Officer-involved shootings are often judged within hours, sometimes minutes, based on limited footage and incomplete information. What’s rarely visible is the investigative and legal process that follows, or how decisions are evaluated in real time rather than in hindsight.
Officer Involved Shootings 101
One of my responsibilities as a homicide detective was investigating officer-involved shootings and use-of-force related deaths. The role of the investigator is not to justify a shooting, but to collect facts, statements, and video evidence related to the incident and submit that information to a legal entity that can determine whether a shooting was legally justified or not. The investigations I conducted focused solely on potential criminal charges related to a shooting, not policy or administrative violations. I’ll discuss that distinction at the end of this writing.
The most important factor to consider in an officer-involved shooting is what the involved officer perceived at the time force was used. A U.S. Supreme Court decision, Graham v. Connor (1989), provides the legal framework used to determine the legality of a shooting. Officials consider the severity of the crime committed by the person against whom force was used. They also evaluate whether the officer had a reasonable belief that the subject posed an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury. I emphasize “immediate” because the actions must be occurring at the time force is used, not something that could happen or might happen. Another factor considered is whether the subject was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. The courts have been very clear that an officer’s actions must be judged based on the moment force was used, not with “20/20 hindsight.”
The investigator must interview the officer who used force to understand what the officer knew prior to the incident, what occurred during the incident, and what the officer ultimately perceived as a threat at the moment force was used. During the interview, the officer will discuss their training and experiences that contributed to their decision-making. If assigned to a specialized unit, they may also explain additional firearms training and prior incidents they learned from.
After the involved officer has provided a thorough account of their actions, the investigator may present additional information uncovered during the investigation, including video surveillance or body-worn camera footage. It is important to remember that just because something is captured on video does not mean the officer saw it or was aware of it at the time. Again, the courts have made it clear that decisions made in split seconds cannot be judged with “20/20 hindsight.”
As an investigator, I reviewed numerous officer-involved shooting videos. I watched the actions of every officer frame by frame, analyzing exactly what they were doing. I examined the precise moment an officer’s firearm discharged and the subject’s actions at and just prior to that moment. I compared the subject’s actions to the officer’s responses and documented how officers reacted in real time. I spent hours and often days reviewing video, officer statements, civilian statements, radio traffic, and even text messages exchanged between police vehicles to produce an accurate and thorough report. I also compared trajectory measurements taken at the scene with autopsy findings and wound trajectories documented by the medical examiner.
In Maricopa County, investigators had 90 days to submit officer-involved shooting investigation findings unless the county attorney’s office requested it sooner. When we submitted a case, we provided large binders containing all relevant reports and documentation. In addition, we presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the facts, including video footage, video stills, scene photographs, and any other pertinent evidence. The county attorneys would then deliberate as part of the Critical Incident Review Board and determine whether the shooting was legally justified.
If the shooting was deemed not legally justified, the officer could be charged criminally, and the case would typically proceed to a preliminary hearing.
A preliminary hearing is essentially a mini-trial. The state presents witnesses to a judge to support its claim that the officer acted criminally. The defense is not permitted to call its own witnesses, but defense counsel may question the state’s witnesses and present legal arguments on the officer’s behalf. This differs from a grand jury proceeding, where the state presents its case to a panel of citizens who decide whether charges should be issued. In a grand jury, the defense is not present and cannot question witnesses or make statements.
I have testified in a preliminary hearing involving an officer-involved shooting that was considered questionable and referred by the county attorney for criminal charges. I spent three days on the witness stand answering questions from both the prosecution and the defense. The questions focused on my investigation, including witness statements, video analysis, and expert testimony regarding the physiological effects officers experience during unpredictable and violent encounters. After several days of deliberation, the judge dismissed the case, finding that the officer reasonably believed an immediate threat existed at the time force was used. Criminal charges were dropped, and the case was dismissed.
As I mentioned earlier, being exonerated criminally does not shield an officer from policy or administrative consequences. In the incident referenced above, the officer was ultimately terminated after the department concluded that department policy had been violated. That determination resulted from a separate administrative investigation focused solely on policy compliance. In short, an officer can violate department policy and still not be criminally liable for a shooting.
I’m not writing this to change anyone’s mind. As a society, we are often emotionally driven, and once we form an opinion, we tend to cling to it regardless of additional facts or differing perspectives. All I can offer is insight into what goes into a real officer-involved shooting investigation beyond simply watching a video and confirming a preconceived conclusion. Most facts surrounding a shooting are never immediately made public, and when they are, it’s often months or years later, after public attention has shifted elsewhere. In the court of public opinion, what is said in the first 48 hours is usually what sticks. That isn’t necessarily the truth, it’s just what we’re told.
Get your copy of On Call Today.
