Jason Burg

As set forth above, much of the evidence in this case was presented by the Superintendent
by way of the testimony of Ms. Rzany. She provided a narrative of the events of the assault on her and Mr. Cordero that the Board finds credible. Specifically, she testified that she was living in Chicago with Mr. Cordero at the time of the incident. They went for a walk around the neighborhood and decided to walk through the picnic area of the Pavilion Apartments. At some point, Ms. Rzany stopped to fix her shoe when a Pavilion security truck pulled up to her and Mr. Cordero. There were two men in the truck (later identified as security guard Angel De La Rosa and Officer Gofron). Mr. De La Rosa asked Ms. Rzany and Mr. Cordero to leave because the picnic area was closing. They agreed to leave and as they were leaving the area, the individual later identified as Officer Gofron exited the vehicle, stumbling and carrying a beer bottle. He was yelling and screaming. He showed them his badge. He went back to the vehicle and retrieved his gun. Mr. Cordero put his hands behind his head. Officer Gofron then started attacking Mr. Cordero with the butt of the gun striking him repeatedly. Ms. Rzany was screaming. Officer Gofron chased her and grabbed her by the neck and put the gun in her mouth. He struck her hand. Mr. Cordero screamed for Gofron to get off Ms. Rzany. As a result, Officer Gofron went back to Mr. Cordero and pinned him down to the ground. At that point, Ms. Rzany started screaming again and someone on a balcony apartment nearby started screaming, at which point Officer Gofron stopped the assault. Officer Gofron and Mr. De La Rosa returned to the security vehicle and drove away. Mr. Cordero was suffering from significant bleeding and so Ms. Rzany took Mr. Codero’s cell phone out of his pocket and called 911.
Ms. Rzany further testified regarding what occurred when police officers arrived in response to her call. She noted that she approached the first police officer who arrived on the scene and described him as tall, dark hair, with a tribal tattoo on his arm. She later learned the identity of this officer to be Respondent when she brought a lawsuit against the City. A few seconds after Respondent arrived at the scene, according to Ms. Rzany, the security truck pulled up again with Mr. De La Rosa and Officer Gofron. When Ms. Rzany realized that Officer Gofron had exited the truck and was walking toward her and Respondent, she screamed to Respondent that Officer Gofron was the offender and that he had a gun. Officer Gofron approached Respondent, told him he was a cop, and showed him a badge. Ms. Rzany testified that Respondent told Officer Gofron to “get out of here” and Officer Gofron left the area.
While Respondent admits that he never arrested Officer Gofron, nor did he take down his information, Respondent’s testimony differed from Ms. Rzany’s in almost every other aspect. Respondent stated that when he arrived on the scene, he observed Mr. Cordero on the ground— bleeding with severe injuries—and Ms. Rzany standing off to the left side on the phone. Respondent testified that shortly after he arrived, a Pavilion security vehicle pulled up next to him and that security agent Angel De La Rosa got out of the truck. Respondent denied that Officer Gofron was also in the security vehicle. He denied that Ms. Rzany was screaming that Officer Gofron had a gun, or that she screamed that Officer Gofron had pistol-whipped her boyfriend. Respondent testified that after he saw Ms. Rzany on the phone, she walked away from the area. Respondent testified that the offender was already gone by the time he arrived, and that he neither knew Officer Gofron nor saw him at the scene that night.
The Board finds Ms. Rzany’s testimony credible and convincing. Her demeanor throughout her testimony was singularly serious and self-contained. She did not waiver in her recollection of what was clearly a traumatic experience for her and Mr. Cordero. She was unwavering in her resolve that Respondent was the officer she spoke to at the scene, and that she learned of his identity when she filed a lawsuit against the City. She was also able to identify Respondent during the hearing itself.
