Tracy Walczak

During her hearing testimony, Respondent Walczak acknowledged that as a sworn officer, she must render the highest order of police services to all citizens, whether or not during specifically assigned hours.4 The CPD Standards of Conduct further provide that an officer may never permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence [her] decisions.5 In addition, the Rules admonish that the conduct of a member reflects directly upon the Department.6
Respondent Walczak should have provided information to police personnel both at the scene and after speaking with CPO Delgado. She claimed she left the scene without providing information to the responding officers because she had no pertinent, first-hand information to provide and did not know at that time that her fellow officers were involved in the fight. Even if it is true that Respondent Walczak did not know that the male officers had participated in the fight, she certainly would have had potentially important information to provide the officers. She knew that one or both of the waitresses, and possibly some restaurant customers, may have witnessed the fight; she spoke to Juan Jiminez, a participant in the fight; she observed the Jiminez brothers’ facial injuries; and she knew that her fellow officers had been in the vicinity of the restaurant when the fight happened. Respondent Walczak herself acknowledged that the responding officers and detectives should determine whether particular information proves useful to an investigation, not her. As a sergeant who had previously taught recruits at the Academy, she knew better.
Ironically, during the hearing, Respondent Walczak’s counsel mounted a lengthy attack of CPO Pinzine’s initial investigation at the scene and asserted that CPO Pinzine made numerous mistakes in his written report, including name misspellings. However, CPO’s Pinzine’s initial investigation and report may have been more accurate and complete had Respondents assisted him and CPO Corona with their initial investigation, rather than leaving the scene.
Respondents also knew responding officers had arrived and had the opportunity to speak to them, yet they failed to do so. Initially, Respondents walked westbound toward where responding CPOs Pinzine and Corona were talking to the Jiminez brothers. They then turned around and walked eastbound, away from the responding officers, without speaking to them. Respondents testified that they changed direction because Respondent Walczak realized that she had parked her car east of the restaurant rather than west. But even if their knowledge of the incident was based on hearsay, as they claimed, they should have shared whatever information they knew with the responding officers. Hearsay often aids in witness identification and can lead to the discovery of concrete admissible evidence in an investigation.
In addition to Respondent Walczak’s and Respondent Ferlito’s failure to provide information to the responding officers while still at the scene, the Board is equally disturbed by Respondent Walczak’s failure to promptly report her interaction with CPO Delgado at Respondent Ferlito’s house. Respondent Walczak testified that after CPO
Delgado told her of his involvement, she did not return to the scene, nor did she notify CPD because she only had second-hand, immaterial information about the fight and thought it was sufficient to instruct CPO Delgado to return to the scene with the other male officers. The Board disagrees. As a veteran police officer, Respondent Walczak should recognize the potential importance of circumstantial evidence and statement witnesses to investigations. To withhold such information disrupts and negatively impacts any factual inquiry.
Respondent Walczak testified that another reason she decided not to return to the scene was that, as a sergeant, she felt it would be inappropriate to intervene when she had socialized with an individual who had been involved in the fight, and she did not want to be accused of trying to influence the investigation. The Board takes issue with this rationale. Her social interaction with the involved officers is precisely why she should have provided the information in the first place. Instead, by failing to contact the CPD after confirmation that her fellow officers were involved, she perpetuated a perceived pattern within the CPD to protect fellow officers.
The Board is additionally troubled by Respondent Walczak’s assumption that the blood she observed on CPO Delgado’s hands resulted from “defense injuries,” and by the tone of her directive to CPO Delgado that he and the other officers should return to the scene so that they would not appear guilty for having left. Her statements indicate that her personal feelings and friendships improperly influenced the decisions she made. Indeed, she simply assumed that her fellow officers had done nothing wrong and wanted to avoid the appearance of guilt as opposed to acknowledging that the officers needed to provide full and complete information so that the responding officers could adequately assess the facts and reach their own conclusions.
By failing to provide the responding officers with information both before she left the scene and after her interaction with CPO Delgado, Respondent Walczak effectively failed to perform her duty as an officer, impeded the CPD’s goal of thoroughly and effectively investigating incidents, and brought discredit upon the CPD.

