Lorenzo Shockley

The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that from on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates
therein, the Respondent, a public employee, knowingly performed an act which he knew he was forbidden by law to perform, in that he gave Darryl Shockley and/or caused Darryl Shockley to take possession of the Respondent's Chicago Police Department Star, Star No. 19234, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/33(b) and/or 720 ILCS 32-5.1.

From on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein, the Respondent made verbal statements and/or otherwise represented to other Chicago Police Department members that Darryl Shockley or Darryl Henderson was a Chicago Police Officer for the purpose of securing employment at the
"Rink," thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

There was insufficient evidence presented that the Respondent was given proper notice that the criminal segment of the investigation had been concluded on or before August 25, 2006, and therefore the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that on August 25, 2006, in the office of the Internal Affairs Division, the Respondent improperly refused to answer when Sergeant Brenda Dunn gave him a direct order to respond to questions asked of him as part of an Internal Affairs Division investigation.

There was insufficient evidence presented that the Respondent was given proper notice that the criminal segment of the investigation had been concluded on or before November 17, 2006, and therefore the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on November 17, 2006, in the office of the Internal
Affairs Division, the Respondent improperly refused to answer when Sergeant Brenda Dunn gave him a direct order to respond to questions asked of him as part of an Internal Affairs Division investigation.

The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that from on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein, the Respondent gave Darryl Shockley and/or caused Darryl Shockley to take possession of the Respondent's Chicago Police Department Star, Star No. 19234,
thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

From on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein, in the vicinity of 1122 East 87th Street, Chicago, the Respondent was present and/or was working security while Darryl Shockley or DarrylHenderson impersonated a Chicago Police Department Officer and/or displayed a
Chicago Police Department Star, Star No. 19234, and the Respondent failed to make areport to the Chicago Police Department, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

From on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein, the Respondent made verbal statements and/or otherwise represented to other Chicago Police Department members that Darryl Shockley or Darryl Henderson
was a Chicago Police Officer for the purpose of securing employment at the "Rink," thereby using his official position for personal gain or influence.

There was insufficient evidence presented that the Respondent was given proper
notice that the criminal segment of the investigation had been concluded on or before August 25, 2006, and therefore the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 25, 2006, in the office of the Internal Affairs Division, the
Respondent improperly refused to answer when Sergeant Brenda Dunn gave him a direct order to respond to questions asked of him as part of an Internal Affairs Division investigation.

There was insufficient evidence presented that the Respondent was given proper notice that the criminal segment of the investigation had been concluded on or before November 17, 2006, and therefore the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that on November 17, 2006, in the office of the Internal Affairs Division, the Respondent improperly refused to answer when Sergeant Brenda Dunn gave him a direct order to respond to questions asked of him as part of an Internal Affairs Division investigation.

The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that from on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein, the Respondent gave Darryl Shockley and/or caused Darryl Shockley to take possession of the Respondent's Chicago Police Department Star, Star No. 19234, thereby
failing to adequately secure and care for Department property.

The Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on or about May 21, 2000, the Respondent made a false report, written or oral, in that he filed a
Chicago Police Department Lost and Found Report, reporting that his Chicago Police Department Star, Star No. 19234, was lost, however, Star No. 19234 was observed and/or found in the possession of Darryl Shockley on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein.

From on or about February 1, 2005, through on or about March 31, 2005, or on one or more dates therein, in the vicinity of 1122 East 87th Street, Chicago, the Respondent was
present and/or was working security while Darryl Shockley or Darryl Henderson impersonated a Chicago Police Department Officer and/or displayed a Chicago Police D'epartment Star, Star No. 19234, and the Respondent failed to make a report to the Chicago Police Department that Darryl Shockley was falsely impersonating a peace officer in violation of 720 mcs 5/32-5.1, thereby failing to report promptly to the
Department any information concerning any crime or other unlawful action.