Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Milwaukee Police Department Hearing on Officer Benitez Disciplinary Cases – March 4, 2026

Common Council — Wednesday, March 4, 2026

BodyMilwaukee, Wisconsin

SessionCommon Council

DateWednesday, March 4, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 7:18:48

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:01

Good morning, everyone.

0:02

My name is Dennis Moroni, and I am uh the hearing examiner uh this matter concerns uh actions involving Christopher Benitez uh addressing four separate MPD personnel orders, namely 2025-169, 2025-170, 2025-171, 2025-172.

0:28

It's Wednesday morning, March the 4th.

0:30

It's our first day of the hearing, and uh with us uh today handling the matters as far as the commissioners are concerned.

0:37

Uh my far right, Christopher Snyder.

0:44

Very important.

0:46

And uh, we are in phase one of this matter.

0:49

Uh there's a lot of stuff going on here, so uh, I want to have uh appearances being made uh here today.

0:57

Good morning, Harry Examiner Commissioner's Catherine Hudley, K A T H E R I N E.

1:03

Last name H E A M E Y appearing on behalf of the chief.

1:08

Thank you.

1:08

All right, thank you.

1:10

Good morning, commissioners.

1:11

Uh, my name is Matt Kitchcar Cross.

1:14

I am appearing with David Ferguson here from Cross Law Firm on behalf of uh the employee, Mr.

1:21

Chris Beninas.

1:23

All right, thank you very much, uh everyone.

1:26

Uh we have quite a few documents as we can see, and I think the way we set this up uh uh basically have the oldest uh personnel matter be concerned to as the basically instant A.

1:39

Uh, and then the next oldest it's B C and then D and have numerical numbers after that as to the respective uh particular document associated with uh each of the particular uh personnel matters that we're going to be dealing with here to try to keep some semblance of order for everybody.

2:00

Um so uh please keep that in mind as we're going through this thing, and so we can kind of help each other out to try to keep this thing straight okay.

2:09

Well, it's my understanding that there are multiple work rule uh allegations of work rule violations.

2:14

There's only one ultimate action that was taking place that's before this commission.

2:18

Is that is that your understanding as well?

2:20

No, we have four estate personnel, Matt.

2:23

Okay, and uh you can uh you have the four each one of those is a separate one, each one is gonna have a separate decision, each one is gonna have a separate phase one, each one's gonna have a separate phase two.

2:37

Great.

2:37

I appreciate you click on that.

2:39

That's fine.

2:41

We generally don't get into this complicated that we can't in that.

2:44

So that's what I'm saying to you.

2:46

Uh, we're gonna have to kind of work a little bit together to kind of help each other out and make sure we get through this thing in some kind of organized fashion.

2:53

Uh, and I I appreciate your position.

2:56

Appreciate my okay and I just try to keep order.

3:03

All right, that being said, uh, first of all, are there any stipulations that either that you'd like to advise uh the commission on at this time?

3:13

Well, we do not come to any uh factual stipulations for this matter, however, uh we did agree to simulate to the admission of the documents uh that are presently before the you know the commissioners and yourself hearing examiners morning.

3:26

There, this is uh again as you indicated.

3:29

This is for case A of A through D.

3:32

Um, the others are over there in the corner.

3:34

I will note that there are additional documents that uh we were not able to print off as uh last night.

3:42

Um we will have someone print them off at the day, although those are related to case D, correct?

3:48

Yes, so I I submit that we will be able to tackle that probably during the recording lunch, and so we can come back with uh the full record of documents.

4:01

I understand that.

4:02

Um add from reference.

4:06

No, thank you.

4:08

Just so you know, uh, we've been asked to consider uh having a third day.

4:12

Maybe a fourth day, who knows?

4:14

Uh that's all I have to say.

4:16

Uh no one really sure.

4:17

Uh, but we're going to uh stick around after today's date and see about uh you had a chance to discuss this thing between yourselves and uh right now we're looking at March 17th or 18th.

4:34

Yeah, the two days that we have a rule availabilities.

