BEFORE THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES FILED AGAINST )

SERGEANT STEVEN LESNER, ) No. 13 PB 2843
STAR No. 1402, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, )
CITY OF CHICAGO, )
) (CR No. 1023969)
RESPONDENT. )


FINDINGS AND DECISION

On September 11, 2013, the Superintendent of Police filed with the Police Board of the
City of Chicago charges against Sergeant Steven Lesner, Star No. 1402 (hereinafter sometimes
referred to as Respondent), recommending that the Respondent be suspended for sixty (60)
days from the Chicago Police Department for violating the following Rules of Conduct:
Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Departments efforts to achieve its
policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.

Rule 10: Inattention to duty.

Rule 17: Drinking alcoholic beverages while on duty or in uniform, or transporting
alcoholic beverages on or in Department property, except in the performance of
police duty.


The Police Board caused a hearing on these charges against the Respondent to be had
before Thomas E. Johnson, Hearing Officer of the Police Board, on May 23, 2014.
Following the hearing, the members of the Police Board read and reviewed the record of
the proceedings and viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses. Hearing
Officer Johnson made an oral report to and conferred with the Police Board before it rendered its
findings and decision.


Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



2
POLICE BOARD FINDINGS
The Police Board of the City of Chicago, as a result of its hearing on the charges, finds
and determines that:
1. The Respondent was at all times mentioned herein employed as a sergeant of police
by the Department of Police of the City of Chicago.
2. The written charges, and a Notice stating when and where a hearing on the charges
was to be held, were served upon the Respondent more than five (5) days prior to the hearing on
the charges.
3. Throughout the hearing on the charges the Respondent appeared in person and was
represented by legal counsel.

Motion to Dismiss
4. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the delay in the filing of
charges caused prejudice to him in that witnesses and evidence that would have been helpful to
the Respondents defense are no longer available (the Respondent referenced two individuals,
victim Catherine Weilands father and brotherGeorge Weiland and John Weilandwho died
between the date of the incidents that gave rise to the charges and date of the filing of charges,
and the Respondent attached to the Motion the death certificates of these two individuals).
The Respondents Motion to Dismiss is denied for the reasons set forth below.
a. Timeliness of the Motion to Dismiss. The Respondent filed his Motion to Dismiss on
May 19, 2014, four days before the May 23 hearing on the charges. The Police Boards Rules of
Procedure require that such motions be filed at least five days in advance of the date set for
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



3
hearing (Section II-C).
The Respondent stated that he filed his motion four days prior to the hearing because he
learned of the death of George Weiland and John Weiland only a few days before filing the
motion. However, the Respondent received discovery in this matter on or about October 29,
2013, and the Respondent had ample time to prepare his defense and consider which witnesses to
call. At the pre-hearing conferences held on February 5 and March 28, 2014, at which Hearing
Officer Johnson required the Respondents counsel to discuss the identity of the witnesses to be
called and the subject matter on which they will testify, the Respondents counsel made no
mention of calling George Weiland or John Weiland as witnesses. The Respondents learning of
the Weilands unavailability only recently because of his apparent last-minute decision to
consider calling them as witnesses is not sufficient justification for excusing his duty to file the
Motion at least five days in advance of the date set for hearing. The Motion is therefore denied as
untimely.

b. Laches. Even assuming arguendo that the Respondent filed the Motion in a timely
manner, the Motion fails on its merits.
The Respondent argues that the doctrine of laches should apply here in supporting the
dismissal of charges. He argues that the Superintendents delay in bringing the charges resulted
in prejudice to him in that witnesses and evidence that would have been helpful to the
Respondents defense are no longer available.
Laches is an equitable doctrine that is used to prevent a party in litigation from enforcing
a right it otherwise has because it has not been diligent in asserting this right and the opposing
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



