Milwaukee Police Discipline Hearing for Officer Christopher Benitez - April 10, 2026

The Fire and Police Commission (FPC) concluded a multi-day disciplinary hearing for Milwaukee Police Officer Christopher Benitez on April 10, 2026. The hearing addressed four consolidated cases (A, B, C, D) involving allegations of off-duty domestic violence and three separate periods of absence without leave (AWOL) between November 2023 and May 2025. The Commission found just cause on all charges in Phase One and, after Phase Two testimony on penalty, upheld the Chief's recommended discipline, including termination for the AWOL charges. The hearing featured testimony from Officer Benitez, Assistant Chief Craig Sarno, and extensive closing arguments from both the city and the defense.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Officer Christopher Benitez testified in his own defense, describing the progression of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) sustained in a May 2022 squad car accident, subsequent PTSD, depression, insomnia, and cognitive impairment. He testified that these conditions were exacerbated by delays and denials in medical care and FMLA processing by the MPD medical section, stating, "My health is primary to any policy that I can... that I was charged with."
• Officer Benitez stated that during his inpatient treatment at "The Refuge" in Florida (March–April 2025), the facility’s intake administrator, Ellen Mendez, assured him his FMLA paperwork was "taken care of," and that he was advised to focus on treatment. He said he assumed that meant his leave was approved.
• On cross-examination, Benitez acknowledged he was aware MPD was trying to reach him while at The Refuge and that he had limited phone access for court-ordered calls. He also admitted he could not recall whether his FMLA leave for January–February 2024 (case C) was ever approved, stating, "I don't recall."
• The defense attorney argued that the department's three-year response to Benitez's injury was driven by a systemic disbelief in his invisible injury, stating, "Because the department could not see the wound, it chose to disbelieve it." He contrasted Benitez’s treatment with how a gunshot wound would have been handled, saying the department would have "press conferences" and "the full institutional embrace."

Discussion Items: Phase One – Just Cause Determination

• Case A (Domestic Violence – 2022): Charge under Code of Conduct 3.05 (violation of state law/ordinance). MPD argued that Officer Benitez was arrested by Muskego PD for domestic battery after his then-wife called 911, stating he grabbed her phone, threw it, and attempted to pick a bedroom door lock. The city emphasized that a preponderance of evidence standard applies, not a criminal conviction. The defense countered that the charge was based solely on a disputed arrest and a citation, not a conviction, and that Sergeant Riley’s investigation was limited to verifying the arrest, not determining guilt.
• Case B (AWOL – Nov–Dec 2023): Charge under SOP 010115 (failure to apply for medical leave when sick/injury pay exhausted). MPD presented 18 separate occasions Benitez failed to report, with supervisors ordered him to return. Benitez claimed he was unable to work due to his TBI and that the medical section (Sergeant Taylor) had improperly denied his on-duty injury (ODI) pay. The defense argued that Taylor, who was only one month into her posting, used "alleged" language in communications and destroyed an IME report confirming TBI before reading it, relying instead on a summary from the workers' compensation insurer.
• Case C (AWOL – Jan 2024): Similar charge to Case B but covering two specific days (Jan 2–3, 2024). Benitez testified that he had applied for FMLA and believed it was approved, but the city argued the application was never properly completed and no leave was granted. Sergeant Dietrich’s investigation noted that Benitez said he would provide medical documentation but never did.
• Case D (AWOL – Mar–May 2025): Charge covering 36 separate instances of failure to report while Benitez was an inpatient at The Refuge. The city stated that his FMLA leave was never approved and that he was ordered to return to work. The defense noted that the memorandum initiating the AWOL investigation (April 22, 2025) acknowledged Benitez was in inpatient treatment and that FMLA paperwork had been forwarded, yet still requested termination. The defense also pointed out that the charge specification misstated that Benitez "did not submit an application" when he had submitted it and been denied.

Key Outcomes: Phase One – Just Cause Ruling

• The Commission found that the chief had established just cause under Wisconsin Statute 62.50(17)(b) for all four cases, allowing them to proceed to Phase Two (penalty). The five just cause factors considered were: (1) whether Benitez could reasonably expect the consequences, (2) whether the rule was reasonable, (3) whether the chief made a reasonable effort to discover the violation, (4) whether that effort was fair and objective, and (5) whether substantial evidence supported the violation.

Discussion Items: Phase Two – Penalty Phase

• Assistant Chief Craig Sarno testified about the discipline review process, explaining that the chief and executive command staff considered the discipline matrix, officer history, and comparable cases. For Case A (305 violation), the chief imposed a 10-day suspension (lower end of Category E). For Cases B, C, and D, the chief recommended termination for the AWOL charges (SOP 010115), with 5-day suspensions on related charges for failure to obey orders (503) and failure to report (106). Sarno stated that when adding up all AWOL days across the three cases, Benitez missed 56 days of work. He characterized Benitez’s duties at District 1 as "minimal" and said the department spent significant resources attempting to contact him.
• Officer Benitez testified again in Phase Two, explaining he did not respond to investigation requests because he had legal representation and was focused on his health. He said, "I suffered an injury, I was unable to do the job, but I returned to do the job in a capacity that would keep officers on the street." He acknowledged that he once requested a paid suspension (using ABLE principles) but clarified that he was trying to get time to heal.

Key Outcomes: Phase Two – Final Decision

• The Commission voted to uphold the chief’s recommended penalties in full:
  • Case A: 10-day suspension without pay for 305 violation.
  • Case B: Discharge from the department for AWOL; 5-day suspension for 503 violation; 5-day suspension for 106 violation.
  • Case C: Discharge for AWOL; 5-day suspension for 503 violation; 5-day suspension for 106 violation.
  • Case D: Discharge for AWOL; 5-day suspension for 503 violation.
• The hearing examiner noted the decision would be reduced to a written determination within 10 days (waived by the parties).