4:37

Okay, so kind of keep that in the back of your heads in terms of getting the getting the next uh third day and on this on this matter.

4:45

So keep that in mind, please.

4:47

And also for your witnesses, so they can be kind of find out which one works best for them, etc.

4:52

etc.

4:53

But as you can imagine, we have so much flexibility, and uh we'll do our best.

5:00

And I know you will too.

5:02

So with that in mind, uh let's go ahead.

5:05

Um we're not quite hearing your witnesses here now.

5:07

Yes, our witnesses are here.

5:08

Um prior to openings and prior to the behavior testimony.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

FMLA Policy██████████████████████████████████34%

Police Procedures███████████████████████████████31%

Personnel Matters█████████████████17%

Procedural██████6%

Public Safety█████5%

Workforce Development█████5%

Disability Rights█1%

Pending Litigation█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Milwaukee Police Department Internal Affairs Hearing on Officer Christopher Benitez (March 4, 2026)

This hearing, presided over by Hearing Examiner Dennis Moroni, addressed four separate personnel orders (2025-169, 2025-170, 2025-171, 2025-172) against former Milwaukee Police Officer Christopher Benitez. The hearing focused on Phase One (liability) for each of the four cases, which involve allegations of rule violations including failure to obey laws (Guiding Principle 3.05), absence without leave (AWOL), and failure to follow lawful orders. The hearing began with procedural discussions, including the order of cases and scheduling, and featured testimony from three sergeants and a captain from the Internal Affairs Division. The hearing concluded with a recess, with a third day scheduled for March 18, 2026.

Discussion Items

Case A (Personnel Order 2025-171): Sergeant Adam Riley testified about an investigation into a domestic violence incident on March 4, 2024, leading to Officer Benitez’s arrest and charge by the Muskego Police Department and Waukesha County District Attorney’s Office for disorderly conduct – domestic violence. Riley stated that the department’s investigation was based on the allegation and the charge, not a conviction, and that the case was ultimately dismissed with a citation. The charge sustained was violation of Guiding Principle 3.05 (obeying laws).
Cases B and C (Personnel Orders 2025-169 and 2025-170): Sergeant Latanya Dietrich testified about two AWOL investigations. Case B involved 18 separate occasions between November 11 and December 14, 2023, when Benitez failed to report to work after exhausting sick leave and injury pay, and did not have approved FMLA. Dietrich noted that Benitez claimed he could not recall being ordered to work but did not dispute the reports. Case C involved failing to report on January 2 and 3, 2024, and failing to provide medical substantiation for a sick day on January 31, 2024. Dietrich testified that Benitez stated he believed his FMLA was pending, but it was not approved. She also acknowledged that the charging document (B11) inaccurately stated Benitez “did not submit an application” for FMLA, though he had submitted incomplete paperwork. She later clarified that the department’s position was that he had no approved leave.
Case D (Personnel Order 2025-172): Sergeant Cavasos described an ongoing AWOL investigation from March 27 to May 19, 2025, during which Benitez was absent without approved leave. Cavasos stated that Benitez was ordered to report to work on multiple occasions (19 emails) and failed to comply. Benitez was in a residential treatment facility in Florida, but the department concluded he had no approved FMLA. Cavasos noted that the captain initially gave a grace period for FMLA paperwork, but it was never completed.
Captain Liam Looney’s Testimony: Captain Looney, commanding officer of the Internal Affairs Division, reviewed and approved the sustained charges for all four cases. He stated that the department uses a preponderance of the evidence standard and that for case A, the charge was sustained because the district attorney found probable cause to charge Benitez. For the AWOL cases, Looney emphasized that Benitez did not have approved medical leave, and the department’s mechanisms (FMLA, IFMLA, unpaid medical leave) were available but not properly utilized. He acknowledged that the specification in B11 stating Benitez “did not submit an application” was immaterial because the key issue was lack of approval. He also confirmed that Benitez did not respond to any of the charges.

