Dan Evans was one of those happy-go-lucky guys we meet every so often in law enforcement. He d been on the job for just under four years and was studying for a promotional examination to sergeant. He drove a brand new car, was engaged to his high school sweetheart, loved the job and was starting to get noticed by the department brass for his excellent work. Due to bid shifts, the summer vacation schedule and a host of other variables, Evans was working the day squad and had Friday, Saturday and Sunday off.
It was a bright, sunny summer day when Evans drove to the department in his new car. At roll call, the lieutenant gave Evans an atta-boy for the apprehension of a robbery suspect the previous day. When Evans went out to the lot to inspect his cruiser, he found that the new cars had come in, and his three-year-old patrol car had been replaced with a brand new, state-of-the-art cruiser with every bell, whistle and computer technology had to offer. Could life get any better?
His patrol areas included a large, low-income housing project adjacent to a busy interstate highway. For several miles in a straight line, dilapidated row houses were situated close together on both sides of the street. This type of housing was repeated on many side streets, and the city s poor, addicted, unemployed and mentally unstable lived there.
At 0946 hrs, Evans received a radio dispatch to respond to 103 Hampton Street on a domestic dispute with reported injury to one or more persons. Another unit was also sent as backup, along with an ambulance. Evans was advised to respond Code 3 lights and siren. As luck would have it, Evans was literally heading down Hampton Street when he received the call and so notified the dispatcher.
When he pulled up in front of 103 Hampton Street, he saw an elderly woman standing on the porch with her arms raised in the air frantically screaming at him in Spanish about a dead person. Evans jumped out of the cruiser, ran up the steps and followed the old woman into the living room. In a millisecond, Evans saw a woman lying on the floor covered in blood, several young children cowering in the corner and a man holding a machete in his right hand running from the room through an open sliding glass door outside into the back yard. In his left, the man was carrying the severed head of the woman Evans had seen laying on the floor.
There was no doubt the woman on the floor was dead, so Evans raced after the suspect. A large wooden fence more than 40 feet tall separated the interstate highway from the backyards of the row houses. The fence extended to the left and right as far as a person could see. The suspect had run roughly 50 feet through the rear yard and squatted next to the fence mumbling to himself in Spanish. He still held both the machete and the severed head.
Evans approached the man with his weapon drawn and ordered the man to drop the machete. Evans didn t speak Spanish, and when the man got up and started moving rapidly along the fence, the only thing Evans could think to say was, Alto, Alto! ( Stop, Stop! )
About 25 yards in the direction the suspect was rapidly walking, two children played on a swing set. A young women was alternately swinging each child to and fro, and Evans yelled to them to get inside, but they didn t hear him. As the suspect and Evans got closer to the children, the woman stopped them from swinging and looked toward Evans, but just stared at him as he screamed and waved his arms for them to get away from the area.
The suspect continued along the fence carrying the head and machete with Evans back-pedalling in front of him, praying backup would arrive. When he and the suspect got approximately 10 feet from the children and woman, the suspect veered to the left toward the children, and Evans yelled, Stop, or I ll shoot! When the suspect didn t stop, Evans fired his weapon intending to shoot the suspect in the foot. The bullet entered the suspect s shin and hit bone. The bullet travelled up the suspect s leg and lodged in his heart.
Evans approached the man and removed the machete from his hand. At this point his backup arrived, along with the ambulance. Evans knelt on one knee and vomited again and again.
The suspect was pronounced dead upon arrival at a local hospital.
Who Investigates This Shooting?
Given the totality of the circumstances described above, who determines whether Officer Evans was legally justified in shooting the suspect?
The use of deadly force by a police officer is the only case in which a representative of our government can legally kill another person (under state statutes) without prior judicial review. Because of this awesome power, the investigation surrounding an officer s use of deadly force must be as thorough, unbiased and scientific as humanly possible.
In earlier times, investigators from the involved officer s department would have complete control of the investigation and submit their findings and recommendations to the chief, and the chief would make the final determination whether an officer s actions were justifiable under statutes. Over time, social concerns were raised as to whether investigators from the same department as the involved officer could conduct an unbiased investigation.
So, although there is some variation across the United States, in many areas an outside agency now gets involved in the investigation of officer-involved shootings. This results in two, overlapping investigations occurring at the same time: a department s internal investigation of the shooting, and an external investigation by the outside agency.
Although the two investigations may be combined and investigators may work together, there are differences in the investigations purposes. The office of a state attorney/prosecutor, for instance, would seek to determine whether the use of deadly force was legally justified. An internal investigation has the added purpose of determining whether the officer followed department policy and procedure in the use of deadly force. So, technically the officer could be legally justified, but face some sort of progressive discipline for violating a departmental rule. For example, firing a warning shot might not be prohibited under state law but clearly violate department policy.
What s the Measuring Stick?
What standard should investigators use to determine if the use of deadly force is justifiable? There are several different, intertwining standards. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694) that Deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape of (the felon) and (emphasis added) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Individual state statutes may be more restrictive than that. For example, Connecticut CGS Sec., 53a-22 states Deadly force may not be used to make an arrest or apprehend a fleeing suspect unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others and if, where feasible, he has given warning of his intent to use deadly physical force. Note the difference between federal and state guidelines.
The key definition in both is serious physical injury. This is often defined as physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious disfigurement or serious impairment of health, or loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.
All of these standards and accompanying definitions are somewhat subjective in that the courts have repeatedly ruled that a police officer s use of deadly force is judged by the totality of circumstances in each individual case as viewed through the eyes of the officers at the time of the incident, not based on 20/20 hindsight.
This brings us to the underlying key to judging any police action: Were the officer s actions reasonable and prudent given the totality of circumstances in the individual case? Because the variables affecting whether an officer s actions are reasonable and prudent in a specific case are subjective, the primary purpose of the investigation is to gather factual evidence to make such a determination.
Final Thoughts
An independent review by qualified personnel from another agency of an officer s use of deadly force offers several advantages. It mitigates the claims of bias from the community, and those who have standing in the case that often arise during an internal investigation. And because civil lawsuits often follow officer-involved shootings, an outside-agency investigation and review may help distance the officer and department from interrogatory and in-court questioning.
It s difficult to imagine a police department that does not have a policy and procedure on the use of deadly force. If yours does not, make it an immediate priority.
Officer Dan Evans
Officer Dan Evans was found to be legally justified in using deadly force, but he would never be the same again. The investigation and subsequent finding took six months. Evans never came back to the job. He never married his high school sweetheart. After the shooting, he suffered from a debilitating post traumatic stress syndrome leading to manic depression.
After several years, the city where Evans worked took steps to terminate his employment, taking the position that a causative relationship between his work-related incident and his ability to return to work could not be proven. The police union filed suit, and, after several more years, the city settled out of court. Evans now receives a police pension.
I saw Evans last year in a local supermarket but didn t recognize him at first. After talking to him for a while, I went back to my car and silently sobbed. Where were the princes of the city when Evans needed them? What happens to the tall man in blue when all have forgotten a bright summer day that turned dark and gray? The inconvenient truth is that we have forgotten the original meaning of the words the thin blue line.