Justice for Aggie
The disciplinary process involving the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) and Chicago Police Department (CPD), as documented in the public record.
Explore CPD discipline, the Police Board, and the FOP’s transparency litigation →
Current Status · record reviewed September 16, 2026
As of Judge Kim’s August 26, 2026 order, the Superintendent’s recommended disciplinary charges had not been filed. This is a dated court statement, not confirmation of the disciplinary status after that date. No later disciplinary determination is documented in the materials currently collected here.
The September 9 objections concerned the use of COPA discovery documents. Judge Harjani denied those objections on September 29 and clarified permitted litigation uses. That ruling does not establish that disciplinary charges were filed.
Read the orders and filed objections →History · Disciplinary authority · Public scrutiny
The power to investigate, seek dismissal, and decide discipline is divided among several institutions. That division can protect fairness—and can make responsibility harder to enforce.
Legal background reviewed October 18, 2026. The citywide litigation below is separate from Maynard’s federal case.
A civilian Police Board. The Summerdale burglary and bribery scandal prompted the Board’s creation as a reform institution. Official oversight history ↗
Investigation and collective bargaining. The civilian-staffed Office of Professional Standards operated inside CPD after the Metcalfe Commission reforms. The City’s collective bargaining relationship with Chicago FOP Lodge No. 7 began in 1981. History ↗ · 2020 opinion, ¶ 8 ↗
From OPS to IPRA to COPA. IPRA replaced OPS in 2007. After the Laquan McDonald reform effort, City Council created COPA in 2016; COPA opened in September 2017. These investigative bodies are distinct from the Police Board. History ↗ · COPA’s account ↗
Federal findings and a consent decree. DOJ identified systemic failures of force review and accountability in 2017. The 2019 federal consent decree required institutional reform. DOJ findings ↗ · Consent-decree history ↗
Additional civilian oversight. The Empowering Communities for Public Safety ordinance created the Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability and elected District Councils. The Commission is a separate institution from the Police Board. Read the official chronology ↗
Civil-service protections can prevent patronage and retaliation, including against officers who expose misconduct. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), generally requires notice and an opportunity to respond before terminating a public employee with a protected employment interest, together with adequate subsequent procedures. Due process does not require every contractual protection or a secret hearing. Read Loudermill ↗
The Board itself has faced serious criticism. DOJ’s 2017 report identified excessive reversals, procedural weaknesses, and deficient investigations, while noting improvement during 2016. Those historical findings support scrutiny of the Board; they do not establish FOP control or measure the current Board’s performance. DOJ, printed pp. 84–92 ↗
Illinois Supreme Court · No. 132241
Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7 v. City of Chicago concerns an award creating contract terms through interest arbitration. Those terms allow individual disciplinary cases to be decided in grievance arbitration instead of exclusively before the Police Board.
Status as reviewed October 21, 2026: No published Supreme Court merits decision was located. This is a dated account of the litigation, not a live docket feed.
The FOP argues that the narrow public-policy exception does not authorize courts to override the arbitration award. The City and accountability amici argue that public access is necessary to assess discipline and maintain confidence in reform. An arbitration option and mandatory secrecy are separate questions. FOP’s argument ↗ · City’s response ↗ · Academics’ and policy groups’ brief ↗
The City advocates public access in this appeal. Its May 20, 2026 brief argues that open serious-disciplinary hearings build public confidence and advance the consent decree’s accountability goals. At printed page 28, it invokes concerns about transparency and the code of silence, quoting the record below. That position deserves acknowledgment when assessing the City’s approach to transparency. City’s brief, printed pp. 28–29 ↗
Three questions require separate examination: whether a disciplinary hearing can proceed, whether charges can be filed, and whether investigative materials can be disclosed. A pending appeal about hearing procedures should not, without specific supporting authority, be treated as a complete explanation for inaction on all three. Any asserted restriction should be tied to the particular step and the applicable order, agreement, or rule.
Public access to disciplinary hearings and a litigant’s ability to publish discovery materials subject to a federal court restriction involve different legal questions. This appeal does not itself lift the restrictions on COPA materials in Maynard’s case, establish liability, or prove deliberate concealment. Read the September 29 ruling and its limits →
Editorial guide to the public record. This discussion states no new litigation position and makes no admission, stipulation, waiver, or abandonment of a claim or argument on Maynard’s behalf. The cited filings and orders remain authoritative.
Chicago’s FOP has repeatedly pursued measures that would limit public scrutiny of police misconduct. Two major disputes make that criticism concrete:
Misconduct records · 2020
In City of Chicago v. Fraternal Order of Police, 2020 IL 124831, the FOP sought enforcement of a contractual records-destruction provision. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the arbitration award because it conflicted with public policy embodied in the Local Records Act. The City had agreed to the provision and shares responsibility for that bargain.
Read the Supreme Court decision ↗Disciplinary hearings · Pending
In No. 132241, the FOP is seeking to enforce an award requiring serious disciplinary arbitration hearings to be closed to the public. Its brief invokes labor-arbitration law and the limits of judicial review; the requested result would restrict public observation of those hearings.
