Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie L. Mosser announced May 11 that her office has concluded its review of the February 9 student walkout, finding that Aurora Police officers acted within their scope of authority and did not engage in the use of excessive force.
“Our office fully supports every person’s First Amendment right to peacefully protest, and the vast majority of this student demonstration was conducted safely and without incident,” said State’s Attorney Mosser. “However, that right does not extend to unlawful behavior that creates serious public safety risks. A small number of participants chose to push the boundaries of the law by entering roadways, ignoring repeated lawful police orders to return to the sidewalk, and in some cases walking directly into oncoming traffic, endangering themselves and others. The responsibility of law enforcement in these moments is to ensure safety for everyone involved, and officers have the authority to issue lawful commands to prevent harm. Individuals are required to comply with those lawful orders, and they may not flee when an officer is attempting to detain them. Thank you to the Kane County community for their patience as we conducted this review. Thank you also to the Aurora Police Department for their transparency and cooperation throughout this process.”
February 9, 2026, hundreds of Aurora students participated in a school walkout to protest federal immigration enforcement. The walkout resulted in the arrest of three students. Following allegations of excessive force by Aurora police, the State’s Attorney’s Office initiated an independent, comprehensive review to determine whether the actions taken by officers were consistent with applicable law. In conducting its review, the State’s Attorney’s Office analyzed body-worn camera footage, civilian recordings, police reports, and other related evidence.
The review determined the following:
The protest lasted for several blocks, where there was traffic on the roads, and protesters were creating a safety hazard by walking on the roadway instead of the sidewalk. Aurora Police officers gave several clear orders to return to the sidewalk. Officers attempted to gain compliance through the use of verbal orders and the sirens on their marked squad cars. There were several protesters that obeyed the orders, but many were non-compliant.
Some protesters were more brazen in their non-compliant behavior, including walking into traffic, participating in fights and disturbances, and making gang-related gestures while also throwing objects at officers. An Aurora Police sergeant decided to detain two of these individuals, clearly stating to both, “You are staying here, and you are staying here.” The sergeant had the lawful authority to detain both individuals to cite them for “Walking in the Roadway.” He also had the authority to arrest both protesters for “Obstruction of a Peace Officer” for having ignored multiple orders to return to the sidewalk. Rather than comply with the detention, the protesters tried to break away and flee. As a result, they were placed under arrest. They then resisted being arrested.
As the sergeant was attempting to take these two individuals into custody, other officers ran to assist. On his way to assist, one officer accidentally knocked into a third protester. The protester hit a tree, fell, and then got up and struck that officer in the head, resulting in a severe laceration to the officer’s head. The laceration required numerous staples to close while the officer was being treated at the hospital. The protester was arrested for striking an officer. He also resisted being arrested.
The State’s Attorney’s Office found that Aurora Police officers attempted for a significant amount of time to gain compliance from the protestors verbally. Protesters, not officers, escalated the situation by walking in the road, disobeying orders to return to the sidewalk, and refusing to comply when detained. Several protesters also acted in a disorderly and aggressive manner toward officers, including throwing objects at officers and their vehicles.
In the legal opinion of the State’s Attorney’s Office, the Aurora Police sergeant made the correct decision to cite two of the individuals that were more brazen in their non-compliance. He had the lawful authority to do so, given the actions of these individuals, to prevent further issues. The review did not find that any Aurora Police officer engaged in the use of excessive force or acted outside of their scope of authority.
It should be further noted that community videos highlighted one Aurora officer tackling one of the juveniles. This particular juvenile was one of two who were struggling physically with the sergeant. As this was occurring, more individuals were running toward the location. A physical tackle is an accepted tool used by members of law enforcement to gain physical submission from individuals that are fighting with officers or resisting arrest. In this case, the tackle was a reasonable tactic used by that officer to gain physical compliance from one of the resisting juveniles so that the sergeant could then gain physical compliance from the other resisting juvenile. The use of the tackle was not an excessive use of force given the facts and circumstances regarding this incident.
Because juvenile court records are confidential and closed to the public, we are unable to release officer-worn body camera or squad car camera recordings of the incident (see the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1987).
—Kane County State’s Attorney office