- Case #: 18PB2948
- Police badge #: 7727
- Download original case files
- Recommendation Termination
- Decision Termination
- Length of process 9 months August 28, 2018 to May 16, 2019 Closed
Charged with violating 5 rules on 6 counts
|Rule 10||1 count||
Inattention to duty.
|Rule 6||1 count||
Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral.
|Rule 4||1 count||
Any conduct or action taken to use the official position for personal gain or influence.
|Rule 3||1 count||
Any failure to promote the Department's efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals.
|Rule 2||2 counts||
Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.
Board Member Votes & Decisions
Agreed with the final decision of the board
Disagreed with the final decision of the board
0 did not vote
Did not vote or were not present for voting
5. The Respondent, Police Officer Darius Alexander, Star No. 7727, charged herein, is guilty of violating Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 6, and Rule 10 in that the Superintendent proved by a preponderance of the evidence the following charges: On or about May 24, 2012, Officer Alexander failed to document either one of two individuals who were detained during an investigatory street stop, in the vicinity of 699 South Laramie Avenue, Chicago, on a contact information card or any other official police report. Officer Alexander thereby violated: a. Rule 2, which prohibits any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department; b. Rule 3, which prohibits any failure to promote the Department’s efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals; c. Rule 6, which prohibits disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral, in that Officer Alexander disobeyed Department Special Order S04-13-09, section IV(B) (effective February 23, 2012); and d. Rule 10, which prohibits inattention to duty. See the findings set forth in paragraph no. 4 above, which are incorporated herein by reference. After stopping Ms. Doe’s vehicle, it is undisputed that Officer Alexander never completed a contact information card to document his interaction with her or Ms. Berry. Nor did Officer Alexander mention their identities in the incident report he admits he prepared on the stop, or in the arrest reports he admitted authoring related to the arrest of the women’s friends. The Board finds that this decision to eliminate any paper trail pertaining to Officer Alexander’s contact with the young women was not inadvertent but part of a larger plan by Officer Alexander to prevent anyone from knowing about his interaction with these young women. This larger plan included deleting from Ms. Doe’s phone texts that he had exchanged with Ms. Doe on the evening of May 24, 2012, as more fully described in paragraph no. 6 below. Because of Officer Alexander’s failure to complete a contact information card in violation of Department Special Order S04-13-09 (Superintendent’s Ex. No. 1), he pleaded guilty to the Rule 6 violation set out in specification 1(c) of the charges. His failure to document his interaction with the young women (on a contact information card or in the police reports he authored)—both on May 24, 2012, and continuing thereafter on May 25, 2012—is undisputed. The Board finds that this failure also clearly violates Rules 2, 3, and 10, as Officer Alexander’s conduct impeded the Department’s ability to achieve its goal of documenting contact with citizens, including after they are detained. Such policy is clearly spelled out in Department Special Order S04-13-09. It also fails to promote the Department’s effort to implement its written policy, and represents a serious inattention to duty on the part of Officer Alexander, particularly where his failure to document his contacts was part of a larger plan to secure sexual favors from a vulnerable young woman. 6. The Respondent, Police Officer Darius Alexander, Star No. 7727, charged herein, is guilty of violating Rule 2 and Rule 4 in that the Superintendent proved by a preponderance of the evidence the following charges: On or about May 25, 2012, sometime between approximately 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the vicinity of 1949 West Augusta Avenue, Chicago, while off duty, Officer Alexander met with and solicited sexual favors from one or more individuals, one of whom was a minor, in exchange for releasing an impounded car and/or assisting an arrestee. Officer Alexander discussed sexual favors and boundaries, including “anal,” with one or more of the individuals and/or asked what they were offering or used words to that effect. Officer Alexander thereby violated: a. Rule 2, which prohibits any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department; and b. Rule 4, which prohibits any conduct or action taken to use the official position for personal gain or influence. See the findings set forth in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 above, which are incorporated herein by reference. The Board finds the testimony of Jane Doe to be particularly compelling based on the credible and detailed manner in which she testified, as well as the corroboration of her testimony through the recordings of the conversations she made. The Board credits her