{"active":false,"first_name":"Rafael","last_name":"Munoz","race":"Hispanic","gender":"Male","rank":"DT3","command":{"command":"023 DET","id":"23det"},"shield_no":5948,"ended_date":"2019-12-02","taxid":"899645","complaint_ids":[201607699,201510639,200616548,200610690,200603373,9801391],"appt_date":"1991-04-30","lawsuits":[{"name":"Parks, Corey vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2017-08-17","disposition_date":"2019-02-25","payout_amount":30000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"157364/2017","court":"Supreme Court - New York","officer_name":"Munoz, Rafael","summary":"On or about November 19, 2014, Plaintiff was lawfully present at his home located at 405 East 105th Street in Manhattan. At approximately 8:30 P.M., Detective Rafael Munoz and ten unidentified NYPD officers came to Plaintiff’s home and demanded that he come into the precinct for questioning. Plaintiff asked if they had a warrant and if he was under arrest. The NYPD officers told Plaintiff, falsely, that they had a warrant and that he had to come with them. The NYPD officers refused to show Plaintiff a warrant. Nevertheless, Plaintiff fully complied with the NYPD officers.\n\nAt the precinct, Plaintiff was shown still photographs from a video of a purported robbery and was asked to identify the persons in the video. He was unable to do so. Thereafter, Plaintiff was placed in a lineup that was unduly suggestive; Plaintiff was significantly younger than everyone else in the lineup. Despite the absence of physical, forensic, or DNA evidence connecting Plaintiff to the robbery, he was arrested for Robbery in the Second Degree. In connection with this arrest, Detective Munoz filled out false and misleading police reports and forwarded these reports to prosecutors in the New York County Distract Attorney’s Office. Plaintiff spent over three (3) months in jail, until he was able to post bond. On June 30, 2015, all charges were dismissed against Plaintiff.","documents":[{"url":"https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=L8cmQhFuPGV7XApWzjjUog==","type":"complaint"}]},{"name":"Mendes, Joao vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2014-06-04","payout_amount":0,"disposition":"","docket":"154262/2014","court":"Supreme Court - New York","officer_name":"Munoz, Rafael","summary":"On February 21, 2012, at 1850 2nd Ave, NY, NY, Defendants handcuffed and placed Plaintiff under arrest. A criminal complaint was issued at the directive of Defendants and a criminal action against Plaintiff was commenced. Plaintiff was detained for twenty-four hours. On February 22, 2012, plaintiff was released after his arraignment. Plaintiff was prosecuted. On February 4, 2013, the criminal matter was terminated in Plaintiff's favor, as all charges were dismissed.","documents":[{"url":"https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=64EkxRKLDVYTVpliaFt_PLUS_Kg==","type":"complaint"}]},{"name":"Mills, Timothy vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2013-10-07","disposition_date":"2014-07-22","payout_amount":65000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"13CV05939","court":"U.S. District Court - Southern District NY","officer_name":"Munoz, Rafael","summary":"On September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk in Manhattan when he met Mr. Ridley, a person who had been recently ejected from a nearby halfway house where Plaintiff was staying. Mr Ridley asked Plaintiff to give him some toiletries from the halfway house’s supplies. Plaintiff agreed and went to the halfway house to retrieve some of his own toiletries. A  few minutes later,  he came back to give Mr. Ridley the toiletries. They entered in a convenience store so Plaintiff could get some change to give to Mr. Ridley. After they left the store, they parted ways and began to walk away from each other. At that moment, the NYPD defendants rushed in and ordered both Plaintiff and Mr. Ridley to get on the ground. They both complied with the order. After that, one of the NYPD defendants approached a nearby phone booth and pulled out a loaded firearm from a black bag on a opening near the top of the phone booth. The Senior Police Officer Sergeant Burke ordered the other NYPD officers to arrest both Plaintiff and Mr. Ridley. They complied and Plaintiff was taken to the precinct and the Central Booking along with Mr. Ripley. Although the police lacked any basis to connect Plaintiff with the firearm in the phone booth, he was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The allegations were based on an informant’s statements that did not demonstrate any probable or legal cause of Plaintiff’s involvement with that firearm. Additionally, those allegations were false in the part where they stated that Plaintiffs and Mr. Ridley had huddled together in the phone booth. Moreover, the NYPD radio run received by the NYPD defendants was clear that the person who placed the black plastic bag with the gun into the phone booth was a person who did not match with Plaintiff’s description. As a result, the Court set a bail of $ 7,500,00 that Plaintiff’s couldn’t afford so he was taken to the Rykers Island. On September 7, 2012 he was brought from Rykers Island back to the criminal court where he was scheduled to be released on his recognizance the same day, on the basis of the agreement between his counsel defense and the prosecutor. However, due to ambiguous statements from both the defense and the prosecutor, Plaintiff was not released. Instead he was brought back to Rykers Island. On September 10, 2012, the Supreme Court Justice Neil Ross ordered Plaintiff to be released from the custody. However, Plaintiff, who all the time of his detention had been complained to the NYCDOC defendants he should have been released on September  7, was released from custody only in the night of September 12 or in the early morning of September 13. At the hearing of October 9, 2012, Plaintff voluntarily provided a sample of his DNA to the prosecutor. On February 15 2013, all the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed because neither Plaintiff’s DNA nor his fingerprint were matched to those found on the firearms. As a result of the defendants conduct, Plaintiff lost housing and job opportunities, incurred medical injuries related to the interruption of his treatments for diabetes, and suffered substantial emotional injuries related to his unlawful detention and prosecution.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.416679/gov.uscourts.nysd.416679.23.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13055048/mills-v-the-city-of-new-york/"}],"id":"JQ7Q","url":"https://www.50-a.org/officer/JQ7Q"}