Chicago taxpayers could be on the hook to pay $1.25 million to the family of Dexter Reed, a black man killed by police after he opened fire on officers when they stopped his car, to settle a lawsuit against the city from the family against which the city appeared to mount only a token defense in court, and even as the investigation into the incident continues.
On Feb. 10, the Chicago City Finance Committee is slated to discuss the settlement deal during its regular meeting.
The overall terms of the settlement remain under seal in federal court.
Attorney Andrew Stroth is among the lawyers representing the family of Dexter Reed
| Handler Thayer
However, the Finance Committee agenda confirmed the city would pay Reed's family $1.25 million, if approved.
Discussion and debate over the potential settlement is expected to be intense. When news of the possible payout first surfaced, even before the dollar amount was confirmed by the Finance Committee, alderpersons blasted the deal, calling it "absurd" and "an absolute embarrassment."
They asserted the settlement, paid to the family of a man who the city has already confirmed shot at officers first, sends the message to police officers to "stand down" rather than confront potential public safety threats, lest they get dragged into court and through the mud in public for doing their jobs.
In an interview with The Ray Stevens Show on WLS AM 890, Alderman Anthony Napolitano said the settlement sends the message to police officers that "it's no longer about stand the line. It's get far behind the line, get away from the line, don't do your job" and just respond to calls after crimes have been committed.
"That's what we're turning the system into now," Napolitano said. "The offender is the victim and the police are the aggressors, they're the demon, they're the bad person."
Should the settlement win approval from the Finance Committee, it could advance to the full City Council for consideration at its Feb. 19 meeting.
Both the lawsuit and its potential settlement came long before either police or Chicago's civilian oversight agency could complete any thorough and complete investigation into the encounter between Reed and the Chicago police officers involved in Reed's death.
The lawsuit was filed on April 24, 2024, just about a month after Reed died in a shootout with police on March 21. The suit was filed on behalf of Reed's mother, Nicole Banks, identified as the independent administrator of Reed's estate.
Banks is represented by attorneys Andrew M. Stroth, of Action Injury Law Group; Steven A. Hart and Bradley Kupiec, of Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge; and Sheila A. Bedi and Kara C. Crutcher, of the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic, of the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, all of Chicago.
The lawsuit rested heavily on statements contained within a letter written by Andrea Kersten, who leads the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA), to Chicago's police superintendent. In that letter, Kersten said her initial review of video of the incident raised concerns over the officers' justification for the traffic stop and officers' actions up to and including their decision to collectively fire at and kill Reed that day after he opened fire on them from inside his vehicle.
The letter was not issued publicly. Rather, the letter was made public under a Freedom of Information Act request filed by a reporter with WTTW News.
Following the shooting, Kersten also repeatedly made statements questioning officers and their tactics in various media interviews, despite her responsibility to ultimately lead the investigation into the incident.
Reed, who was black, was killed by a Chicago Police tactical response unit after opening fire on officers when they stopped his car on March 21. During the incident, Reed reportedly rolled his car window back up while talking with police, despite repeated commands from officers to keep his window down, while repeatedly saying "Okay, okay, I'm trying" in response to officers' commands.
Reed then reportedly opened fire on officers from within the vehicle, leading officers to return fire, killing him. According to reports, an emptied ammunition magazine was found inside Reed's vehicle.
Despite evidence showing Reed fired first and no investigation completed, Kersten and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson moved quickly to fault police for the traffic stop and everything that happened after, including their decision to collectively fire at and kill Reed after he opened fire on them.
Reed's family's lawsuit relied heavily on the narrative pushed by Kersten and Mayor Johnson that officers in the incident were the true aggressors.
The lawsuit asserted officers, who were members of a special Chicago Police Department tactical unit operating in plain clothes in an unmarked vehicle in the high crime Humboldt Park neighborhood, pulled Reed over for no reason, and then "approaching him aggressively ... brandished their weapons in a threatening manner, screamed curse words at (Reed), and attempted to unlawfully enter his vehicle."
The lawsuit did not concede that Reed fired first, even though Kersten has repeatedly stated she believes that is what the evidence indicates.
Rather, the lawsuit claimed officers "used wildly disproportionate force against (Reed) - repeatedly shooting at him even when he clearly presented no threat."
The lawsuit further claimed that Reed suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, caused, in part, by living in a high crime neighborhood subject to "hyper policing" and other alleged abuses by Chicago Police officers.
The lawsuit claimed, without evidence, that Reed's PTSD caused him to react poorly to officers' commands, for instance, rolling his car window back up when commanded to roll down the other windows, while repeatedly stating "Okay, okay I'm trying" in response to officers' further commands.
The lawsuit asserted police officers should have known "when stopping people in a neighborhood historically and culturally known for its heightened levels of police harassment and violent traffic stops, there is a strong likelihood that the individual lives with PTSD symptoms such as hypervigilance."
The lawsuit accused officers of violating federal law and Reed's Fourth Amendment rights, and of excessive force.
The lawsuit further leveled accusations of racism against the officers and Chicago Police in general, claiming the traffic stop was "unlawful" and is part of a "longstanding practice" by CPD of allegedly using legal "pretexts" to pull over black drivers on Chicago's south and west sides, particularly in high crime neighborhoods.
They asserted the officers only stopped Reed "because he was a young, Black man driving a vehicle on the westside of Chicago."
At the time the lawsuit was filed, law enforcement advocates had predicted the speed with which the suit was lodged in federal court indicated Reed's family and their lawyers sought to ride a wave of public opinion and outrage stoked by Mayor Johnson and others to a quick settlement, regardless of the actual facts of the case.
According to published reports, Reed's family's lead attorney, Stroth, has stated the quick settlement was needed to allow the city to avoid protracted legal costs in defending against the lawsuit.
Stroth has asserted the parties entered settlement talks at the suggestion of the federal judge hearing the case.
According to court records, the city did file a motion to dismiss some of the counts against the officers.
However, the city mounted no further defense before agreeing in November to settle the case and pay Reed's family.
While the settlement remains sealed, according to published reports, the deal also allegedly includes provisions under which the city would agree to prohibit Chicago Police from requiring officers to make a certain number of traffic stops or use any sort of traffic stop quota to determine bonuses or other compensation for officers.
However, in a report published by WTTW, the Chicago Police Department denied using any such quota system. That report quoted a Chicago Police spokesperson who report who said Chicago officers only conduct traffic stops when there is "probable cause" or a "reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is committing, or about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense."
The judge's order dismissing the case under the settlement indicated the dismissal is without prejudice, noting the plaintiffs would be allowed to resume their legal action should the City Council reject the settlement.