Full statement from DuPage County State’s Attorney on police killing of Isaac Goodlow III

The following is the full statement by DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin concerning the shooting of Isaac Goodlow III.

“Every case involving the use of deadly force by a police officer, whether on or off duty, must be carefully and thoroughly investigated. Such scrutiny is required to ensure the protection of the civil rights of those involved and to maintain the public’s confidence in law enforcement.

After a thorough and extensive investigation surrounding the shooting death of Isaac Goodlow by Carol Stream police officer Daniel Pfingston, it is my decision that no criminal charges will be filed against Officer Pfingston or any of the Carol Stream officers involved in the shooting.

Before examining the events of that morning and the basis for my conclusion, I believe it is important to dispel and correct misinformation that has been publicly circulating about this unfortunate event. The following are factual, evidence-based conclusions resulting from an extremely meticulous and thorough investigation into the shooting of Mr. Goodlow.

After portions of the body camera video were released to the public, members of Mr. Goodlow’s family publicly stated the videos investigators showed them showed Mr. Goodlow lying in bed when he was shot and that the videos had been altered prior to public release and were not the same videos they had previously seen. At the request of Mr. Goodlow’s family, Motorola Solutions, Inc. conducted an audit of the body worn camera video files. Following the audit, a Senior Manager of Mobile Video Security and Analytics and Motorola employee returned a hash code analysis report verifying the body worn camera files had not been altered or modified in any way. The videos clearly do not show Mr. Goodlow in bed when he is shot. Additionally, photos of the bedroom and the video taken by investigators after the shooting do not show any blood on the bed or bedding. All of the blood was on the floor by the bedroom door where Mr. Goodlow fell when he was shot. Mr. Goodlow was not Tasered after he was shot or at any time during the incident. Lastly, attorneys for Mr. Goodlow’s family have stated, and it has been reported, that they have discovered that at least one of the officers involved had a “checkered past, including a prior officer-involved shooting while employed by a different police department” for which the officer was fired. This statement is patently untrue. None of the officers involved have a record of discipline relating to use of force.

In reaching this conclusion, my staff and I carefully reviewed the applicable law and thoroughly examined all of the evidence, including but not limited to:

An investigation into the shooting concluded the following:

On February 3, 2024, at approximately 4:14 a.m., Carol Stream Police Department officers were dispatched to 260 E. Saint Charles Road, Apartment #GA for a report of a domestic battery. The call was made by A.E., the sister of K.U., the victim of the domestic battery. On the call, A.E. can be heard initially telling the dispatcher, “I have an emergency. This boy just jumped on my sister. We’re at Villagebrook Apartments.” After giving her address, the dispatcher asked A.E. what happened. A.E. stated, “He jumped on her. She came to our house screaming and crying. Her eye is black and her lip is busted.” When asked when this happened, A.E. responded, “Right now, right now.” The dispatcher asked if she needed paramedics and A.E. responded, “Yes, we need everything. We want to press charges and everything.” The dispatcher asked, “OK, is he still there?” A.E. responded, “Yes, he right here behind me, but I’m gonna f*** some s*** up if ya’ll don’t. I want him locked up. I want him to go to jail. We want to press all the charges. And he has her phone.” A.E. then screamed, “Come out, come out.” The dispatcher asked twice “Who is he?” A.E. stated, “his name is Isaac Goodlow.” The dispatcher then asked, “is he still there?” A.E. replied “Yes, he has an apartment.” The dispatcher asked, “What apartment number?” A.E. stated “GA.” The victim, K.U., stated, “And my dog is in there.”