“The responsibility for the proper performance of a member’s duty, whether he be on or off duty, lies primarily with the member himself. A member carries with him, at all times, the responsibility for the safety of the community. He discharges that responsibility by the faithful
and dedicated performance of his assigned duty and an immediate and intelligent response to emergency. Anything less violates the trust placed in him by the community, and nothing less qualifies as professional conduct.”7 Although Respondent Walczak arguably put an end to the altercation by walking outside, she has never characterized this as an intentional police action and denied intervening altogether.
As stated previously, the video footage reveals that Respondents not only witnessed the end of the altercation, but knew that their fellow officers were involved. And even assuming Respondent Walczak was unaware of her fellow officers’ involvement, at minimum, she and Respondent Ferlito should have intervened to assure that the Jiminez brothers received immediate medical attention and assisted the responding officers in gathering basic investigatory information.
At minimum, Respondent Walczak certainly knew there had been a physical altercation and that some participants had been injured. She saw both brothers outside with bloody faces. According to Juan Jiminez, he told Respondent Walczak, “they just beat the shit out of us for no reason.” The video footage corroborates his testimony by showing that while talking to her, Juan pointed in the direction where the male officers had walked. Although Respondent Walczak told Javier to remain calm and that the police were on their way, neither Respondent identified themselves to him as police officers, called for an ambulance, or inquired about what led to their injuries.
Respondents testified they did not call 911 because Ms. Steckenrider had already done so. Respondents stated that they did not call for an ambulance because they believed that the Jiminez brothers’ injuries did not appear to be serious enough, and that the responding officers would make that determination. They further testified that they did not go back outside of the restaurant to talk to the Jiminez brothers or assist the responding officers because Respondents were not armed, nor equipped with any safety gear or radios. Instead, for their own safety, they remained inside of the restaurant for several minutes until the responding officers arrived, while the Jiminez brothers remained outside. Respondents then left the scene.
The Board is not suggesting that Respondents should have risked their own safety while off-duty and without protective gear. However, at the very least, Respondents should have called for an ambulance, identified possible witnesses while still in the restaurant, and assisted the responding officers when they arrived. When Officer Pinzine arrived on-scene, he called for ambulances right away because both brothers “appeared to have been badly beaten, with extremely bloody and swollen faces.”8
The Board finds that Respondent Walczak betrayed the community’s trust by failing to intervene or take any police action during what certainly can be characterized as “an emergency.” By doing so, she brought discredit upon the CPD, failed to promote the CPD’s efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its public interest goals, and failed to perform the duties expected of her, even while off-duty.

Respondent Walczak may not have been truthful in her statements to IPRA
investigators pertaining to what she saw, or did not see, during the altercation. Both Respondents claimed that they did not see any of the male officers at the scene after they walked out of the restaurant, and that they did not see any portion of the fight. The surveillance video footage indicates otherwise. The footage shows that they looked directly at the scuffle as they approached the front door, and then looked directly at the group of men while CPO Rooney assumed a fighting stance. Respondent Walczak then walked out the front door, effectively stopping the fight and prompting the male officers to walk away from the scene. Respondent Walczak’s claim that she did not know that the male officers were
involved in the altercation until she met up with CPO Delgado at Respondent Ferlito’s home is equally suspect. The Superintendent, however, did not base any of his charges on those specific statements. Accordingly, the Board will not determine whether Respondents violated any CPD rules by making those statements.
Instead, in support of third specification against Respondent Walczak, the Superintendent relies only on Respondent Walczak’s denials in her IPRA interview that she “[had] knowledge of a physical altercation” between the fellow officers and the Jiminez brothers, and/or stated words to that effect, “when in fact [they] knew there had been a physical altercation outside...”.
An examination of Respondent Walczak’s 2015 IPRA interview transcript shows that she actually never denied having that knowledge at the time she was interviewed. She told the investigators that while still on-scene at the restaurant, she reasonably assumed there had been a fight outside but did not know that the male officers were involved until CPO Delgado told her at Respondent Ferlito’s house. In addition, she told the investigators that during their conversation, she noticed blood on CPO Delgado’s hands. It stands to reason that by virtue of providing the above information to the IPRA investigators, she did not deny that she had “knowledge of the physical altercation” between the male officers and the Jiminez brothers, nor did she use words to that effect. Because the Superintendent attributed to Respondent Walczak specific false or misleading statements that she never made, the Board finds her not guilty of rule violations pertaining to those statements.