Her testimony was also corroborated in significant respects. Ms. Rzany’s testimony that both Mr. De La Rosa and Officer Gofron were in the security vehicle when it returned to the premises and pulled up near where she was standing next to Respondent was corroborated by deposition testimony of Mr. De La Rosa, which was entered into evidence. In his deposition, Mr. De La Rosa stated that he returned to the scene with Officer Gofron in the vehicle. Her testimony that Officer Gofron exited the vehicle and walked over to where she was standing next to Respondent was similarly corroborated by Mr. De La Rosa, who also testified in his deposition that Officer Gofron exited the vehicle and walked over toward Ms. Rzany and a police officer. Mr. De La Rosa also corroborated Ms. Rzany’s testimony when he testified that she started screaming when she realized that Officer Gofron was walking toward her. Mr. De La Rosa further testified that one of the officers who he described as “Caucasian, 6ft or over and large”, spoke with Officer Gofron at the scene and that Officer Gofron walked away from the scene. Ms. Rzany’s testimony was further corroborated by the transcript of her 911 call. During that call, she reported that an off-duty officer had assaulted her and her boyfriend. And while she was still on the call, she can be heard stating, “He has a gun. He has a gun. He has a gun. He has a passenger ....he has a gun and he pistol whipped my boyfriend on the ground,” which is a compelling real-time corroboration of her account. In addition, a police-recorded Radio Zone call during which Ms. Rzany is heard yelling in the background while Respondent tells the dispatch to slow down and send no more cars.
Respondent’s testimony, on the other hand, was not credible. He was uncertain during his testimony. Although he had given previous statements that he was responding to an in-progress call and that he was the first officer to arrive at the scene, he could not remember these two facts at the hearing. He gave an inconsistent statement about where Ms. Rzany was standing when he arrived at the scene. He testified that he didn’t know who she was on the phone with, but in a previous statement he stated that she was on the phone with 911. His testimony that he only noticed one man in the security truck was refuted by both Ms. Rzany and Mr. De La Rosa, who testified that Officer Gofron was in the security truck when it pulled up next to Respondent and Ms. Rzany. And given the 911 call and the testimony of Mr. De La Rosa, it simply is not credible that Respondent did not hear Ms. Rzany screaming when she realized that Officer Gofron was walking toward them. He provided no explanation as to why, after responding to an in-progress call, he believed the offender was long gone immediately after he arrived on the scene, and his decision to direct dispatch to slow down and not send any additional cars almost ensured that the offender would be able to avoid being apprehended.
Respondent also testified during the hearing that Mr. Cordero provided him with a description of the offender; however, in his statement to the IPRA, Respondent stated that Mr. Cordero never said a word to him. Respondent testified during the hearing that other police officers responded to the disturbance call and arrived at the scene, while he testified that only he and Sergeant Robert Colella responded to the call in his deposition testimony. And both Ms. Rzany and Mr. De La Rosa testified that other officers arrived on the scene, but that they arrived after Officer Gofron left the area. Mr. De La Rosa only identified one officer who spoke to Officer Gofron and his description of that officer fits Respondent. Finally, when Respondent was asked whether he received the update from dispatch that the offender was still in the area, he could not recall if he had received that update. Given the number of inconsistencies, purported failure in memory, and incredible explanations, the Board does not credit Respondent’s testimony.

Respondent acknowledged that he must be truthful in making reports and that he is prohibited from making false statements. Nevertheless, in the Original Case Incident Report, Respondent wrote “UNK” (unknown) for the name of the suspect when he in fact knew that the suspect was Officer Gofron. As described above, the Board credits Ms. Rzany’s testimony that she told Respondent that Officer Gofron was the offender who had assaulted her and Mr. Cordero, and that Respondent spoke to Officer Gofron at the crime scene. Thus, by failing to identify Officer Gofron as the suspect in the Original Case Incident Report and by claiming that the offender fled the scene upon Respondent’s arrival, Respondent made intentional and material false statements in the Original Case Incident Report.

During his interview with the IPRA, Respondent stated that the offender was no longer at
the scene by the time Respondent arrived. However, as described above, the Board credits testimony establishing that Respondent had a conversation with Officer Gofron, the offender, shortly after Respondent arrived at the scene. Respondent understands that he is prohibited from making false statements. However, by telling IPRA investigators that the offender was “long gone” by the time Respondent arrived on the scene—when in actuality Respondent spoke with the offender shortly after Respondent arrived on the scene—Respondent intentionally made a false material statement to IPRA investigators.