Key Outcomes

Sustained Charges: For all four cases, the charges were sustained by the sergeants and approved by Captain Looney. The specific violations include:
- Case A: Guiding Principle 3.05 (failure to obey laws)
- Case B: SOP 010115B (absence without leave), Guiding Principle 1.06 (failure to report to duty), and Guiding Principle 5.03 (failure to obey lawful order)
- Case C: SOP 010115 (AWOL), SOP 01045 (failure to provide medical substantiation), Guiding Principle 1.06 (failure to report to duty), and Guiding Principle 5.03 (failure to obey lawful order)
- Case D: SOP 010115A (AWOL) and Guiding Principle 5.03 (failure to obey lawful order)
Procedural Rulings: The hearing examiner denied a motion for sequestration of witnesses for the remainder of the day but granted it for the next session. The hearing is scheduled to continue on March 18, 2026, for a third day, with the expectation that Phase Two (penalty) may follow Phase One decisions.
Next Steps: The chief’s case-in-chief is expected to conclude on March 18 with the testimony of Officer Benitez (called adversely). The commission will then determine liability for each of the four cases in Phase One before proceeding to Phase Two.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dennis Moroni, and I am uh the hearing examiner uh this matter concerns uh actions involving Christopher Benitez uh addressing four separate MPD personnel orders, namely 2025-169, 2025-170, 2025-171, 2025-172. It's Wednesday morning, March the 4th. It's our first day of the hearing, and uh with us uh today handling the matters as far as the commissioners are concerned. Uh my far right, Christopher Snyder. Very important. And uh, we are in phase one of this matter. Uh there's a lot of stuff going on here, so uh, I want to have uh appearances being made uh here today. Good morning, Harry Examiner Commissioner's Catherine Hudley, K A T H E R I N E. Last name H E A M E Y appearing on behalf of the chief. Thank you. All right, thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Uh, my name is Matt Kitchcar Cross. I am appearing with David Ferguson here from Cross Law Firm on behalf of uh the employee, Mr. Chris Beninas. All right, thank you very much, uh everyone. Uh we have quite a few documents as we can see, and I think the way we set this up uh uh basically have the oldest uh personnel matter be concerned to as the basically instant A. Uh, and then the next oldest it's B C and then D and have numerical numbers after that as to the respective uh particular document associated with uh each of the particular uh personnel matters that we're going to be dealing with here to try to keep some semblance of order for everybody. Um so uh please keep that in mind as we're going through this thing, and so we can kind of help each other out to try to keep this thing straight okay. Well, it's my understanding that there are multiple work rule uh allegations of work rule violations. There's only one ultimate action that was taking place that's before this commission. Is that is that your understanding as well? No, we have four estate personnel, Matt. Okay, and uh you can uh you have the four each one of those is a separate one, each one is gonna have a separate decision, each one is gonna have a separate phase one, each one's gonna have a separate phase two. Great. I appreciate you click on that. That's fine. We generally don't get into this complicated that we can't in that. So that's what I'm saying to you. Uh, we're gonna have to kind of work a little bit together to kind of help each other out and make sure we get through this thing in some kind of organized fashion. Uh, and I I appreciate your position. Appreciate my okay and I just try to keep order. All right, that being said, uh, first of all, are there any stipulations that either that you'd like to advise uh the commission on at this time? Well, we do not come to any uh factual stipulations for this matter, however, uh we did agree to simulate to the admission of the documents uh that are presently before the you know the commissioners and yourself hearing examiners morning. There, this is uh again as you indicated. This is for case A of A through D. Um, the others are over there in the corner. I will note that there are additional documents that uh we were not able to print off as uh last night. Um we will have someone print them off at the day, although those are related to case D, correct? Yes, so I I submit that we will be able to tackle that probably during the recording lunch, and so we can come back with uh the full record of documents. I understand that. Um add from reference. No, thank you. Just so you know, uh, we've been asked to consider uh having a third day. Maybe a fourth day, who knows? Uh that's all I have to say. Uh no one really sure. Uh, but we're going to uh stick around after today's date and see about uh you had a chance to discuss this thing between yourselves and uh right now we're looking at March 17th or 18th. Yeah, the two days that we have a rule availabilities.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com