Tiffany Brown

Case #: 09PB2704
Police badge #: 7418
Download original case files
- 09PB2704_Decision.pdf

Recommendation Termination
Decision Termination
Length of process over 1 year January 27, 2009 to August 19, 2010 Closed

Investigative Agency Not Specified

Charged with violating 3 rules on 9 counts

Show all counts


Rule 1	4 counts	Violation of any law or ordinance. Count 1 Not Guilty On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent knowingly attempted to obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property of another, in that she deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Sections 5/8-4 and 5/16-1(a)(1). The Respondent did not dispute that the check was fraudulent or that she attempted to deposit the check. The issue is whether she had knowledge that the check was fraudulent when she attempted to deposit it. The Board finds that she did have such knowledge, as the check identified was obviously fraudulent in that it had inadequate digits in the routing number, three instead of two sets of routing numbers, lines between the numbers, and the check does not appear to be a corporate check. The purported court document entitled "Money Beneficiaries to the Court Ruling of Abeni I. Brown" was obviously a fake. Moreover, the check was in the amount of $1,000,000 and it was purportedly from a lawsuit brought by the Respondent's sister (Abeni Brown) who had a history of scarnming everyone according to the Respondent's cousin (Amhad Murphy), which included defrauding the Respondent on at least two occasions. The Respondent's decision to try to negotiate this check, without any attempt to verify its legitimacy, betrays her knowledge that it was fraudulent. Finally, the Board credits the testimony of Samara Galvin, the teller, that the Respondent asked if the teller needed to speak with her (the Respondent's) lawyer who was on the phone, when in fact the Respondent had no lawyer and there was no lawyer on the phone. Such a statement by the Respondent further demonstrates that she was seeking to negotiate the fraudulent check, knowing it to be a fraud. The Respondent is a police officer and a college graduate. She could not have reasonably believed that the check was real, given the circumstances presented to her. She nonetheless presented it for deposit. Count 2 Not Guilty On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent knowingly attempted to obtain by deception control over the property of another, in that she deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Sections 5/8-4 and 5116-1(a)(2). See the reasons set forth in Finding No. 4 above. Count 3 Not Guilty On or about August 25, 2006, the Respondent, with intent to defraud, made or altered, or caused to be made or altered, any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that it purports to have been made by another or by authority of one who did not give such authority, in that the Respondent forged a check in the amount of $1,000,000.00, which she deposited into her personal account at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union on August 31, 2006, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720,Section 5/17-3(a)(1). While the Respondent testified that her sister Abeni Brown concocted the fraudulent check at issue, along with the fake court order entitled "Money Beneficiaries to the Court Ruling of AbeniI. Brown," and further that the Respondent's mother told her about the court case and gave her the check, neither Abeni Brown nor the Respondent's mother testified. They could have corroborated the Respondent's story, but they did not. As a result, the Board believes that the Respondent acted alone in preparing the fraudulent check and court order. Indeed, her actions were so brazen in presenting the check for deposit, when it was obvious the check was forged, that the Board finds that she, in fact, committed the forgery. Count 4 Not Guilty On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent, with intent to defraud, issued or caused to be issued or delivered any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that it purports to have been made by another or by authority of one who did not give such authority, knowing it to have been thus made or altered, in that on August 31, 2006, she deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Section 5/17- 3(a)(2). See the reasons set forth in Finding Nos. 4 and 6 above.
Rule 2	3 counts	Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department. Count 1 Not Guilty On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. See the reasons set forth in Finding No. 4 above. Count 2 Not Guilty On or about December 12, 2006, the Respondent was criminally indicted in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on two counts of forgery and one count of attempted theft, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. It is undisputed that the Respondent was indicted for forgery and attempted theft, and the Board finds that the evidence supports her guilt on these charges. See the reasons set forth in Finding Nos. 4 and 6 above. Count 3 Not Guilty On or about February 25, 2008, during her statement to the Internal Affairs Division, the Respondent refused to answer questions from Sergeant Joseph Stehlik, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. It is undisputed that the Respondent refused to answer questions from Sergeant Stehlik after being ordered to do so during her TAD interview, claiming her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. She had no right to invoke constitutional protection under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) and its progeny. It is well established that police officers must answer questions put to them during a disciplinary investigation, and their answers cannot be used against them in criminal court. The Respondent was advised of this requirement in the Administrative Proceedings Rights form she was given before being asked for her statement. Her refusal to answer the questions put to her was therefore improper.
Rule 6	2 counts	Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral. Count 1 Not Guilty On or about February 25, 2008, during her statement to the Internal Affairs Division, the Respondent refused to answer questions from Sergeant Joseph Stehlik, thereby failing to cooperate with the Internal Affairs Division, in violation of General Order 93-03-02B, Section II-A-2. See the reasons set forth in Finding No. 10 above. Count 2 Not Guilty On or about February 25, 2008, during her statement to the Internal Affairs Division, the Respondent refused to answer questions from Sergeant Joseph Stehlik, although Sergeant Stehlik told her he was giving her a direct order to answer questions, thereby disobeying a direct order. See the reasons set forth in Finding No. 10 above.