4
party has been prejudiced by the delay. Private parties and public agencies are not on an equal
footing when it comes to the application of the laches doctrine. Many cases, including Van
Milligan v Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Glenview, 158 Ill.2d 85,
630 NE2d 830 (1994), hold that laches can only be invoked against a municipality under
compelling or extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the party that invokes the doctrine
of laches has the burden of pleading and proving the delay and the prejudice. Hannigan v.
Hoffmeister, 240 Ill. App. 3d 1065, 1074 (1
st
Dist. 1992). Under Illinois law, the Respondent
must demonstrate that the Superintendents unreasonable delay caused material prejudice to the
Respondent; the Respondent must submit evidence in support of his claims of prejudice. Nature
Conservancy v. Wilder, 656 F.3d. 646 (7
th
Cir. 2011).
The Respondent has made no specific showing of any prejudice that resulted from a delay
in bringing charges before the Police Board. Respondent contends that had Ms. Weilands father
and brother been available to testify, they might have corroborated Respondents account of the
evenings events, and further testify to Ms. Weilands mental health problems, thereby bolstering
the claim that she may have killed herself, even without Respondents gun. This is, however,
sheer speculation on Respondents part. There is no prior statement or deposition from these
witnesses to indicate what they would have said at the hearing about the events that occurred in
their building. Speculation about what a witness might say at trial is insufficient to show
material prejudice for purposes of laches. Van Milligan (p. 91). In any event, the facts of what
transpired at Ms. Weilands apartment and building are not in dispute. We only have
Respondents account, so there is no disputed factual question on which George and John
Weilands testimony would be pertinent. Nor does Respondent suggest such a factual question.
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



5
In fact, had they lived, these witnesses testimony might well have been detrimental to
Respondent by creating questions about what transpired on the night in question.
As for Ms. Weilands mental health, Detective Conley testified, without objection by the
Superintendent, to John Weilands statements about her past mental condition (Tr. p. 108). This
evidence is thus before the Board. A lay witness, however, could not extrapolate from these
statements to offer an opinion on whether his sister would have taken her life, even without
Respondents involvement, as Respondent suggests. Further, Respondent testified that he was
not aware of Ms. Weilands mental health history (Tr. p. 57-58), so the testimony would not have
offered an explanation as to his conduct that night. Indeed, the testimony of Ms. Weilands father
and brother may well have undermined the testimony of Respondent, had they disclosed to him
some aspect of the mental health situation prior to Ms. Weilands suicide.
Finally, Respondent complains that he could not call the father and brother of Ms.
Weiland to give the equivalent of a victim-impact statement, which purportedly would support
the Superintendents proposed 60-day suspension. Again, the Respondent is merely speculating
as to what Ms. Weilands relatives would have said in such a statement. They may well have
condemned Respondents actions in unequivocal terms. Consequently, any argument that the
Weilands testimony would have been helpful to the Respondents defense is speculative.
The Respondent has not demonstrated any compelling or extraordinary
circumstances warranting a dismissal of this case, and has not carried the burden of proving that
he was prejudiced by a delay in the bringing of charges.


Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



6
Charges Against the Respondent
5. The Respondent, Sergeant Steven Lesner, Star No. 1402, charged herein, is guilty of
violating, to wit:
Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Departments efforts to achieve its
policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,

in that:
Count I: On or about February 17, 2009, at or about 20:10 hours, at a 7-Eleven around
Addison Street and Pulaski Road, or another store around or between 3638 North Pulaski
Road and 3115 North St. Louis Avenue, in Chicago, while on duty, in uniform, and/or
driving a Department vehicle, you purchased an alcoholic beverage (wine) for consumption
by Ms. Catherine Weiland and/or other reasons not in the performance of police duties, and
then transported it in your Department vehicle to about 3115 North St. Louis Avenue.

The Respondent pled guilty to this charge.

6. The Respondent, Sergeant Steven Lesner, Star No. 1402, charged herein, is guilty of
violating, to wit:
Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Departments efforts to achieve its
policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department,

in that:
Count II: On or about February 18, 2009, at or about 01:40 hours, in an apartment at or
around 3115 North St. Louis Avenue, in Chicago, you failed to secure your auxiliary weapon
(a Smith and Wesson Model #3953 9mm semi-automatic handgun), including but not limited
to by removing it from your person and placing it on the floor or love seat of said apartment,
and/or by leaving your weapon unattended when you left the room, and/or by allowing Ms.
Catherine Weiland to take possession of your weapon, which she then used to commit
suicide by shooting herself in the head.

The Respondent pled guilty to this charge.