Read the FOP’s own brief ↗These documented positions establish repeated opposition to transparency in important disciplinary matters. They do not establish that every FOP position opposes disclosure, that the FOP controls the Police Board, or that it caused a particular delay in Maynard’s case.
Fair treatment for officers and public scrutiny of official discipline should be compatible. The public needs access to assess the evidence, the adequacy of the City’s prosecution, and the reasons for the outcome.
DOJ’s 2017 investigation found that Chicago’s code of silence included officers lying, omitting material facts, and concealing evidence of misconduct. It reported that city, police, and union leadership acknowledged the code’s existence. DOJ also criticized weak enforcement against dishonesty and contractual barriers to investigation. DOJ findings, printed pp. 75–77 ↗
These historical findings support scrutiny of institutional practices. They do not establish concealment in Aggie’s case. The investigative agency examined in those findings was IPRA, COPA’s predecessor.
In a June 17, 2026 review, Chicago’s Inspector General found that COPA reduced its backlog through its Timeliness Initiative but did not fully follow its own guidance. Among the shortcomings were failing to consider officers’ complaint histories when assessing eligibility and failing to ensure implementation of recommended training. The review concerns a separate initiative, not Aggie’s investigation. Read the Inspector General’s review ↗
Accountability requires preserved evidence, truthful accounts, fair proceedings, and reasons the public can examine. Those standards should govern officers, union representatives, police leadership, and civilian oversight alike.
Paul Butler · Georgetown law professor · October 11, 2017
Butler, a former federal prosecutor, argues that FOP leadership and policies impede civil rights and police accountability, with damaging consequences for communities of color. He urges officers to support alternative organizations. His essay supplies an explicit moral and institutional criticism of the FOP.
Published in The Nation and co-published with The Marshall Project. It is commentary by a Georgetown scholar, not a Georgetown journal article or an empirical finding about this case.
Read Paul Butler’s essay ↗Stephen Rushin · Duke Law Journal · 2017
A study of 178 contracts identifies restrictions on investigations, complaints, records retention, and oversight that can obstruct accountability. The findings concern a national sample; they do not establish that every provision appears in Chicago’s current contract.
Read the contract study ↗Stephen Rushin · Vanderbilt Law Review · 2021
Among 624 arbitration awards from 2006–2020, discipline was reduced or overturned in 52%; reinstatement was ordered in 46% of termination cases. These are selected arbitrated appeals, not all firings. The figures do not prove that every reversal was improper.
Read the arbitration study ↗Catherine L. Fisk & L. Song Richardson · 2017
This George Washington Law Review article examines union obstacles to reform alongside protections against arbitrary management and examples of successful reform with union cooperation. It offers institutional proposals rather than treating all union activity as harmful.
Read the full article ↗Independent reporting
Two CBS News Chicago reports have examined the investigation, the disciplinary process, and the continuing absence of filed charges.
The report describes COPA’s and the Superintendent’s recommendations, the Police Board’s statement that charges had not been filed, and Mostek’s continued employment as of the report. CBS’s reporting and attributed statements are not court findings.
Reported assignment. On September 25, 2026, CBS reported CPD’s confirmation that Mostek remained employed and was detailed to the Alternate Response Section, handling nonemergency calls.
This dated assignment report does not establish when or why the assignment changed, whether it constitutes discipline, or whether her police powers have been restricted.
Read the report and watch the CBS segment ↗This earlier follow-up includes interviews with Kent Maynard and James Benak about the investigation, discipline, the surveillance video, and accountability. Their statements are attributed interview commentary, not judicial findings.
Read the report and watch the CBS segment ↗Transparency and consequences
COPA emerged from the reform effort following the public release of the Laquan McDonald shooting video. The Justice Department’s 2017 investigation identified failures of investigation and discipline, including a code of silence, as contributors to unconstitutional policing. Read the documented history and sources →
Further reading
Transparency can expose official conduct, but disclosure rules alone do not guarantee accountability. These essays examine reputational self-protection after institutional failure and the boundary between legitimate police secrecy and democratic oversight.
Taylor argues that concealing, delaying, or defensively managing a serious failure to protect an institution’s reputation can deepen the damage to public trust. His examples concern U.K. public-purpose organizations; the essay provides general governance context, not evidence about this case.
Read at the Good Governance Institute ↗Friedman distinguishes operational details that may properly remain confidential from policing policy, which he argues belongs within democratic governance. He also examines how pervasive secrecy can undermine public trust.
Open the full article PDF ↗These are contextual readings. They do not establish facts or motive in Maynard’s case.
Related public attention
Recent body-camera releases have brought renewed attention to police shootings of companion animals. These incidents have different facts and are included only as context for the public discussion; they do not establish facts or motive in Maynard’s case.
CBS Atlanta reports that a Cedartown officer fatally shot HeeHaw, a family’s miniature donkey, during a search for a missing child. The officer’s account and the owner’s allegations are disputed in pending litigation.