Rule 1

4 counts

Violation of any law or ordinance.

Count 1 Not Guilty: On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent knowingly attempted to obtain
or exert unauthorized control over the property of another, in that she deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Sections 5/8-4 and 5/16-1(a)(1). The Respondent did not dispute that the check was fraudulent or that she attempted to deposit
the check. The issue is whether she had knowledge that the check was fraudulent when she attempted to deposit it. The Board finds that she did have such knowledge, as the check identified was obviously fraudulent in that it had inadequate digits in the routing number, three
instead of two sets of routing numbers, lines between the numbers, and the check does not appear to be a corporate check. The purported court document entitled "Money Beneficiaries to the Court Ruling of Abeni I. Brown" was obviously a fake. Moreover, the check was in the amount of $1,000,000 and it was purportedly from a lawsuit brought by the Respondent's sister (Abeni Brown) who had a history of scarnming everyone according to the Respondent's cousin (Amhad Murphy), which included defrauding the Respondent on at least two occasions. The Respondent's decision to try to negotiate this check, without any attempt to verify its legitimacy, betrays her knowledge that it was fraudulent. Finally, the Board credits the testimony of Samara
Galvin, the teller, that the Respondent asked if the teller needed to speak with her (the Respondent's) lawyer who was on the phone, when in fact the Respondent had no lawyer and there was no lawyer on the phone. Such a statement by the Respondent further demonstrates that
she was seeking to negotiate the fraudulent check, knowing it to be a fraud. The Respondent is a police officer and a college graduate. She could not have reasonably believed that the check was
real, given the circumstances presented to her. She nonetheless presented it for deposit.
Count 2 Not Guilty: On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent knowingly attempted to obtain
by deception control over the property of another, in that she deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Sections 5/8-4 and 5116-1(a)(2). See the reasons set forth in Finding No. 4 above.
Count 3 Not Guilty: On or about August 25, 2006, the Respondent, with intent to defraud, made or altered, or caused to be made or altered, any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that it purports to have been made by another or by authority of one who did not give such authority, in that the Respondent forged a check in the amount of $1,000,000.00, which she deposited into her personal account at the Chicago Patrolmen's
Credit Union on August 31, 2006, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720,Section 5/17-3(a)(1). While the Respondent testified that her sister Abeni Brown concocted the fraudulent check at
issue, along with the fake court order entitled "Money Beneficiaries to the Court Ruling of AbeniI. Brown," and further that the Respondent's mother told her about the court case and gave her the check, neither Abeni Brown nor the Respondent's mother testified. They could have
corroborated the Respondent's story, but they did not. As a result, the Board believes that the Respondent acted alone in preparing the fraudulent check and court order. Indeed, her actions
were so brazen in presenting the check for deposit, when it was obvious the check was forged, that the Board finds that she, in fact, committed the forgery.
Count 4 Not Guilty: On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about 1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent, with intent to defraud,
issued or caused to be issued or delivered any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that it purports to have been made by another or by authority of one who did not give such authority, knowing it to have been thus made or altered, in that on
August 31, 2006, she deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, in violation of Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Section 5/17- 3(a)(2).
See the reasons set forth in Finding Nos. 4 and 6 above.

Rule 2

3 counts

Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.

Count 1 Not Guilty: On or about August 31, 2006, at the Chicago Patrolmen's Credit Union, at or about
1359 West Washington Boulevard, Chicago, the Respondent deposited a fraudulent check in the amount of $1,000,000.00 into her personal account, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.
See the reasons set forth in Finding No. 4 above.
Count 2 Not Guilty: On or about December 12, 2006, the Respondent was criminally indicted in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on two counts of forgery and one count of attempted theft, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or
bringing discredit upon the Department. It is undisputed that the Respondent was indicted for forgery and attempted theft, and the Board
finds that the evidence supports her guilt on these charges. See the reasons set forth in Finding Nos. 4 and 6 above.
Count 3 Not Guilty: On or about February 25, 2008, during her statement to the Internal Affairs Division, the Respondent refused to answer questions from Sergeant Joseph Stehlik, thereby impeding the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department. It is undisputed that the Respondent refused to answer questions from Sergeant Stehlik after
being ordered to do so during her TAD interview, claiming her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. She had no right to invoke constitutional protection under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) and its progeny. It is well established that police officers must
answer questions put to them during a disciplinary investigation, and their answers cannot be used against them in criminal court. The Respondent was advised of this requirement in the
Administrative Proceedings Rights form she was given before being asked for her statement. Her refusal to answer the questions put to her was therefore improper.