7. The Respondent, Sergeant Steven Lesner, Star No. 1402, charged herein, is guilty of
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



7
violating, to wit:
Rule 10: Inattention to duty,

in that:
On or about February 18, 2009, at or about 01:40 hours, in an apartment at or around 3115
North St. Louis Avenue, in Chicago, you failed to secure your auxiliary weapon (a Smith and
Wesson Model #3953 9mm semi-automatic handgun), including but not limited to by
removing it from your person and placing it on the floor or love seat of said apartment,
and/or by leaving your weapon unattended when you left the room, and/or by allowing Ms.
Catherine Weiland to take possession of your weapon, which she then used to commit
suicide by shooting herself in the head.

The Respondent pled guilty to this charge.

8. The Respondent, Sergeant Steven Lesner, Star No. 1402, charged herein, is guilty of
violating, to wit:
Rule 17: Drinking alcoholic beverages while on duty or in uniform, or transporting
alcoholic beverages on or in Department property, except in the performance of
police duty,

in that:
On or about February 17, 2009, at or about 20:10 hours, at a 7-Eleven around Addison Street
and Pulaski Road, or another store around or between 3638 North Pulaski Road and 3115
North St. Louis Avenue, in Chicago, while on duty, in uniform, and/or driving a Department
vehicle, you purchased an alcoholic beverage (wine) for consumption by Ms. Catherine
Weiland and/or other reasons not in the performance of police duties, and then transported it
in your Department vehicle to about 3115 North St. Louis Avenue.

The Respondent pled guilty to this charge.




Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



8
Penalty
9. The Police Board has considered the facts and circumstances of the Respondents
conduct, the evidence presented in defense and mitigation, and the Respondents complimentary
and disciplinary histories (attached hereto as Exhibit A). The Board determines that the
Respondent must be discharged from his position due to the serious nature of the conduct of
which it has found him guilty.
a. Authority to determine the penalty. In the charges filed with the Police Board, the
Superintendent recommended that the Respondent be suspended for a period of sixty (60 days).
The Respondent pled guilty to the charges and stated that he accepts this sixty-day suspension.
However, pursuant to the Municipal Code of Chicago and state statute, it is the duty of the Police
Board to determine the appropriate penalty in this matter.
The powers of the Board are set forth in Section 2-84-030 of the Municipal Code of
Chicago and in 65 ILCS 5/10-1-18.1. In cases in which the Superintendent seeks a penalty of
more than 30 days suspension, both the ordinance and the statute provide that: Upon the filing
of charges for which removal or discharge or suspension of more than 30 days is recommended,
a hearing before the police board, or any member or hearing officer designated by it shall be
held. The ordinance and the statute further provide that a majority of the members of the Board
must concur in the entry of any disciplinary recommendation or action. Section 2-84-050 of
the Municipal Code adds that the Superintendents authority to discharge or suspend employees
of the Department is subject to the rules of the department and the instructions of the board.
These provisions make clear that in cases involving discharges or suspensions in excess of 30
days, the Superintendents position on the appropriate penalty is only a recommendation to the
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



9
Board and is not binding upon it. Rather, it is for a majority of the Board to concur in whatever
discipline is imposed, and the Superintendents disciplinary authority is expressly made subject
to the instructions of the Board. Accordingly, the Board has the power to instruct the
Superintendent to impose any penalty it deems appropriate in the cases in which the
Superintendent has recommended a suspension in excess of 30 days.

b. Respondents conduct. The Respondent engaged in a series of decisions on the night of
February 17-18, 2009, that were reprehensible.
Sergeant Lesners misconduct began when he made a decision to stop his department
vehicle, while on duty and in uniform, in order to buy alcohol for Catherine Weiland while
transporting her to her home. This was a knowing and blatant violation of Rule 17, which
prohibits an officer from, among other things, transporting alcoholic beverages on or in
Department property. There is no dispute about this as Sergeant Lesner pled guilty to this
charge. He offers no explanation for this misconduct, other than stating that Ms. Weiland wanted
to purchase some wine. This violation of Department policy is compounded by the fact that
Sergeant Lesner had just assisted in resolving a domestic disturbance involving Ms. Weiland and
her former boyfriend, which caused Ms. Weiland to become upset and distraught, according to
Sergeant Lesners own testimony. While Sergeant Lesner testified that Ms. Weiland did not
appear intoxicated at the restaurant (Tr. p. 27), she was clearly in a compromised condition, as is
evident not only by her distraught emotional condition, but also by the fact that later, she had to
be accompanied by her brother in order to retrieve her car from the restaurant.
While Sergeant Lesner testified he transported Ms. Weiland from the scene because she
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



