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.