Louis Failla

Badge #1400, White Male
Also served at 114th Precinct, 105th Precinct
Service started December 1997, ended December 2019, Tax #920264


Complaints

4 Complaints
5 Allegations
0 Substantiated
1 Complainant Unavailable
1 Complaint Withdrawn
2 Exonerated
1 Unsubstantiated

Complaint #201604822, May 2016
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Black Male, 28
CCRB Conclusion: Complaint Withdrawn
additional details

Complaint #200707504, May 2007
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Premises entered and/or searched
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: White Male, 27
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
additional details

Complaint #9903787, June 1999
Allegation: Force: Other - Force
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
additional details

Complaint #9901348, March 1999
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Age 28
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #201604822, May 2016
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Force: Physical force Black Male, 28 Complaint Withdrawn
additional details
Complaint #200707504, May 2007
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Premises entered and/or searched Exonerated
Force: Physical force White Male, 27 Exonerated
additional details
Complaint #9903787, June 1999
Allegation CCRB Conclusion
Force: Other - Force Complainant Unavailable
additional details
Complaint #9901348, March 1999
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word Age 28 Unsubstantiated
additional details

Conclusion Meanings:

'Exonerated': or 'Within NYPD Guidelines' - the alleged conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
'Unsubstantiated': or 'Unable to Determine' - CCRB has fully investigated but could not affirmatively conclude both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.

Further details on conclusion definitions.


Discipline

Case: 2011-5610
Opened: 12/20/2011
Closed: 4/18/2014
Case Details:
  1. Guilty: While on-duty, did wrongfully fail to properly ensure and comply with vice enforcement division policy regarding conducting undercover operations and scheduling locations for vice enforcement operations
  2. Dismissed: While on-duty, failed to properly comply with vice enforcement division policy regarding conducting undercover operations and scheduling locations for vice enforcement operations
  3. Dismissed: While on-duty, upon observing, having become aware of, or upon receiving an allegation of corruption or serious misconduct involving a member of the service, did fail and neglect to notify the Internal Affairs Bureau, as required
  4. Guilty: While on-duty, did fail and neglect to follow proper procedures by failing to notify the duty Captain and instead notified his Lieutenant regarding the repair of damaged property resulting from forced entry into wrong premises
Penalty: Forfeiture of fifteen (15) vacation days


Lawsuits

Chroscielewski, Mark vs Det. Calix, Milton, et al.
Case # 16CV06640, U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, December 6, 2016
Complaint
Description: The plaintiff was at a movie with his daughter when the daughter's mother showed up despite the fact that she was violating the order of protection the plaintiff had filed against her. The defendant who is the daughter's mother called 911 and stated that the plaintiff had struck her and kicked her even though he had not. The officers believed the plaintiff and left. The defendant who is the daughter's mother called 911 again and claimed the plaintiff had then pushed her. Defendant Officer Calix came and arrested the plaintiff without interviewing the daughter or his two fellow police officers who had just responded to the original complaint. The plaintiff was charged with criminal contempt in the second degree ...

Other Documents

NYPD Trial Decision 11/12/2019