STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss COUNTY OF COOK ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Plaintiff rowect- ||0 44] oe COREY DEANES, Defendant PEOPI.E’S FACTUAL PROFFER MAY , 8 2018 xe SRERY ever IN SUPPORT OF SETTING BOND. NOW COME the People of the State of Ilinois, Plaintiff herein, through their attorney KIMBERLY M. FOXX, State’s Attomey of Cook County, by her Assistant Angel Essig, and pursuant to section 5/110-5 of the Lllinois Code of Criminal Procedure present their factual profier in support of setting bond. L Introduction: Section 5/110-5 of Chapter 725 of the Ilinois Compiled Statutes sets forth criteria relevant to determining the amount of bail and conditions of release, 725 IL.CS 5/110-5. The information used by the Court in its findings with regard to setting the amount of bail may be presented by way of written proffer based upon reliable information offered by the State, 725 ILCS 5/110-5, I. Defendant: Corey Deanes (“Defendant”) is 47 years old and resides in Chicago, Ilinois. Defendant has been employed as a police officer for the Chicago Police Department since August 29, 2005. He was relieved of his police powers on July 24, 2018 as a result of this investigation. Defendant has no publishable criminal background. Ul, Charges: Defendant is charged by complaint for preliminary examination with the felony offense of Aggravated Battery, 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(¢), a Class 3 felony, and three separate counts of the felony offense of Official Misconduct, 720 ILCS 5/33-3(a) (2),a Class 3 felony, each punishable by either probation or a sentence of not less than 2 but not more than 5 years imprisonment. The Facts; ‘The Cook County State's Attomey's Office and the Chicago Police Department Intemal Affairs Division have investigated this case as part of their ongoing efforts 10 identify and prosecute law enforcement misconduct. AS to this particular matter, the investigation revealed the following: August 28, 2017 Incider At approximately 11:30 pm on August 28, 2017, the Victim 'T.G., a 23 year old female, left a restaurant at 2577 N. Clark Street with a male co-worker and proceeded alone to her car which was parked nearby, T.G, noticed a marked police vehicle Parked down the street. A short time later, T.G. was pulled over by a police vehicle, occupied by Defendant who was dressed in full police uniform, near the comer of Fullerton and Cannon. Defendant, who was working alone, cited an “illegal turn” as the reason for the stop and requested T.G.’s driver's license and insurance. As T.G. teaned over in her vehicle to obtain those documents from her glove box, Defendant commented on T.G."s physique. T.G. handed her documents to Defendant who returned to his marked vehicle. Defendant then pulled up in his vehicle and directed 1T.G. to follow him. Defendant then proceeded northbound on Cannon Drive to 2450 N. Cannon, an area both secluded and poorly lit. Defendant ordered 7. her Vehicle. T.G. complied and Defendant remained standing in the doorway of T.G. vehicle, Defendant then began questioning T.G. about her relationship with her male co-worker and requested T.G.’s phone number. T.G. intially tried to avoid giving Defendant her phone number but Defendant persisted and threatened to vite T.G. a ticket if T.G. did not provide him with her phone number. Defendant provided 1.0. with a notepad for her phone number and she wrote down her name and cellular phone number. Defendant then opened his arms and motioned for a hug. TG. put up both hands to block contact, Defendant moved in closer, hugged T.G. and slid his hand down her back, touching her buttocks over her clothing. T.G, shoved Defendant away and Defendant laughed and commented about T.G, being uncomfortable, Defendant extended his hand to shake T.G,’s hand and introduced himself a3 “Corey.” T.G, shook Defendant's hand and Defendant retumed to his vehicle and drove away. Upon returning to her residence in Oak Park, T.0. contacted 911 to report the incident. “However, because she was alone and afraid to open the doot, T.G. failed to answer the door when an officer appeared at her home to take the report, The next cay, T.G. and her father went to the Chicago Police Department's 23" District station and made a report about this incident. The matter was then investigated by the Chicago Police Department's Internal Affaits Division. Contrary to ordinary department policy and procedure, the investigation revealed that Defendant did not Tun aname check on any of the department databases on T.G. during this encounter, TG. also received two unanswered phone calls from different phone numbers the day afier the incident, Screen shots taken of T.G.’s phone corroborate the missed calls. 2T.G. positively identified Defendant in a photo array. Records maintained by the Chicago Police Department indicate Defendant was assigned to work without a partner on the date and time in question. The vehicle to which Defendant was assigned was GPS equipped; however, investigation revealed that the GPS system in that vehicle was inoperable. July 1, 2018 Incident At approximately 3:00 am on July 1, 2018, the Victim M.L., a 29 year old female, ‘was returning home to 612 W. Barry Avenue in Chicago when she observed an individual who appeared homeless seated on her doorstep. MLL. left the immediate area, called 911, and requested police assistance, MLL. received notification from 911 that an officer had arrived at her residence. MLL. retumed to her home and found that the person in question had already been removed fom her doorstep. Defendant ‘was on scene alone dressed in full Chicago Police uniform and driving a marked police vehicle. Defendant asked MLL. if she resided at that location and indicated he ‘would be checking om her in the future, M.L. attempted to end the encounter but Defendant then expressed interest in M.L.’s outiit, aking hold of her wrist and extending her arm so that the outer layer she was wearing exposed her wrist, shorts and tank top underneath. Defendant made comments about M.L.’s physique and attire which M.L. deemed flirtatious, sexualized and inappropriate. Defendant then asked why M.L. had been out so late. MLL. replied that she had been working and ‘mentioned her rent money. Defendant then began searching M.L.’s person for her rent money, putting his finger in the front right pocket of her shorts and pulling it open. Defendant then pulled on the rear pocket of M.L.’s shorts. MLL. attempted to end the encounter by saying good night and buzzing herself into the building. As MLL. entered the building, Defendant asked her which apartment was hers. Due to her fear and safety concems, M.L. responded that she resided on the second floor though she actually resided in a different apartment in the building. On July 4,2018, M.L. made an online complaint to the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”) regarding this incident, COPA then referred the matter to the Chicago Police Department's Internal Affairs Division to further investigate. ML. subsequently positively identified Defendant in a photo array. Contrary to ordinary department policy and procedure, the investigation revealed that Defendant did not run a name check on M.L. on any of the department databases during this encounter. Further, Defendant did not activate his assigned body worn camera for this incident. Records maintained by the Chicago Police Department indicate the Defendant was assigned to work on the date and time in question. The vehicle to which Defendant was assigned was not GPS equipped. July 13, 2018 Incident; ‘At approximately 12:15 am on July 13, 2018, the Victim O.M, a 22 year old female, was walking home alone, traveling southbound on Clark Street near Fullerton Avenue when she observed a marked police vehicle traveling northbound on Clark Street. O.M. proceeded to her residence, inserted the key into the entry door and