be discharged from the Chicago Police Department for violating the following Rules of

Similar documents
BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO. On March 22, 2004, the Superintendent of Police filed charges

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO RESPONDENT. FINDINGS AND DECISION

FINDINGS. On January 17, 2007, the Superintendent of Police filed with. the Police Board of the City of Chicago charges against Police

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

Board of the City of Chicago, seeking the separation of Police Officer CELESTINO. upon the Department." or oral."

Board of the City of Chicago, seeking the termination of Timekeeper NOELE K. upon the Department."

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO FINDINGS AND DECISION. On December 22, 2004 the Superintendent of Police filed

FINDINGS AND DECISION

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO FINDINGS AND DECISION

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO FINDINGS. On April 03, 2006, the Superintendent of Police filed with

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

Board of the City of Chicago seeking the discharge of Police Officer THOMAS. upon the Department.

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO FINDINGS

On January 8, 2002, the Superintendent of Police filed. charges with the Police Board of the City of Chicago against

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO FINDINGS. On January 31, 2006, the Superintendent of Police filed with

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

On May 26, 2003, the Superintendent of Police filed charges. with the Police Board of the City of Chicago against Police

On September 20, 2007, the Superintendent of Police filed. with the Police Board of the City of Chicago charges against

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

ORDER. In June 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulation (attached hereto as Exhibit B).

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/26/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1

HEARING OFFICER'S MEMORANDUM ON THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

I. CMP Disciplinary Policy & Procedures. A. Objectives

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

POLICE BOARD CITY OF CHICAGO. DISCIPLINARY CASES QUARTERLY REPORT March 31, 2015

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

Case 2:10-cr CM Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case 1:17-cr DDD-JPM Document 38 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

) v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ) NORTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL ) JUSTICE AND TRAINING ) STANDARDS COMMISSION, ) ) APPEARANCES

Chapter 19 Procedures for Disciplinary Action and Appeal

Chicago False Claims Act

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAUSE NUMBER 00 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL V. COURT AT LAW NUMBER 00 DEFENDANT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

THE BURMA OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

THE BURMA OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT [INDIA ACT XIX, 1923] (2nd April, 1923)

RESOLUTION DETERMINING PREVAILING WAGE RATES

APPEARANCES. Charles Cornelius Gunnings, pro se 1135 Helmsley Drive Fayetteville, North Carolina 28314

SDE Approved 4/24/2014 STATE OF IDAHO SUPERINTENDENT CONTRACT FORM

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

Case 1:18-cr WHP Document 15 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 18 Cr.

Exoneration Project Intake Application

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COUNT ONE I. THE ENTERPRISE

Court of Appeals of Ohio

W I T N E S S E T H. WHEREAS, COUNTY has the experience and resources to conduct elections throughout all of, or portions of, Smith County; and

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES

This matter came before the undersigned Judge of District Court on November 22,

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS

ADMINISTRATOR S MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT ( ) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 9th day of March, 2015, by and

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF CABARRUS 12 DOJ Petitioner:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901

Standard Interrogatories Under Supreme Court Rule 213(j)

1 IN RE: PEOPLE VS. ANNABEL MELONGO SGJ# APR 2241 ARR. DATE BEFORE THE SPECIAL GRAND JURY OF COOK COUNTY 7 APRIL 2010

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT

Chapter 2-57 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY

NO CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS. JOSEPH MICHAEL DEMERS, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Elena Lewis 457 Raphael Avenue. WHEREAS, the Village of Buffalo Grove is a Home Rule Unit by virtue of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and,

Secretary Kern, the Resolution is stated as follows:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE OPTIONS CLEARING CORPORATION ICE CLEAR US, INC.

Act Name : THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923 Act title : ACT NO. 19 OF * 3* * * * * Enactment date : [2nd April, 1923.]

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Residential (No ) Property Tax Assessment Appeal Resolution

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD THIRD DIVISION. John H. Dorsey, Referee

This BILL OF SALE, made and entered into on this the day of., 2000, by and between. if one or more individuals, or. a partnership composed of, and

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 15 Filed: 01/27/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:29

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 56 Filed: 04/30/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:864

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JASON BIGGS, EMPLOYEE

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT. Julie Ann Epps (MS Bar No. 504 East Peace Street Canton, MS (601) facsimile (601)

Case 1:18-cr TSE Document 304 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 6635

TITLE 12 BUILDING, UTILITY, ETC. CODES CHAPTER 1 BUILDING PERMIT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2012 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2012

Case 1:17-cr RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10. United States v. Michael T. Flynn

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

Transcription:

BEFORE THE 'POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO IN THE ;MATTER OF CHARGES FILED AGAINST ) POLICE OFFICER DAVID PARKER, No. 08 PB 2679 STAR No. 5000, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, CITY OF CHICAGO, (CR No. 1001354) RESPONDENT. ) FINDINGS On April 17, 2008, the Superintendent of Police filed with the Police Board of the City of Chicago charges against Police Officer David Parker, Star No.5000 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Respondent"), recommending that the Respondent be discharged from the Chicago Police Department for violating the following Rules of Conduct: RULE 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department. RULE 10: Inattention to duty. RULE 14: Making a false report, written or oral. The Police Board of the City of Chicago caused a hearing on these charges against Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000, to be heard by Jacqueline A. Walker, Hearing Officer of the Police Board of the City of Chicago, on July 22 and July 24, 2008. Following the Hearing, the members of the Police Board read and reviewed the record of proceedings in this case and viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses. Hearing Officer Walker made an oral report to and conferred with the Police Board before it rendered a decision.

Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000 Page ) As a result of the foregoing, the Police Board of the City of Chicago finds and determines that: (1) The Respondent was at all times mentioned herein a police officer employed by the Department of Police of the City of Chicago. (2) The charges were filed in writing, and a Notice, stating the time, date and place, when and where a hearing on the charges was to be held, together with a copy of the original charges, were served upon the Respondent more than five (5) days prior to the hearing on the charges. (3) Throughout the hearing, the Respondent appeared in person and was represented by legal counsel. (4) The Respondent, Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000, as charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to-wit: in that: RULE 2:Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department, Count I: The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that on or about March 8, 2007, Police Officer David Parker falsely stated to Detective Dion Boyd and/or Assistant State's Attorney Kelly Navarro and/or Sergeant Kenneth Bigg that he (Parker) was present with Police Officer Kenneth Matlob during the debriefing of Jessica Rizzo in the vicinity of the Amoco gas station on Madison Street. Count II: The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that on or about June 14, 2007, Police Officer David Parker falsely told Detective Dion Boyd that he (Parker) was present with Police Officer Kenneth Matlob during the debriefing of Jessica Rizzo on November 3, 2006, in the vicinity of a gas station on Madison Street.

Police Officer David Parker. Star No. 5000 Page 3 (5) The Respondent, Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000, as charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to-wit: in that: RULE 14:Making a false report, written or oral, Count I: The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that on or about March 8, 2007, Police Officer David Parker falsely stated to Detective Dion Boyd and/or Assistant State's Attorney Kelly Navarro and/or Sergeant Kenneth Bigg that he (Parker) was present with Police Officer Kenneth Matlob during the debriefing of Jessica Rizzo in the vicinity of the Amoco gas station on Madison Street. Count II: The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that on or about June 14, 2007, Police Officer David Parker falsely told Detective Dion Boyd that he (Parker) was present with Police Officer Kenneth Matlob during the debriefing of Jessica Rizzo on November 3, 2006, in the vicinity of a gas station on Madison Street. (6) For the reason stated below, the Respondent, Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000, as charged herein, is not guilty of the following charge of violating Rule 10, Inattention to duty: On or about November 3, 2006, he failed to notify Sergeant Darwin Butler that he was coming on duty, while he was on Department-ordered administrative leave after being involved in a police shooting. (7) Having deliberated on the evidence and considered the credibility of the witnesses, the Police Board finds that the Superintendent failed to meet his burden of proving the charges of violating Rules 2 and 14 by a preponderance of the evidence, particularly in light of the Board's concerns about the credibility of Jessica Rizzo, the Superintendent's primary witness. The Police Board also finds that the Superintendent did not prosecute and thus abandoned the Rule 10 charge, which is diametrically opposed

Police Officer Da\ id Parker, Star No. 5000 Page 4 to and contradicted by the Rule 2 and Rule 14 charges, by focusing the Superintendent's proof and arguments at the hearing on a theory of the case which was incompatible with the Rule 10 charge. BY REASON of the findings of fact herein, cause exists for restoring the Respondent, Police Officer David Parker, Star No.5000, to his position as a police officer, and to the services of the City of Chicago, with all rights and benefits, effective April 22, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, (e)a JA UELINE A. WALKER Hearing Officer

Police Board Case No. 08 PB 7679 Police Officer David Parker. Star No. 5000 Page 5 DECISION The Police Board of the City of Chicago, having read and reviewed the record of proceedings in this case, having viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses, having received the oral report of the Hearing Officer, Jacqueline A. Walker, and having conferred with the Hearing Officer on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, hereby adopts all findings herein; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000, as a result of having been found not guilty of the charges in Police Board Case No, 08 PB 2679, be and hereby is restored to his position as a police officer, and to the services of the City of Chicago, with all rights and benefits, effective 22 April 2008. DATED AT CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK, STATE OF ILLINOIS, THIS 25 t1 'I DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. Attested by: Executive Director Police Board

Police Board Case No. OS PB 2679 Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000 Page 5 A DECISION The Police Board of the City of Chicago, having read and reviewed the record of proceedings in this case, having viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses, having received the oral report of the Hearing Officer, Jacqueline A. Walker, and having conferred with the Hearing Officer on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, hereby adopts all findings herein; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000, as a result of having been found not guilty of the charges in Police Board Case No. 08 PB 2679, be and hereby is restored to his position as a police officer, and to the services of the City of Chicago, with all rights and benefits, effective 22 April 2008. DATED AT CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK, STATE OF ILLINOIS, THIS 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. Attested by: )ñ4(1`// A../e. ( Executive Director Police Board

Police Officer David Parker, Star No. 5000 Page 6 DISSENT The following members of the Police Board hereby dissent from the decision of the majority of the Board. RECEIVED A COPY OF THE FOREGOING COMMUNICATION THIS DAY OF 2008. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE