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.
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 concern the use of COPA discovery documents; they do not themselves establish that disciplinary charges were filed or that the restriction was lifted.
Read the order and filed objections →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.
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 →
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 pending dispute, 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. No renewed motion or amended count is presented here as granted or filed. 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.