10
was distraught, it is quite clear that he had more in mind than merely ensuring her safe return to
her apartment. He concedes that when he dropped her off, he stayed at the building for 40-45
minutes for what he characterized as relative socializing with the father, brother, herself (Tr. p.
30). He also admits that he gave Ms. Weiland his business card, along with his personal cell
phone number. He says he gives out cards as a social, friendly gesture (Tr. p. 32), but the
Board has little doubt as to why he gave his card to Ms. Weiland. If Sergeant Lesners intent was
to make Ms. Weiland aware of how to secure police services, there was no need to supply his
personal cell phone number. Moreover, Ms. Weiland then promptly called Sergeant Lesners cell
phone in order to invite him over for cocktails, and he agreed to meet her at her apartment that
night. The inescapable conclusion is that Sergeant Lesner offered his cell phone number to
facilitate a personal, social encounter between himself and Ms. Weiland, and the ploy worked.
Sergeant Lesner then proceeded back to Ms. Weilands apartment immediately after
checking off duty, buying yet more alcohol for her and himself on the way. While the
Superintendent did not offer any General Order or other policy that prohibited Sergeant Lesner
from associating with Ms. Weiland while off-duty, the Board finds that Sergeant Lesner
exercised extraordinarily poor judgment in returning to Ms. Weilands apartment soon after
providing police services to her. It is clear that Sergeant Lesner used his involvement in Ms.
Weilands domestic disturbance, and his position as a sergeant of police, as a way to facilitate a
social relationship with her. The relationship was fueled by alcohol that he provided to her.
Police officers can abuse their authority in many ways. Here, Sergeant Lesner did so in an effort
to pursue a relationship with a woman.
When Sergeant Lesner decided to return to Ms. Weilands apartment, he also decided to
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



11
carry his auxiliary weapon with him. While armed, he admits drinking with Ms. Weiland in her
apartment. This constitutes a knowing and intentional violation of Department General Order
U04-02, Section II(C), which prohibits officers from consuming alcohol off-duty while armed
(Superintendent Exhibit No. 14). While Sergeant Lesner was not specifically charged with
violating this General Order, the Board may consider such a breach of department policy as an
aggravating factor when determining an appropriate penalty for violating Rules 2 and 10 by
failing to secure his weapon.
In addition to drinking with Ms. Weiland at her apartment, it is undisputed that the
previously distraught Ms. Weiland then brought out a medicine box with pills, and told Sergeant
Lesner that she needed to take her pills. Given her prior emotional condition, the drinking that
was going on, and the presence of the pills, Sergeant Lesner, as a trained and experienced police
officer, should have recognized that this was a woman who may not have been in an emotionally
stable state.
Having taken advantage of his position to begin a social relationship with Ms. Weiland
and having decided to drink with her while armed, Sergeant Lesner made a bad situation even
worse by placing his loaded, unlocked auxiliary weapon on the floor next to the love seat where
he was sitting. He then left the room, leaving Ms. Weiland alone with his weapon. While the
evidence indicates that Ms. Weiland retrieved the weapon and took her own life, Sergeant Lesner
made essentially no effort to secure his weapon. Sergeant Lesners failure to reasonably secure
his weapon led directly to Ms. Weilands death.

c. Respondents evidence in mitigation. In mitigation, Sergeant Lesner has offered
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



12
important evidence that the Board has carefully considered.
There is no question that Sergeant Lesner has a distinguished record as a police officer.
His complimentary record includes nine department commendations, a life-saving award, a
police officer of the month award, 205 honorable mentions, and other awards as well. He has
made significant arrests, and the Board has considered his testimony about these arrests. His
character witnesses indicate he enjoys a good reputation in the community.
It is also clear that Sergeant Lesner cooperated with the Police Department in its
investigation of Ms. Weilands death, beginning with the night it occurred. He has taken
responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty and expressing remorse at the hearing.
Sergeant Lesner also has pointed out that while stripped of his police powers, from
February of 2009 to March of 2011, he was unable to work secondary employment where use of
his police powers was required, and could not secure overtime compensation which he had
enjoyed as a sergeant (unless he was subpoenaed to court).
1

The Board also recognizes that the Superintendent of police has recommended a sixty
day suspension in this case, which Sergeant Lesner agrees is appropriate.

