucker, fucking shoot at us??supports that he genuinely believed had shot at hint at the time.134 As explained above, Of?cer Coughlin and Of?cer Torres did, in fact, ?re in Of?cer Diaz?s direction and a reasonable of?cer would be focused on the immediate threat of the vehicle heading in his or her direction at a high rate of speed. Moreover, a reasonable of?cer would assume that other CPD of?cers would not ?re at or into a moving when that is prohibited by CPD General 03-02-03. Of?cer Diaz then observed the Jaguar collide with his police vehicle at a high rate of speed. Of?cer Diaz became disoriented from the crash and stated that there was ?1 Art. 338 at 26-27, 43, 55, 71-72 ?32 Id. at 71?77. 133 Id. '34 Att. 177 at Admittedly, Of?cer Diaz made comments on his body camera footage after the shooting re?ecting doubt on whether? actually shot at him. However, these comments are understandable when a weapon was not recovered from 53 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log debris in the air and ?crap in [his] eyes.?135 Of?cer Diaz then had to pry open the passenger side door to escape from the police vehicle. b. Officer Diaz?s first four shots were justified under the ?rst prong of CPD General Order 03-02-03. The ?rst prong of CPD General 03-02-03 permits an of?cer to use deadly force when he or she reasonably believes it is necessary ?to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person.? After Of?cer Diaz exited his police vehicle, he ran west down the driveway at? in an attem to cut As Of?cer Diaz ran west through the driveway, he observed come over a fence in a squatted position facing his direction.137 Of?cer Diaz stated that he ordered? to ?show [him] his fuckin hands? and not to ?fuckin move,? but that? did not comply with his commandsl38 Of?cer Diaz stated that stood up and reached for his left waist area in a bladed position and then began to run northbound.139 Of?cer Diaz stated that he unholstered his ?rearm and then ?red at ?because he believed?had previously shot at him and was about to ?engage" him againmI Of?cer Diaz could not recall exact locations where he red his ?ve shots.141 Of?cer Diax stated that he tracked as he ran through the backyard of and over the fence separating from _.142 Of?cer Diaz believed he ?red all shots in the backyard of -. 143 Of?cer Diaz stated that jumped right over the fence separating - and without a struggje.?144 IPRA recognizes that it cannot merely accept Of?cer Diaz?s account of the events at issue without question. Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2014) the deadly force context, we cannot simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police of?cer.?) (quoting Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994)). Rather, must parse through all the evidence to assess the plausibility and reliability of Of?cer Diaz?s account. Id. (noting that a court reviewing a use of deadly force incident must examine all the evidence in the record ?to determine whether the of?cer?s story is internally consistent and consistent with other known facts?). Of?cer Diaz?s statement to IPRA was generally consistent with the available evidence. The surveillance footage demonstrates ?eeing away from Of?cer Diaz and jumping over separating and as Of?cer Diaz described in his statement.145 Of?cer Diaz?s statement regarding the gun?re appearing to come ?35 Id. at 45-46. ?36 Art26, 49-50. ?33 1d. at 26, 52, 55-58. 139 1d. ?40 1d. 26, 52, 55-5826-27, 80-83. ?43 Id. at 80-83. ?4 Att. 338 at 62. ?45 Att. 34. 54 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log from the Jaguar is supported by the in-camera footage from his police vehicle. Admittedly, IPRA cannot independently verify behavior in the backyard of speci?cally whether he reached for his waist area because Of?cer Diaz did not activate his body camera. However, IPRA found Of?cer Diaz to be credible. Of?cer Diaz admitted to serious misconduct during his statement including kicking _in the backyard without any justi?cation and did not appear exaggerate the conduct that led to his decision to use deadly force against Of?cer Diaz admitted that he tracked l- - and ?red on the move as ?attempted to run away and that he was not certain about his exact the location when he ?red the shots. IPRA ?nds that Of?cer Diaz?s statement as a whole re?ects an of?cer attempting to tell the truth of what occurred to the best of his ability. The law makes clear that an of?cer is not ?required to wait until he sets eyes upon weapon before employing deadly force to protect himself against a ?eeing suspect who turns and moves as though to draw a gun.? Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2001). However, the fact that an of?cer reasonable believes a ?eeing suspect is armed, in and of itself, is insuf?cient to justify the use of deadly force. See, Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 .3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 2014) (?if the suspect doesn?t reach for his waistband or make some similar threatening gesture, it would clearly be unreasonable for the of?cers to shoot him?). Of?cer Diaz interpreted conduct in light of his perception of gun?re coming from the Jaguar and the Jaguar subsequently colliding with his police vehicle at a high rate of speed. Although Of?cer Diaz?s observing _reaching for his waist area and then refusing to comply by stopping and showing his hands may not be suf?cient justi?cation to use deadly force in other circumstances, IPRA ?nds it was suf?ciently threatening to justify deadly force under the perilous circumstances Of?cer Diaz faced just prior to the shooting. Of?cer Diaz logically connected the prior gun?re he faced to Although _was not actually armed, Of?cer Diaz did not know this at the time and therefore it is not relevant to evaluating the objective reasonableness of Of?cer Diaz?s actions in this case. See Sherrod v. Berry, 856 F.2d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 1988).146 IPRA must evaluate Of?cer Diaz?s actions from the perspective of a reasonable of?cer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable of?cer would reasonably, albeit mistakenly, believe that - was armed and threatening him or her with death or great bodily harm. Therefore, Of?cer Diaz was justi?ed in using deadly force under prong one of CPD General Order 03-02- 03. However, just because Of?cer Diaz was justi?ed in initially ?ring at does not necessarily justify _?ring ?ve (5) shots under prong one of CPD General Order 03- 02?03. Of?cer Diaz admitted and the video footage con?rms that Of?cer Diaz did not ?re the ?ve shots in a continuous fashion. The cadence of the shots involved signi?cant pauses between the second and third shot and the fourth and ?fth shot. One shell casing was found in the backyard of?.147 The surveillance footage appears to show Of?cer Diaz 146 IPRA notes that ?Where the facts are controverted in a reasonable force case, impeachment by contradiction is allowed.? v. ?in; (If?Chicago, 661 F.3d 940, 946 (7th Cir. 201 1). Of?cer Diaz did not state that he saw - with a gun or even with shiny, metallic object similar to a gun; Of?cer Diaz simply testi?ed that reached for his waist area. The fact that did not have a gun does not contradict that. Id. at 944 (citing Sherrod v, 856 F.2d at 806). ?47 Att. 50, 116. 55 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log reaching over the fence separating? and with his .. 14g . . . . .. . tircalm. The surveillance footage also shows slowmg down srgm?ricantiy between jumping over the fence between and and jumping over the fence between ?and Suggesting . . . 'l that he may have been struck whtle 1n the backyard of ?nds by a preponderance of the evidence that Of?cer Diaz ?red his ?fth shot while reaching over the fence separating?nd?With his ?rearm. Of?cer Diaz did not articulate that made any additional threatening gestures after he opened ?re and Of?cer Diaz stated he never saw a weapon in hand. - ?s actions after his initial encounter with Of?cer Diaz simply demonstrated intent to ?ee. Once jumped the fence between ?nd and continued running away from Of?cer Diaz, any immediate threat posed to Of?cer Diaz was substantially mitigated. Of?cer Diaz did not know the whereabouts of any other CPD of?cers or civilians. A reasonable of?cer would have no longer believed deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person at the time Of?cer Diaz ?red his ?fth shot.150 c. Of?cer Diaz?s ?fth shot was justi?ed under the second prong of CPD General Order 03-02-03. As explicitly stated in the second prong of the Chicago Police Department policy governing the use of dcadly force a law enforcement of?cer is permitted to use deadly force against a person to prevent the defeat of an arrest by resistance or escape if the of?cer reasonably believes that the person: a. has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony which involves the in?iction, threatened in?iction, or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm; b. is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or; c. otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or in?ict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay. As explained above, Of?cer Diaz reasonably, albeit mistakenly, believed that the gun?re came from the Jaguar or at lcast from the direction of the Jaguar and logically connected that gun?re to through his actions in the driveway/back yard of reaching for his waistband in a bladed position and refusing to stop and show his hands. ?48 Art. 34. 149 1d. 150 IPRA interprets prong 10f CPD General Order 03-02-03 in light of prong 2 of CPD General 03-02-03 which speci?cally addresses circumstances when of?cers are permitted to use deadly prevent the defeat of an arrest by resistance or escape. It is prong 2 of CPD General Order 03-02-03 that justi?es deadly force based on a more general continued threat of death or great bodily harm that a suspect poses to the public at large under certain circumstances. To interpret prong 1 to encompass a general threat a suspect poses would make prong 2 entirely super?uous and is inconsistent with the language used. See Chicago Teacher?s Union, Local No. I. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112566, 11 15 (?Each word, clause, and sentence should be given effect so as not to be rendered super?uous?) 56 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log Therefore, a reasonable of?cer would believe that had both committed a forcible felony which involved the threatened in?iction of death or great bodily harm and had attempted to escape by use of a deadly weapon. Furthermore, a reasonable of?cer would believe that - would endanger human life or in?ict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay. Therefore, deadly force could justi?ably be used to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape under Prong Prong and Prong 2(c) of CPD General Order 03-02- 03. The remaining inquiry is whether a reasonable of?cer under the circumstances confronting Of?cer Diaz would have believed deadly force was necessary to prevent from defeating his arrest by resistance or escape. See Klein v. Ryan, 847 F.2d 368, 372 (7th Cir. 1988). The surveillance footage clearly corroborates Of?cer Diaz?s statement that was ?eeing away from Of?cer Diaz who was attempting to arrest him.151 At that time, Of?cer Diaz was alone, did not know the position of the other of?cers, and had not complied with Of?cer Diaz?s commands to show him his hands and stop.1 Furthermore, at the time Of?cer Diaz likely ?red the ?fth shot, a fence that he couldn?t climb over separated him from?.153 Although all cases are extremely fact speci?c, courts have found the use of deadly force to prevent escape justi?able in somewhat similar cases. See, e. g. Klein, 847 .2d 368 (7th Cir. 1988) (?nding that the of?cers were justi?ed in using deadly force when a suspect they reasonably believed committed a burglary was ?eeing in a vehicle); Simmons v. City of Chicago, 118 Ill. App. 3d 676, 683 (lst Dist. 1983) (holding that of?cer was justi?ed in shooting at an escaping robbery suspect because the suspect was believed to be armed and the suspect refused to stop running despite the of?cer?s warning); LaMonte v. City of Belleville, 41 Ill. App. 3d 697 (5th Dist. 1976) (?nding that a police of?cer acted reasonably in shooting a suspect he reasonably believed the suspect had committed a robbery and he ran away from the of?cer despite an order to stop even when the subject having already been disarmed). IPRA ?nds that under the circumstances Of?cer Diaz faced, a reasonable of?cer would conclude that deadly force was necessary to prevent from defeating arrest by resistance or escape. Therefore, Of?cer Diaz?s ?fth shot was justi?ed under Prong Prong and Prong 2(c) of CPD General Order 03-02-03. Although Of?cer Diaz did not expressly reference the second prong of CPD General Order 03-02-03 as justi?cation for his use of deadly force in his statement to IPRA, his subjective reason for using deadly force is not the inquiry. The inquiry is whether Of?cer Diaz?s use of force was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. Graham, 490 US. 386, 397-99 (1989); Chicago Police Department General Order 03- (?The reasonableness of a particular use of force will be judged under the totality of the circumstances viewed from the perspective of a reasonable of?cer on the scene?) Of?cer Diaz clearly articulated the reasons he viewed as a continued threat and the totality of Of?cer Diaz?s statement to IPRA set forth that the necessary facts and circumstances were present to make his use of deadly force objectively reasonable under the second prong of CPD General Order 03-02-03. Consequently, Of?cer Diaz did not violate Rule 6 when he ?red his weapon at or in the direction of ?51 Att. 34. ?52 Art. 338 at 26, 52-53, 58 ?53 Id. at 83-84. 57 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log 2. Of?cer Diaz unjusti?ably kicked in violation of Rule 8 and Rule 9. Of?cer Torres? bod camera footage de icts Of?cer Diaz kick at in the backyard of while is 1 in on the ground surrounded by three other CPD of?cers.154 Of?cer Diaz admitted he kicked out of ?anger, rage, [or] frustration.?155 Of?cer Diaz?s kick ?agrantly violated use of force policy. _was not using or threatening the imminent use of force against himself/herself or another person; rather Mr. Diaz was lying face down on his stomach motionless surrounded by three CPD of?cers. Of?cer Diaz?s kicked served absolutely no legitimate police purpose and ?anger, rage, [or] frustration? can never justify the use of force.156 Therefore, Of?cer Diaz unjusti?ably kicked - in violation of Rule 8 and Rule 9. 3. Of?cer Diaz brought discredit to the Chicago Police Department by stating words towards to the effect of, ?Bitch ass mother fucker? in violation of Rule 2. Of?cer Diaz admitted that he called _a ?Bitch ass mother fucker? and his statement can also be heard on Of?cer Torres? body camera footage.157 Of?cer Diaz stated he made the comment because of ?anger and just you know just a lot of anger, frustration. It?s a lotta emotions going through at that time.?158 CPD of?cers are required to act professionally at all times.159 Of?cer Diaz?s statements were articular-[y inappropriate and offensive given that he had just shot and - was lying motionless on the grourtt'i.1 0 Officer Diaz?s statement served no legitimate police purpose and showed a complete lack of respect for_. More is expected of CPD of?cers even under dif?cult and stressful circumstances. Therefore, Of?cer Diaz?s statement, ?Bitch ass mother fucker? violated Rule 2. 4. Of?cer Diaz failed to activate his body camera as required by CPD Special Order $03-14. dcmonstratcs that Of?ccr Diaz did not activatc his body camera until he exited the backyard of after ?was already in police custody and that his body worn camera was fully operational on July 28. 2016.!? Of?cer Diaz admitted that his ?54 Art. 177 at 2:38. ?5 AttAtt. 