At 4:16: a.m., Officer Daniel Pfingston arrived at the scene. Officer Pfingston was joined by Officers Janetis, McGovern, Marquardt, Koeller, Sergeant Cadle and other officers at varying times. When speaking with the victim, K.U., K.U. told officers that following an argument with her boyfriend Isaac Goodlow inside their shared apartment, Isaac Goodlow “bust my f****** lip. He hit me on my f****** face.” The officers observed a cut with bleeding to K.U.’s bottom lip and a black eye. K.U. told the officers she had been living with Goodlow in his apartment for the past three months. K.U. gave the officers consent to obtain a key and enter the apartment and told the officers she was concerned about her dog and her phone was still in the apartment. K.U. later stated that during the fight with Goodlow she ran into the bathroom, but Goodlow “busted the door down,” causing the mirror on the door to shatter, and threw her in the bathtub. K.U. fought back and scratched Goodlow’s face as he continued to strike her. K.U. was able to free herself from the apartment and ran barefoot from the apartment wearing only her underwear to her mother’s nearby apartment for help, leaving her phone, shoes, and keys behind. Prior to fleeing the apartment, K.U. told Goodlow that she was going to call the police to which Goodlow responded, “I don’t give a f*** b****. Call the police. Call whoever the f*** you want. They’re gonna have to kill me or I’ll kill myself.” K.U. also related to her mother and sister that Goodlow said, “If you call the police on me, I’m gonna make them kill me.” K.U. told investigators that Isaac was “mad, was in a rage, and was ‘talking s***.’” Isaac was talking to himself and K.U. said she was getting scared. K.U. further told officers that as she ran to her mother’s apartment, Goodlow followed her and caught up to her in the foyer but ran back to their shared apartment when K.U. screamed for her mother’s help. Officers later recovered a blue shoe in the courtyard, which K.U. said belonged to Goodlow and must have come off when he was chasing her through the courtyard. After speaking with K.U. and her sister, and running Goodlow’s name through LEADS, officers learned Goodlow was on probation for robbery and his name was associated with an officer safety alert for a criminal gang member, with a mention of unlawful possession of firearm/explosive bullets.

At 4:18 a.m., officers first knocked on Goodlow’s door and yelled “police.” One minute later, officers again knocked on Goodlow’s door and yelled “Carol Stream Police” and “Isaac, we’re trying to figure out what’s going on here man.” At 4:20 a.m., Officer Pfingston called Goodlow using the phone number provided by K.U. but there was no answer. From 4:21 a.m. through 4:52 a.m. officers knocked, kicked, and banged on Goodlow’s door nine more times, once for twenty-five seconds and yelled “Isaac, let’s go, open the door. We need to get the dog,” “Isaac, come on.” Each time there was no response. Officers also attempted to contact Goodlow through K.U.’s cellular phone, which he had shut off, and by shining a light in his bedroom window. When Goodlow did not respond to any of these attempts to communicate with him, officers sought permission from K.U. to enter the apartment. K.U. responded “Yes, I said you can go in there. Especially for my baby, my dog. And he has my cell phone.” Fifty-two minutes after first knocking on Goodlow’s door, officers entered the apartment in single file at 5:10 a.m. using a key provided by a Villagebrook maintenance employee. Officer Pfingston was first, followed in order by Officer Janetis, Officer McGovern, Officer Marquardt, Sergeant Cadle, and Officer Koeller. Officer Pfingston was carrying a ballistic shield in his left hand and had his firearm with an attached weapon light drawn. Officer Janetis had his Taser device unholstered and in the armed position, with the light on. The other officers had illuminated flashlights. The officers loudly called out “police” and “Carol Stream police” when they entered the dark apartment, as Goodlow had turned off all the lights. The investigation reveals Goodlow was hiding behind the bedroom door when the police made entry into his apartment. After moving into the living room area, the officers turned left towards the bedroom and bathroom. As Officer Pfingston approached the mostly closed bedroom door, he asked, “go through this door here?” Officer Janetis said “yeah, kick it open.” Officer Pfingston pushed the door open with his right foot. A frame-by-frame viewing of Sergeant Cadle’s body worn camera video shows what appears to be Goodlow’s knee or thigh coming out of the bedroom door just as it is opening. As the door opened, Goodlow took a sudden and quick lateral step from behind the door and immediately stepped towards Officer Pfingston with his right arm bent and his right hand about shoulder height moving toward Officer Pfingston in an aggressive manner. Believing Goodlow was either pointing something at him, throwing something at him or reaching for his firearm, Officer Pfingston fired a single gunshot at Goodlow, striking him in the chest. Officer Pfingston discharged his firearm twelve seconds after the officers entered the apartment. Dr. Filkins, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Goodlow, opined that the entrance and path of the bullet coursed left to right and downward, consistent with Officer Pfingston’s statement that Isaac Goodlow’s right arm was bent and his right hand about shoulder height moving toward Officer Pfingston when Officer Pfingston discharged his gun. Furthermore, the position of Goodlow lying face down on the floor between the bedroom door and the bed after he was shot, as shown on the officers’ body worn cameras and FARO laser scanned images, which showed a distance of 2.96 feet from the edge of the bed to the bedroom door opening, corroborates Officer Pfingston’s statement that Goodlow immediately stepped towards Officer Pfingston with his right arm bent and his right hand about shoulder height moving toward Officer Pfingston in an aggressive manner as the bedroom door opened and was not lying in his bed when he was shot. Immediately after the gunshot, Officer Janetis discharged his Taser in the direction of the threat, which Officer Janetis explained was the bedroom door, with one probe striking Officer Pfingston in the right shoulder and the second probe impacting the bathroom ceiling. Officer Marquardt pushed over Officer McGovern, causing her to accidentally discharge her firearm. The bullet discharged from Officer McGovern’s firearm struck the brick wall behind the drywall in the bathroom and fell down the wall and under the bathtub, where it was recovered by investigators. Goodlow fell to the ground face down between the bed and the door to the bedroom. Officers yelled “cuff him up, cuff him up,” and put handcuffs on Goodlow and then rolled him on his back. Officers immediately began life-saving measures including chest compressions. Sergeant Cadle told Goodlow, “I need you to stay with me” and “open your eyes” as he was administering chest compressions on Goodlow. Officer Janetis took over the chest compressions and told Goodlow, “Wake up, wake up, wake up Isaac” as he provided life-saving measures to Goodlow. Carol Stream Fire Department paramedics arrived soon after and continued life-saving measures. They transported Goodlow to a local hospital, but Goodlow died in the Emergency Department. Subsequent investigation found that in addition to Goodlow’s suicidal statements to K.U., Goodlow had made statements of feeling homicidal and suicidal to the Wheaton Police Department following a prior arrest for domestic battery in January, 2021.