d. Conclusion. The Board finds that Sergeant Lesners conduct on the night in question
and the lack of judgment he demonstrated are incompatible with continued service as a sergeant
of police with the Chicago Police Department. The Board finds that the Respondents 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

1
The Superintendents Motion to Strike Arguments First Raised in the Reply is denied.
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



13
Department, and is something which the law recognizes as good cause for him to no longer
occupy his office.
This case does not involve an error in judgment while Sergeant Lesner was making a split
second decision under stressful conditions while in the performance of his duties on the street.
Rather, it involves a series of calculated and knowing decisions, made over the course of hours
while on and off duty, aimed at using his position as a Sergeant to further a personal relationship
and that exhibited a complete lack of sound judgment, beginning with his decision to go into a
liquor store while on duty and in uniform and buy alcohol for a woman who was distraught after
an altercation with her ex-boyfriend to which police were called, and ending with his decision to
leave his loaded gun on the floor while he went to the bathroom, which allowed the woman to
pick up the gun and use it to shoot herself in the head.
We expect our police officers to protect citizens, particularly those who have endured
situations that leave them distraught. Here, however, Sergeant Lesner used Ms. Weilands
circumstances for his own benefit. Far from demonstrating the professionalism that we expect of
sergeants, who serve as supervisors and whose responsibilities include maintaining discipline,
providing leadership and guidance, influencing subordinates and motivating them to perform
their duties well, Sergeant Lesner ignored his training and the Departments rules altogether.
Moreover, his decision to ignore those rules led directly to Ms. Weilands death. With all due
respect to the Superintendent, where the pattern of misconduct is as extensive as we find in this
case and the consequences of the misconduct are so grave, the Board finds that discharge is the
only appropriate penalty.

Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



14
POLICE BOARD DECISION

The Police Board of the City of Chicago, having read and reviewed the record of
proceedings in this case, having viewed the video-recording of the testimony of the witnesses,
having received the oral report of the Hearing Officer, and having conferred with the Hearing
Officer on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, hereby adopts the findings set forth
herein by the following votes:
By a vote of 8 in favor (Demetrius E. Carney, Ghian Foreman, Melissa M. Ballate, William
F. Conlon, Michael Eaddy, Rita A. Fry, Elisa Rodriguez, and Rhoda D. Sweeney) to 0
opposed, the Board denies the Respondents Motion to Dismiss the charges; and

By votes of 8 in favor (Demetrius E. Carney, Ghian Foreman, Melissa M. Ballate, William F.
Conlon, Michael Eaddy, Rita A. Fry, Elisa Rodriguez, and Rhoda D. Sweeney) to 0 opposed,
the Board finds the Respondent guilty of violating Rule 2, Rule 10, and Rule 17.

As a result of the foregoing, the Board, by a vote of 8 in favor (Carney, Foreman, Ballate,
Conlon, Eaddy, Fry, Rodriguez, and Sweeney) to 0 opposed, hereby determines that cause exists
for discharging the Respondent from his position as a sergeant of police with the Department of
Police, and from the services of the City of Chicago.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, Sergeant
Steven Lesner, Star No. 1402, as a result of having been found guilty of the charges in Police
Board Case No. 13 PB 2843, be and hereby is discharged from his position as a sergeant of
police with the Department of Police, and from the services of the City of Chicago.
This disciplinary action is adopted and entered by a majority of the members of the
Police Board: Demetrius E. Carney, Ghian Foreman, Melissa M. Ballate, William F. Conlon,
Michael Eaddy, Rita A. Fry, Elisa Rodriguez, and Rhoda D. Sweeney.
DATED AT CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK, STATE OF ILLINOIS, THIS 17
th
DAY
OF JULY, 2014.
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



15
Attested by:



/s/ Demetrius E. Carney
President
Police Board



/s/ Max A. Caproni
Executive Director
Police Board


Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



16
DISSENT
The following members of the Police Board hereby dissent from the Findings and
Decision of the majority of the Board.

[None]
























RECEIVED A COPY OF

THESE FINDINGS AND DECISION

THIS _____ DAY OF _________________, 2014.


____________________________________
GARRY F. McCARTHY
Superintendent of Police
Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



17

Police Board Case No. 13 PB 2843
Sergeant Steven Lesner
Findings and Decision



18