Jonathan S. Bogard

Badge #834, White Male
Sergeant Special Assignment at Highway Unit 03 since November 2025
Also served at Intel-Municipal Security Section, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Chief of Department Office, 81st Precinct, 63rd Precinct
Service started July 2006, made $218,000 last year, Tax #941439

Lawsuit Settlements:
$12,000   Elsayed, Adam vs Sgt. Borgard, Jonathan, et al., 2020 KCSC KCSC 525086/2019
View Details

Complaints

3 Complaints
8 Allegations
0 Substantiated
1 Complainant Uncooperative
3 Exonerated
4 Unsubstantiated

Complaint #201407725, July 2014
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name/shield number
Complainant: Black Male, 17
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Vehicle search
Complainant: Black Male, 18
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Search (of person)
Complainant: Black Male, 17
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Frisk
Complainant: Black Male, 17
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Male, 17
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Property damaged
Complainant: Black Male, 17
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #201304795, May 2013
Allegation: Offensive Language: Race
Complainant: Black Male, 28
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #201107736, June 2011
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Male
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
additional details

Complaint #201407725, July 2014
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name/shield number Black Male, 17 Unsubstantiated
Abuse of Authority: Vehicle search Black Male, 18 Exonerated
Abuse of Authority: Search (of person) Black Male, 17 Exonerated
Abuse of Authority: Frisk Black Male, 17 Exonerated
Discourtesy: Word Black Male, 17 Unsubstantiated
Abuse of Authority: Property damaged Black Male, 17 Unsubstantiated
additional details
Complaint #201304795, May 2013
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Offensive Language: Race Black Male, 28 Unsubstantiated
additional details
Complaint #201107736, June 2011
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word Male Complainant Uncooperative
additional details

Conclusion Meanings:

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

Further details on conclusions.


Lawsuits

Named in 2 known lawsuits, $12,000 total settlements.

Ingram, Irving vs City of Ny, et al.
Case # 154087/2024, Supreme Court - New York, May 3, 2024
Complaint
Description: On or about the 16th of June 2023, at approximately 12:30 PM, the plaintiff was driving in his motor vehicle at or near the George Washington Bridge (at or near 179th Street), headed to New Jersey. Defendants Sgt. Jonathan S. Bogard and two unidentified (John Doe) officers falsely, arrested, falsely imprisoned, abused, assaulted, battered, and caused plaintiff to sustain serious personal injuries and deprived him his Civil Rights. Plaintiff had to seek medical attention due to his injuries and also suffered injuries of a psychological nature. In addition, the plaintiff has endured an economic loss due to damage caused to his motor vehicle, for which he now seeks restitution from the defendants.

Elsayed, Adam vs Sgt. Borgard, Jonathan, et al.
Case # 525086/2019, Supreme Court - Kings, January 2, 2020, ended October 6, 2020
$12,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On May 20, 2017, plaintiff was driving to his girlfriend's house from dinner and he was stopped by defendant POs at a DWI checkpoint. Defendant POs claimed that plaintiff speech was incoherent, and swaying when he was told to exit the vehicle, and failed the coordination tests at the scene. Defendant POs searched plaintiff's vehicle and did not find any marihuana but falsely stated that plaintiff told them that he had smoke marihuana 45 minutes earlier. Defendant POs conducted a SFST using the Drager machine test at the scene which has been deemed unreliable for given false positives in other states in the country. Plaintiff was taken to the IDTU and passed three coordination tests. Despite this information, th...