The above facts have been evaluated in the context of Illinois law governing the justifiable use of deadly force. In accordance with Illinois law, my staff and I have reviewed the facts and circumstances of the case with special consideration given to the perspective of the officer on the scene. It is important to remember pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/7-5(f) Peace Officer’s Use of Force in Making Arrest, the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated “from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the decision, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.”

State of Illinois law as it applies to the use of force in this matter is set forth in 720 ILCS 5/7-1 Use of force in defense of person and 720 ILCS 5/7-5 Peace officer’s use of force in making arrest.

720 ILCS 5/7-1 Use of force in defense of person states:

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

720 ILCS 5/7-5 Peace officer’s use of force in making arrest states in part:

(a) A peace officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be necessary to effect the arrest and to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when: (i) he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person; or (ii) when he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, both that: (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and the officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested is likely to cause great bodily harm to another; and (2) The person to be arrested committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

720 ILCS 5/3-2(b) Affirmative Defense states:

“If the issue involved in an affirmative defense, other than insanity, is raised then the State must sustain the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue together with all the other elements of the offense.” Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Once it is properly raised, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in using the force which he used.

On February 3, 2024, Officer Pfingston was wearing a Carol Stream police uniform and carried all the indicia of a police officer. The Carol Stream police clearly had probable cause to arrest Isaac Goodlow for domestic battery and had permission to enter Goodlow’s shared apartment using a key. K.U. described being the victim of a violent attack by Goodlow that left her lip bleeding and very visible bruising around her eye. Pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, the law in Illinois is clear that if law enforcement officers have reason to believe that a person has been abused, neglected, or exploited by a family or household member, the officer shall immediately use all reasonable means to prevent further abuse, neglect, or exploitation, including arresting the abusing, neglecting and exploiting party, where appropriate See 750 ILCS 60/304(a) (1). Having determined that Officer Pfingston was a police officer acting in the line of duty, and probable cause existed to arrest Goodlow for domestic battery, the questions become: was Officer Pfingston legally authorized to use the force he used, or can the State sustain their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not justified in using the force which he used. Under 720 ILCS 5/7-5, “the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the decision, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.” Officer Pfingston stated that “as the door was opening, I observed Goodlow, without any warning to me, take a sudden and quick lateral step from behind the door, and he immediately stepped towards me with his right arm bent and his right hand about shoulder height moving toward me in an aggressive manner. It happened so quickly but it appeared to me that Goodlow was either pointing something at me, throwing something at me or reaching for my firearm. Due to the poor lighting conditions, I could not determine what was in his hands. However, based on the totality of the circumstances I believed that Goodlow was ambushing me with an intent to immediately cause me death or great bodily harm. Goodlow’s sudden and aggressive actions towards me compelled me to flinch backwards and discharge my weapon to stop the perceived threat.” Officer Pfingston’s statement asserts the defense of self-defense, which once properly raised, places the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in using the force which he used.