177 at 2:37; Att. 338 at 65. 158 Art. 338 at 66. 159 See Chicago Police Rule 2. [60 Of?cer Diaz stated that he was unaware that _had been shot at the time he made the comment, but he should have been aware as he had just discharged ?ve shots and was lying motionless face down on the ground. Art. 180; Art. 253; Art. 338 at 97-98. 58 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log camera should have been activated ?the entire time,? but stated that he did not have time and forgot about it when the Jaguar drove towards his police vehicle at a high rate speed.I62 However, Of?cer Diaz should have already had his body camera activated well before encountering the Jaguar on Merrill Avenue. CPD Special Order 803-14 requires that a body camera be activated in ?any instance when enforcing the law? and during ?emergency driving situations.?163 Both Of?cer Diaz and Of?cer Baker stated that they were actively searching for the stolen Jaguar by driving around and using the LoJack system in their police vehicle.164 A search for a stolen vehicle constitutes ?enforcing the law? and Of?cer Diaz had ample time to turn on his body worn camera during this time. Moreover, Of?cer Baker and/or Diaz activated their police vehicles sirens and lights while searching for the stolen Jaguar. Therefore, Of?cer Diaz also should have activated his body worn camera because he was involved in an ?emergency driving situation.?165 Of?cer Diaz?s failure to activate his body worn was not harmless. Although IPRA found no evidence that Of?cer Diaz intentionally failed to activate his body worn camera, it notes that Of?cer Diaz?s failure to activate his camera until after the shooting incident with interfered with investigation and with the goal of improving the quality and reliability of investigations and increasing transparency with the general public. Of?cer Diaz?s body worn footage would have provided additional pertinent information to this investigation. IPRA ?nds that Of?cer Diaz violated CPD Special Order $03-14 when he did not activate his body camera until after the shooting incident. E. Analysis of the Allegations against Of?cer Baker 1. Of?cer Baker failed to activate his body camera as required by CPD Special Order, 803-14. The evidence demonstrates that Of?cer Baker did not activate his body camera and that Of?cer Baker?s body worn camera was fully operational on July 28, 2016.166 Of?cer Baker stated that he did not activate his camera because his focus was on safety and operating the police vehicle.167 As explained above with Of?cer Diaz, Of?cer Baker had ample time to activate his body worn camera well before encountering the Jaguar on Merrill Avenue. Of?cer Baker was required to activate his camera both because he was enforcing the law and because he was involved in an emergency driving situation. Therefore, Of?cer Baker violated CPD Special Order $03-14 by failing to activate his body worn camera. 162 Att. 33s at 97-98. 163 Chicago Police Department Special Order 803-14. ?64 Art. 319 at 46Att. 333 at 21?22; ?65 Att. 319 at 43-49, 51-52. ?66 Art. 253; Att. 319 at 109. '67 Att.. 319 at 109. 59 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log V. CONCLUSION After careful examination of the evidence and thorough analysis of the applicable law, IRPA recommends the following ?ndings: 1: Officer Coughlin ALLEGATION 1: Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED ALLEGATION Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED ALLEGATION Fired his weapon at and into a moving vehicle, in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Torres in violation of Rule 10 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Baker, in violation of Rule 10 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Diaz, in violation of Rule 10 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Stated words to the effect of, ?Fuck, man I?m gonna be on the desk for thirty goddamn days now. Fucking desk duty for thirty days now. Motherfucker. I shot,? in violation of Rule 2 is SUSTAINED. 2. Of?cer Torres ALLEGATION Used his police vehicle to obstruct the passage of another motor vehicle, in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon at and into a moving vehicle, in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Baker, in Violation of Rule 10 is SUSTAINED. 60 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log ALLEGATION Fired his weapon in the direction of Of?cer Diaz, in violation of Rule 10 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Loaded his Glock, model 17, bearing serial with mismatched ammunition, in violation of Rule 10 is SUSTAINED. 3. Of?cer Diaz ALLEGATION Fired his weapon at or in the direction of in violation of Rule 6 is EXONERATED. ALLEGATION Kicked in violation of Rule 8 and Rule 9 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Directed words towards_ to the effect of, ?Bitch ass motherfucker,? in violation of Rule 8 and 9 is SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION Failed to activate his body camera, in Violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. 4. Of?cer Baker ALLEGATION Failed to activate his body camera, in violation of Rule 6 is SUSTAINED. 61 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY Log CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS: Approved: Chief Admin 62