testimony that on the evening of May 24, 2012, Officer Alexander and she exchanged forty-seven texts as well as calls between 5:51 p.m. and 9:21 p.m., and that in these texts and calls (Superintendent’s Ex. No. 2), Officer Alexander came on to Ms. Doe in a sexual fashion, discussed why she needed to find a different boyfriend, and suggested that Officer Alexander should be with her as a boyfriend. Most of the communication was by text. Officer Alexander contends that his contact with Ms. Doe on the night of May 24, 2012, was aimed at trying to determine the identity of the individual(s) who sold the drugs found on her male friends. He says he was a young, aggressive officer, looking for leads on drug dealers in the Austin neighborhood, and “played” Ms. Doe with small talk and a promise to help get her mother’s car out of the pound. He says that Ms. Doe claimed to have information about the drug dealers. Officer Alexander continued to maintain throughout the hearing that his actions were about discovering the identity of drug dealers while the evidence that this contention is patently untrue is incontrovertible. The Board specifically disbelieves Officer Alexander’s account of his conversations with Ms. Doe for several reasons. First, in evidence is a recording of Officer Alexander’s discussion with Ms. Doe the next day, where he is plainly seeking sexual favors in exchange for help with her car, and includes no mention of drug dealers or transactions. Second, the Board believes Ms. Doe’s testimony that the next day Officer Alexander took her phone and deleted their text exchanges, strongly suggesting that these texts were not about drug dealers but rather about sex. Third, Officer Alexander admits that he and his partner were contacted by the Department’s Bureau of Internal Affairs (BIA) a few days after Ms. Doe and her friends were stopped, and he admits that he had the texts on his phone at that time. Officer Alexander testified that he had never been involved with Internal Affairs before. BIA pulled Officer Alexander and his partner off the street, and Officer Alexander knew at the time that BIA was looking into his and his partner’s contact with the two young women. If the texts were exculpatory, i.e., about following up on the identity of drug dealers, Officer Alexander had every reason to preserve those texts, but he did not do so, confirming that damning nature of the texts. On May 25, 2012, Officer Alexander again reached out to Jane Doe at 10:18 a.m., and arranged to meet her and Ms. Berry near Augusta and Damen Avenues in Chicago while on his day off. Officer Alexander claims he was still pursuing the identity of the drug dealers that sold the women’s friends drugs. Nevertheless, he meets with them without a weapon or badge, without ever alerting anyone else in the Department (including his partner) about what he is doing, and on his day off (without ever requesting overtime for this police work while he was off-duty). His own partner, Officer Brown, cast doubt on Officer Alexander’s claim that he was pursuing an investigation. Officer Brown testified that only the Narcotics and Vice units of the Department contracted with confidential informants; that Brown obtained information from unofficial informants but only persons who lived in the District, with whom he had a relationship; that Brown never met with people seeking information on his day off; and that Brown would have informed his sergeant if he was undertaking his own investigation of a drug dealer, both for safety reasons and because “you can’t trust... everybody.” Officer Alexander’s conduct is entirely inconsistent with the practice his own partner followed. Even without Officer Brown’s testimony, however, it is clear that Officer Alexander was not looking for drug dealers on May 25, 2012, but rather soliciting sex in exchange for helping Ms. Doe recover her mother’s car. The Board believes Ms. Doe that on May 25, 2012, when she met with Officer Alexander, he took her phone and deleted the texts they exchanged on the previous day. This prompted Ms. Doe to secretly record her conversation on May 25, 2012, with Officer Alexander, using her phone’s video application. These recordings are Superintendent’s Ex. Nos. 3-6, and they confirm, without question, that Officer Alexander was soliciting Ms. Doe and Ms. Berry for sex, including talking about Ms. Doe’s sexual boundaries and her experience with anal sex, as well as discussing what Ms. Doe would do in order to secure Officer Alexander’s help with the car. There is no discussion whatsoever about drug transactions or dealers in these recorded conversations. Even after this encounter with Ms. Doe, Officer Alexander continued to call her later on May 25, 2012. Ms. Doe, however, took the train back to Crystal Lake. Her mother discovered the recorded conversations between Ms. Doe and Officer Alexander on her phone, and reported Officer Alexander’s conduct to the Crystal Lake police on May 29, 2012. The Crystal Lake police then contacted the Chicago police, which led to the filing of the present charges. There is no question that Officer Alexander’s conduct violates Rules 2 and 4. He abused his office in order to take advantage of a vulnerable young woman.