In analyzing Officer Pfingston’s actions, we must focus on his perceptions and actions in determining whether it was objectively reasonable for a police officer in Pfingston’s position to believe he was in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm when he discharged his gun. In determining whether Officer Pfingston’s actions were objectively reasonable, the United States Supreme Court has held that “The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 389 at 396 (1989). Simply put, when making a criminal charging decision the issue becomes can the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Pfingston was not justified in using deadly force.

Officer Pfingston’s body worn camera video shows that he had to react in a fraction of a second when the bedroom door opened and Goodlow without any warning, took “a sudden and quick lateral step from behind the door, and immediately stepped towards” Officer Pfingston with his “right arm bent and his right hand about shoulder height” moving toward Officer Pfingston in an “aggressive manner.” While the fact that Isaac Goodlow was not armed with a weapon is an important factor to consider, under the law that fact by itself is not determinative. The law requires that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force. Goodlow’s homicidal and suicidal statements to K.U., made while Goodlow was “in a rage,” “talking s***,” and “talking to himself,” and his previous homicidal and suicidal statements to the Wheaton Police Department coupled with his provoking and aggressive movements toward Officer Pfingston and his telling K.U. on the night of the shooting, “If you call the police on me, I’m gonna make them kill me” certainly suggest Goodlow was planning on committing “suicide by cop” by provoking the police into using deadly force. Additionally, although Officer Pfingston used his weapon light for illumination, it was dark inside Isaac Goodlow’s apartment when the officers entered. In his written answers to investigators’ questions Officer Pfingston stated, “At the time I began to open the bedroom door I did not know with 100% certainty if Goodlow had a weapon, but because it was so dark in the bedroom and considering the totality of the circumstances, including Goodlow’s sudden and aggressive actions, I could not rule out that Goodlow had a weapon.” Considering that under 720 ILCS 5/7-5(f), “the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force,” in light of Goodlow’s suicidal statement to K.U., Officer Pfingston’s written statement that Goodlow, a person with a known violent history, took a sudden and quick lateral step from behind the door and immediately stepped towards Officer Pfingston with his right arm bent and his right hand about shoulder height moving toward Officer Pfingston in an aggressive manner, the opinion by Dr. Filkins that the bullet wound and course of travel is consistent with Officer Pfingston’s statement, Sergeant Cadle’s body worn camera video when viewed frame-by-frame showing what appears to be Goodlow’s knee or thigh coming out of the bedroom door as the door is opening, the FARO laser scanned image showing a distance of only 2.96 feet from the edge of the bed to the bedroom door, and the fact that for fifty-two minutes Isaac Goodlow intentionally ignored multiple police commands to open the door and instead, waited behind the bedroom door with the lights off until the police made entry, the State cannot meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Pfingston was not justified in using deadly force. It is important to remember that to pursue criminal charges, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only each of the elements of first degree murder, but the absence of circumstances at the time of the killing that would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles of self-defense. Where evidence of both first and second degree murder is presented and the defendant advances a claim of self-defense, the statute expressly states that the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt not only the elements of first degree murder, but also that the defendant was not justified in using the force that he used. (720 ILCS 5/9-2(c).)

To be clear, based on the results of an incredibly thorough investigation, I am not concluding that Officer Pfingston was justified in his use of deadly force. My conclusion, rather, is that the State cannot meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Pfingston was not legally justified in using deadly force. Additionally, Officer Janetis’ discharge of his Taser and Officer McGovern’s accidental discharge of her firearm did not impact Isaac Goodlow or contribute to his death. As a result, my office will not be taking any action against any of the Carol Stream officers involved in this incident. I thank the MERIT Public Integrity Team for conducting a thorough independent investigation, the Illinois State Police Crime Lab, as well as Assistant State’s Attorneys Bernie Murray, Nancy Donahoe, Lisa Hoffman, and Helen Kapas.”

It is indeed a tragedy any time a human life is lost. Criminal charges can only be filed, however, if the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. I offer my sincere condolences to Isaac Goodlow’s family and friends as they attempt to come to terms with what happened that morning.”