Watch CBS Atlanta’s report (6:36) ↗LAPD released body-camera footage after an officer fatally shot Jameson, a family dog, while responding to a report of a screaming woman. The department said Jameson charged at an officer.
Watch ABC News’s 34-second report ↗Content note: the linked reports include body-camera footage of fatal shootings.
Aggie’s case has a distinct, grave fact. Maynard describes the shooting as senseless. According to Maynard, Mostek shot Aggie while Aggie was in Maynard’s arms, and the bullet passed within inches of Maynard’s face.
The City and Mostek argue that restricting public dissemination protects the fairness of the trial and disciplinary proceedings. Maynard disputes that justification. His assessment above is an argument about the City’s position, not a judicial finding about its motive or a determination that any officer lied in this case.
Read the response, the September 29 ruling, and the omitted incident details →The investigation and recommendation are described in Judge Kim’s public order. Restricted discovery reports are not reproduced here.
The incident that led to COPA Log 2024-0003540.
Judge Kim’s order states that COPA investigated and thereafter issued a Final Summary Report.
COPA releases video, audio, and redacted reports through its official case portal.
According to Judge Kim’s order, the Superintendent reviewed the FSR and recommended disciplinary action against Mostek. COPA then issued a Supplemental FSR.
857 days after the shooting and 218 days after the recommendation. The order notes that recommended disciplinary charges have not yet been filed.
Source: August 26 order, pp. 1–2 ↗ · COPA public case portal ↗
Butler’s filed deposition and policy exhibits
What the reviewing sergeant’s messages and testimony add to the public record.
After the shooting, Officer Mostek exchanged messages about Maynard’s complaint with Sergeant James Butler, who participated in the initial investigation and reviewed her Tactical Response Report. This section quotes Butler’s February 21, 2025 deposition transcript. The four linked pages bear the court’s filing stamp: Electronic Case Filing (ECF) No. 94-9, filed September 15, 2025, docket-document pages 14, 30, 31, and 35. The source is Butler’s testimony about the messages, not Mostek’s deposition testimony.
The message Butler acknowledged
“I wouldn’t worry about it. He’s on body camera acting like a fool.”
Butler confirmed this was his response. Asked which body-camera footage he had seen that supported the characterization, he answered: “I didn’t see any.”
Butler deposition 113:20–114:23 · ECF No. 94-9, filed pages 30–31.
Mostek’s text—and Butler’s explanation
“Yeah, hopefully it gets squashed.”
This is Mostek’s text message as quoted during Butler’s deposition, not testimony by Mostek. Butler testified that he understood it to mean that COPA would determine that her use of force was justified. That explanation matters when evaluating what the exchange supports.
Butler deposition 114:25–115:20 · ECF No. 94-9, filed page 31.
Read the highlighted testimony ↗ · Unmarked filed excerpt ↗
The reading copy highlights the quoted exchanges and related testimony, including Butler’s explanations. Highlights were added by this site and are not part of the court filing. On transcript page 114, “jag off” appears in counsel’s question; that question alone does not establish that Butler used those words.
Asked whether learning that Maynard’s head was two inches from the bullet’s path would make a difference, Butler answered, “To my investigation, no.” That was a hypothetical question, not a measurement established by the testimony. Butler also described his review for report completeness as checking that the required boxes and information were filled in. He explained that further investigation occurred at the next level and that the preliminary report could be supplemented.
Butler deposition 47:7–18, 132:10–133:24 · ECF No. 94-9, filed pages 14 and 35. Read the four selected filed pages, with surrounding questions and answers ↗
The City’s filed policy exhibits distinguish animal-only firearm discharges from other shootings. G03-06 assigns qualifying animal-only incidents to district command and excludes them from the ordinary Incident Response Team assignment. G03-02-02 places a discharge solely to destroy or deter an animal in Level 2 when no firearm was discharged at a person and no person was injured, with district captain-level review. The policies still require evidence preservation, witness identification, and further review; they do not dispense with investigation.
G03-06, ECF No. 94-11, filed pages 4–5 ↗ · G03-02-02, ECF No. 94-14, filed pages 4–5, 7, 10–11 ↗
Maynard’s interpretation
Maynard contends that the combination of limited initial fact development and later reassurance supports an inference that an officer could expect institutional protection from meaningful consequences. His concern is especially acute where an owner was beside the dog when the officer fired.
These later messages did not cause an earlier shooting. Their possible relevance is circumstantial: whether they reveal a protective practice and expectation that already existed. The exchange alone does not establish a widespread City custom, Mostek’s reason for firing, or municipal liability. Butler’s explanation and the policies’ retained safeguards are part of the same record.
The original municipal-liability counts were dismissed. On October 30, 2026, the court denied leave to add the proposed new Monell count. Read the explanation of Monell’s “moving force” requirement and the court’s actual rulings.
Source boundary: this section uses public docket exhibits. It does not publish the private text-message collection or quote or summarize the substantive findings of the four COPA documents subject to the August 26, 2026 use restriction.