James Booker

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:
Rule 2:Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,
in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: Count I: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker made the following statements on the telephone to Deborah Brown about her daughter: “I should slap that b****,” and/or “your
b****daughter had no right to hit me in the face,” or used words to that effect, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit:
Rule 2:Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,
in that: Count II: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of
3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker called Sergeant Stephen Franko a “m*****f*****,” and/or told Sergeant Franko to “get the fuck off my m*****f******porch,” or used words to that effect, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:
Rule 2:Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,
in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: Count III: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker advanced toward Sergeant Stephen Franko in a threatening manner and/or struck Sergeant Franko’s hand , thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 2:Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,in that: Count IV: On or about
March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,
Officer James Booker closed his door on Sergeant Stephen Franko
and/or refused to open the door when ordered to do so by
Sergeant Franko, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts
to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:
Rule 2:Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,
in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: Count V: On or about
March 27, 2009, at approximately 3:21 a.m., Officer James Booker
was intoxicated and/or under the influence of alcohol, thereby impeding the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals and/or bringing discredit upon the Department.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 6: Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral,in that: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer
James Booker disobeyed a direct order from Sergeant Stephen Franko
to open his door, thereby disobeying an order or directive, whether written or oral.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 7:Insubordination or disrespect toward a supervisory member on or off duty,in that:
On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd
Place in Chicago, Officer James Booker closed his door on Sergeant Stephen Franko and/or refused to open the door when ordered to do so by Sergeant Franko, and was thereby insubordinate and showed
disrespect toward a supervisory member on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein,is not guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 8:
Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty,
in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: Count I: On or about March 27, 2009, in
the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker made the following statements on the telephone to Deborah Brown
about her daughter: “I should slap that b****,” and/or “your b****daughter had no right to hit me in the face,” or used words to that effect,thereby disrespecting or maltreating any person, while on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 8:
Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty,
in that: Count II: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of
3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker called Sergeant Stephen Franko a “m*****f*****,” and/or told
Sergeant Franko to “get the fuck off my m*****f******porch,” or used words to that effect, thereby disrespecting or maltreating any person, while on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 8:
Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person, while on or off duty,
in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: Count III: On or about
March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place
in Chicago, Officer James Booker advanced toward Sergeant Stephen Franko in a threatening manner and/or struck Sergeant Franko’s hand, thereby disrespecting or maltreating any person, while
on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No.
4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:
Rule 9:Engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: Count I: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd
Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker made the following statements on the telephone to Deborah Brown about her daughter: “I should slap that b****,” and/or “your b****daughter had no right to hit me in the face,” or used words to that effect, thereby engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein, is guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 9:Engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person, while
on or off duty,in that: Count II: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of 3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago, Officer James Booker called Sergeant Stephen Franko a “m*****f*****,” and/or told
Sergeant Franko to “get the fuck off my m*****f******porch,” or used words to that effect, thereby engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 9:
Engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty,in that the Superintendent did not
prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge:
Count III: On or about March 27, 2009, in the vicinity of
3343 West 83rd Place in Chicago,Officer James Booker advanced toward Sergeant Stephen Franko in a threatening manner and/or struck Sergeant Franko’s hand, thereby engaging in any unjustified verbal or physical altercation with any person, while on or off duty.

The Respondent, Police Officer James Booker, Star No. 4096, charged herein, is not guilty of violating, to wit:Rule 15: Intoxication on or off duty, in that the Superintendent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following charge: On or about March 27, 2009, at
approximately 3:21 a.m., Officer James Booker was
intoxicated and/or under the influence of alcohol, and was thereby intoxicated while on or off duty.