Thomas Sherry

The Police Board considered the facts and circumstances of Respondent’s conduct,8 the evidence presented in mitigation, and Respondent’s complimentary and disciplinary histories.

Respondent presented three mitigation witnesses. The first mitigation witness, a sergeant who supervised Respondent in CPD’s Alternate Response Section, testified that Respondent has a good reputation for truthfulness and veracity, and that Respondent is a highly motivated, honest “go-to guy.” A second witness, a former commanding officer of the Alternate Response Section, testified that she believed that Respondent was truthful and that she could trust Respondent; this officer ultimately asked Respondent to join her administrative staff. The third witness, a current sergeant who worked with Respondent when he was in the SOS unit from 2005 through 2006, testified that Respondent was “pleasant to work with” and a “very good” team player.

The Board also considered Respondent’s complimentary and disciplinary histories (hereby made part of the record as Hearing Officer Exhibit No. 1). Since joining the CPD in 1997, Respondent has earned 69 total awards, including one Special Commendation, three Department Commendations, one Unit Meritorious Performance Award, two Problem Solving Awards, and 55 Honorable Mentions. There are no sustained complaints on his disciplinary history report.

But, after thoroughly considering the whole Record, the Board finds that Respondent’s accomplishments as a police officer and the mitigation witnesses’ positive evaluations do not outweigh the seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct. Respondent intentionally falsified official police reports. Such conduct is antithetical to what is expected and required of CPD officers, who, at all times, have a duty to act with honesty and integrity. The Board finds that Respondent’s misconduct is incompatible with continued service as a police officer and warrants his discharge from the Chicago Police Department.

And more, the false reports described above (an arrest report, an inventory report, and a vice case report) had grave consequences for the victim and would have grave consequences for the Department if repeated elsewhere. As to the victim, the false reports directly impacted the narcotics charges brought against Hermosillo. But more generally, Respondent’s admitted shortcomings could seriously affect any criminal prosecution based on CPD investigations. For example, Respondent inaccurately listed himself as the recovering officer on an inventory report—an inaccuracy so serious that it would have implications for chain of custody and jeopardize a prosecution. Any false report is out of line with what is required of CPD officers, but the Board notes that the consequences resulting from these false reports were particularly egregious.

Respondent’s dishonesty directly relates to his duties as a police officer and ultimately renders him unfit to hold that office. Trustworthiness, reliability, good judgment, and integrity are all material qualifications for any job—but especially one as a police officer. One duty of an officer (of numerous that require the foregoing qualifications) is testifying in court: an officer’s credibility is at issue in both the prosecution of crimes and in the Police Department’s defense of civil lawsuits. A public finding that a police officer falsified official reports is detrimental to the officer’s credibility as a witness and, as such, is a serious liability to the Department. See, e.g.,Rodriguez v. Weis, 408 Ill. App. 3d 663, 671 (1st Dist. 2011).

The Board finds that Respondent’s conduct is sufficiently serious to constitute a substantial shortcoming that renders his continuance in his office detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the service of the Chicago Police Department, and is something that the law recognizes as good cause for him to no longer occupy his office.