The Dennis Ortiz ShotSpotter lawsuit was a federal civil rights case brought by a Chicago man who was arrested in 2021 after officers responded to a ShotSpotter gunshot-detection alert that turned out to be unfounded. In August 2025, the City of Chicago settled the claims brought by Ortiz and a co-plaintiff for $90,000 and conceded that a ShotSpotter alert, by itself, does not justify stopping or patting down someone who happens to be near the reported location.1Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago Police Crime ShotSpotter SoundThinking CPD
What Happened to Dennis Ortiz
On April 19, 2021, Ortiz — identified in court records as Daniel Ortiz and then 36 years old — was standing outside a laundromat in the Schorsch Village neighborhood on Chicago’s Northwest Side when two Chicago police officers arrived in response to a ShotSpotter alert. According to the federal complaint, no gunshot had actually been fired, and the officers found nothing at the scene to corroborate the alert.2ClassAction.org. Williams et al v City of Chicago et al Complaint The officers, named in the suit as Harsimran Powar and Michael Matias, detained Ortiz, frisked him, and searched his car.1Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago Police Crime ShotSpotter SoundThinking CPD
Inside the vehicle they found a legal amount of marijuana and a bottle of prescription pills belonging to Ortiz’s mother. The complaint alleged the officers inflated the amount of marijuana and left out the fact that the pills were properly prescribed.2ClassAction.org. Williams et al v City of Chicago et al Complaint Ortiz was arrested on drug charges, his car was impounded, and he spent a night in Cook County Jail. The charges were dismissed at his first bond court appearance the next day, and he later recovered his vehicle after winning a hearing challenging its seizure.3WTTW News. Lawsuit Alleges Chicago Police Made False Arrests Based on Faulty ShotSpotter Alerts
The Lawsuit He Joined
On July 21, 2022, the MacArthur Justice Center filed a civil rights class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Williams v. City of Chicago, Case No. 1:22-cv-03773.4MacArthur Justice Center. Class Action Lawsuit Takes Aim at Chicago’s Use of ShotSpotter Ortiz was one of three individual plaintiffs, alongside Michael Williams, who spent nearly 11 months in Cook County Jail on a murder charge later dismissed, and Derick Scruggs, an armed security guard arrested at work on a misdemeanor charge that prosecutors later dropped. The nonprofit Lucy Parsons Labs joined as an organizational plaintiff.5MacArthur Justice Center. Amended Civil Rights Class Action Complaint
The suit argued that Chicago’s reliance on ShotSpotter drove unconstitutional stops, searches, and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment.1Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago Police Crime ShotSpotter SoundThinking CPD It also brought claims under the Illinois Civil Rights Act, alleging that ShotSpotter sensors were deployed almost entirely in predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods — areas home to roughly 80% of Chicago’s Black residents and 65% of its Latinx residents — producing a disproportionate number of unjustified encounters in those communities. The plaintiffs further challenged the technology’s reliability, arguing it could not consistently distinguish gunshots from firecrackers or helicopter noise and often reported inaccurate locations.5MacArthur Justice Center. Amended Civil Rights Class Action Complaint
What the Settlement Did
In August 2025, Chicago agreed to pay $90,000 to resolve the claims brought by Ortiz and Scruggs.1Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago Police Crime ShotSpotter SoundThinking CPD The more consequential piece of the agreement was not the money but a policy concession: the city acknowledged that a ShotSpotter alert does not, on its own, give officers a legal basis to stop or frisk a person who happens to be near the reported location. If Chicago ever contracts for the technology again, it must adopt a police directive formally putting that principle in writing.6MacArthur Justice Center. Chicago Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Challenging Its Use of ShotSpotter
Michael Williams’s claims were handled separately. In February 2026, he accepted an Offer of Judgment from the city that provided monetary compensation.7MacArthur Justice Center. Williams v City of Chicago
Where ShotSpotter Stands in Chicago
By the time the settlement was announced, ShotSpotter was no longer operating in Chicago. Mayor Brandon Johnson moved to end the city’s contract in early 2024. The City Council voted 33 to 14 to keep the system, short of the supermajority needed to override a veto. Johnson vetoed the ordinance, the contract expired on September 22, 2024, and the Chicago Police Department stopped using the technology the next morning as the company began removing its equipment.8ABC 7 Chicago. Chicago ShotSpotter Contract Ends
As of August 2025, it was unclear whether Chicago would sign a new contract for ShotSpotter or a similar surveillance system. The city had issued a request for proposals for new surveillance technology without any public announcement of a selection. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said at the time of the settlement that nothing in the agreement would bar a future lawsuit if Chicago brought a comparable system back online.6MacArthur Justice Center. Chicago Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Challenging Its Use of ShotSpotter