Sean P. Little

Badge #1201, White Male
Sergeant at Criminal Intelligence Section since July 2024
Also served at 111th Precinct
Service started July 2011, made $176,000 last year, Tax #950758

Substantiated Allegations:
Abuse of Authority: Failure to provide RTKA card
Abuse of Authority: Frisk
Abuse of Authority: Search (of person) (2)

Discipline Cases:

Case: 2023-27981
Closed: 9/18/2023
Case: 2022-26996
Closed: 5/19/2023

View Details

Lawsuit Settlements:
$45,000   Alsaeidi, Montaser, et al. vs City of Ny, et al., 2022 QCSC QCSC 716291/2022
View Details

Complaints

2 Complaints
6 Allegations
4 Substantiated
1 Substantiated (Formalized Training)
3 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
2 Unfounded

Complaint #202107778, December 2021
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Search (of person)
Complainant: Asian Female, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Search (of person)
Complainant: Asian Female, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Frisk
Complainant: Asian Female, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: No Disciplinary Action-DUP
Penalty: Command Discipline - B
additional details

Complaint #202102994, May 2021
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Failure to provide RTKA card
Complainant: White Male, 65-69
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Formalized Training)
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name
Complainant: White Male, 65-69
CCRB Conclusion: Unfounded
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide shield number
Complainant: White Male, 65-69
CCRB Conclusion: Unfounded
Penalty: Formalized Training
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details

Complaint #202107778, December 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Search (of person) Asian Female, 30-34 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Abuse of Authority: Search (of person) Asian Female, 30-34 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Abuse of Authority: Frisk Asian Female, 30-34 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: No Disciplinary Action-DUP
Penalty: Command Discipline - B
additional details
Complaint #202102994, May 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Failure to provide RTKA card White Male, 65-69 Substantiated (Formalized Training)
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name White Male, 65-69 Unfounded
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide shield number White Male, 65-69 Unfounded
Penalty: Formalized Training
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details

Conclusion Meanings:

'Substantiated': The misconduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
'Unfounded': Evidence suggests that the event or alleged conduct did not occur.

Further details on conclusions.


Discipline

Case: 2023-27981
Closed: 9/18/2023
Case Details:
  1. Wrongfully frisked an individual known to the Department.
  2. Wrongfully searched an individual known to the Department.
Penalty: B - Command Discipline, training
Recommendation: Command Discipline - B

Case: 2022-26996
Closed: 5/19/2023
Case Details:
  1. Failed to prepare required reports.
  2. Violated patrol rules - failed to provide business card
  3. Wrongfully deactivated their body-worn camera.
Penalty: Training
Recommendation: Training


Lawsuits

Alsaeidi, Montaser, et al. vs City of Ny, et al.
Case # 716291/2022, Supreme Court - Queens, August 30, 2022, ended February 22, 2024
$45,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On July 29, 2020, Plaintiffs entered into a partnership agreement for ownership of Jam Juice Vape Shop. On May 17, 2021, Plaintiffs had a business dispute with their partners, and the partners changed the locks to prevent Plaintiffs from entering. Plaintiffs went to the NYPD and met with NYPD Sergeant Jaspreet Gill who told the Plaintiffs that the dispute was civil and NYPD would not intervene, and advised them that they could call a locksmith to have the store's locks changed back. Plaintiffs returned to the store, causing their business partners to call the police. NYPD responded and determined Plaintiffs were lawful co-owners and there was nothing unlawful about their presence there. NYPD facilitated Plainti...

Other Documents