2 charged in carjacking of IDOT worker on Dan Ryan

The employee just ended his shift when he was forced out of his Honda Civic, police said.

SHARE 2 charged in carjacking of IDOT worker on Dan Ryan
A Chicago police badge hangs in front of the City of Chicago Public Safety Headquarters

A 22-year-old man and a minor face charges in connection with a carjacking Feb. 24, 2020, on the Dan Ryan Expressway.

File photo

Two people have been charged in connection with a Monday armed carjacking of an IDOT employee on the Dan Ryan Expressway near Bridgeport.

Michael Vivians, 22, faces a felony count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and a misdemeanor count of criminal trespass to a vehicle, according to Chicago police.

A 17-year-old boy, charged as a minor, faces two felony counts of unlawful use of a weapon and two felony counts of aggravated vehicular carjacking, police said.

The pair allegedly drove off from police who tried to pull them over at 2:22 a.m. for driving a stolen Nissan in the 6300 block of South Yale Avenue in Englewood, police said.

The Nissan, which was reported stolen in south suburban Calumet Park, took off north on I-94.

It crashed about 2:30 a.m. on the Dan Ryan near 35th Street, police said. Someone who was in the Nissan then forced the driver out of a nearby black Honda Civic and went northbound on the expressway.

The driver was an IDOT employee who just ended his shift, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Officers took the two males into custody at the scene, police said.

Vivians appeared in court Tuesday and was released on bond, court records show. He is due back in court March 3.

The Latest
The siblings have very different views, and their visits are wonderful until one brings up a certain candidate.
The Bulls’ “Big Three” of Zach LaVine, DeMar DeRozan and Nikola Vucevic overcame Damian Lillard’s 40 points and turned things around in the second half. But with just two games left before Thursday’s trade deadline, will the win give the front office any clarity?
“Jane’s testimony was not truthful when she claimed she was ‘undecided’ about whether she would seek restitution from the Defendant,” the motions states.
Wife is so fearful of bad news that she’s on the verge of cancelling.