Michael Williams

Guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count I), to the extent that it charges him with failure to adhere to the provisions of General Order. 99-01 V (A)(1)(a) and General Order 99-01 V (B) (1), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count I), to the extent that it charges him with failure to adhere to the provisions of General Order 99-01 V (A)(1)(e) and General Order 99-01 V W(3), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a -wea4Jon,

Guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count II), for violating a direct order to terminate a vehicle chase;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count III), charging him with engaging in excessive force against Raymond Smith;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 2 (Count IV), charging him with failure to immediately summon medical attention for Latanya Haggerty;

Guilty Of ,violating Rule. 2 (Count V) 1 for failing adhere to the provisions of General Order 86-.8 IV (E) when he fired his weapon without justification at a fleeing vehicl e ;

For failing to adhere to the provisions of General Order 86-8 IV (E), when he fired his weapon without justification at a fleeing vehicle

To the extent it charges him with failing to adhere to the provisions of General Order 99-01 V (A)(3) and V(B)(1), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon but only to the extent that these reports involved the incidents that occurred at 95 th and Cottage Grove on June 4, 1999

To the extent it charges him with failing to adhere to the provisions of General Order 99-01 V (A)(3) and V(B)(1), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon but only to the extent that these reports involved the incidents that occurred at 64 th and King Drive on June 4, 1999

For giving false information in his OPS statement, when he stated that Raymond Smith used his vehicle as a weapon against these officers

When he fired his weapon without justification at a fleeing vehicle

Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count I), to the extent that it charges him with failure to adhere to_the provisions of General Order 99-01 V (A) (1) and General Order 99-01 V (B)(1), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count I), to the extent that it charges him with failure to adhere to theprovisions of General Order 99-01 V (IQ (1)(e) and General Order 99-01 V (A)(3), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon, by a unanimous vote, except that Members Apelbaum, Davis, Carney and Gonzalez dissent from the finding on General Order 99-01 V(A)(1)(e);

Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count II), for violating a direct order to terminate a vehicle chase;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count III), charging him with failure to immediately summon medical attention for Latanya Haggerty;

Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count IV), for failing to adhere to the provisions of General Order 86-8 IV (E), when he fired his weapon without justification at a fleeing vehicle;

Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count V), to the extent it charges him with failing to adhere to the provisions of General Order 99-01 V (A) (3) and V(B)(1), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon but only to the extent that these reports involved the incidents that occurred at 95th and Cottage Grove on June 4, 1999;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 6 (Count V), to the extent it charges him with failing to adhere to the provisions of General Order 99-01 V (A)(3) and V(B)(1), requiring certain reports following the discharge of a weapon but only to the extent that these reports involved the incidents that occurred at 64th and King Drive on June 4, 1999 by a unanimous vote;

Not Guilty of violating Rule 8, charging him with engaging in excessive force against Raymond Smith;

Guilty of violating Rule 14, for giving false information in his OPS statement, when he stated that Raymond Smith used his vehicle as a weapon against him; and

Guilty of violating Rule 38, when he fired his weapon without justification at a fleeing vehicle.