S. Lamar Sims, Esq. October 6, 2015 James A. GutietTez, Esq. Matthew E. Meyer, Esq. Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys Office of the Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 RE: Investigation into the officer-involved shooting ofTamir Rice which occurred at Cudell Park, 1910 West Boulevard, Cleveland, OH, on November 22,2014. Gentlemen: () In July of this year, you requested I review the case investigation into the death of Tamir Rice which resulted from shots fired by Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Loehmann. When you made the request, I advised you that I was not a member of the Bar of the State of Ohio and had never practiced law in that jurisdiction. You indicated you understood that and that the review would be based on my experience investigating officer-involved shootings in Denver, Colorado, 1 and my experience in teaching Federal and Colorado laws regarding use of force at seminars and at law enforcement service academies. Based upon that understanding, I agreed to review the case file and I have now completed that review. The factual determinations made below are based solely on the materials you provided. Based upon my review of those facts and the legal doctrines discussed below, I conclude that Officer Loehmann's actions were objectively reasonable as that term is defined by controlling Federal case law. FACTS The investigation appears to be complete and thorough. For purposes of my analyses, there are four separate areas to consider: I) the statements of witnesses regarding Tamir Rice's activities in the hours and minutes before the shooting; 2) the information provided to Officer Loehmann, # 1231, and his partner Officer Frank Garmback, #1582, before and as they responded to the scene; 3) the shooting incident {) 1 I have been a member of the team which investigates officer-involved shootings in Denver since 1989. My participation begins with the initial call-out and continues tlu·ough the legal analysis and ultimate charging decision. () itself; and 4) relevant observations of first responders who arrived immediately after the shooting. The investigation concerns the fatal shooting ofTamir Rice ("Rice"), DOB 2, by Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Loehmann on Saturday, November 22, 2014, at the City of Cleveland Cudell Park, 1910 West Boulevard, Cleveland, OH. Within the grounds of the park is the Cudell Recreation Center (the "Rec Center"). Cement walkways lead to and from the entrance of the Rec Center. One of the walkways leads to a parking lot and also to a hexagonally shaped gazebo which, according to police reports is "approximately 200' south of the recreation center entrance." A short distance south of the gazebo "is a park playground pad that also has a swing set that was approximately 50' from the gazebo."2 The shooting occurred at the gazebo. 3 The shooting occurred at about 3:30 p.m. Local weather reports from that date show the high temperature for the day was 49 degrees Fahrenheit and the low temperature was 16 degrees Fahrenheit. The snow depth was marked at 1.2 inches and precipitation was measured at 0.16 inches. Visibility was 9.2 miles. This report and surveillance video from the scene indicate weather was not a factor. () Rice frequented the Rec Center. According to at least one witness he was there almost daily. 4 On this Saturday, Rice walked to the Rec Center with a friend of his, According to they were accompanied by Rice's sister and a In a video-recorded statement provided to investigators from the cousin of Cayahoga County Sheriffs Department on March 11, 2015, informed them that he had with him a "toy gun" his father had given him. The gun had been purchased at Walmart. stated the gun was spring activated and held twelve "rainbow colored" pellets. further stated that, at some point before the day in question, the gun had been broken and he fixed it but when he did so he was unable to get the orange safety tip back on the end of the muzzle. 5 told investigators that Rice asked him whether he could see the gun, as he had seen it before and knew possessed it ( was carrying it in his bag). According to he agreed to loan Rice the gun in return for an old cell phone Rice possessed, adding, "I told [Rice] to be careful and to make sure, if anybody' s around, to stated he saw Rice put the gun in his front coat pocket. He later put it away." stated he warned Rice that someone might think it was real, after which he saw Rice move the gun to his back pocket. made it clear to investigators that when he gave Rice the gun, it did not have the orange safety tip. left the Rec Center some time before the shooting incident. 2 See, Cleveland Police Department Homicide file (redacted), page 14. 3 See the photos attached on page 15 and 17. video statement, recorded May 14, 2015. 5 The gun was, in fact, a spring powered air soft "Colt 1911 Target Pistol." Crime scene photos of the gun are found at page 16 and 17. It will be referred to as the "air soft" or the "gun." 4 1.) 2 See, Several witnesses saw Rice with the gun on the afternoon of the shooting. Two of them were other juveniles who knew Rice, , and . in the company of his father, provided investigators with an audio recorded statement on April2, 2015; in the company of his grandmother, gave a video recorded statement on the same day. told investigators that he and were friends. The two of them were walking to the Rec Center in the early afternoon and they saw Rice outside of the stated Rec Center playing with what referred to as the "BB gun." "[Rice] had it out when I walked up ... he was shooting it at a trailer, or something." An investigator asked whether this was taking place "over by the swings" and responded in the affirmative. According to Rice was with "some other little boy" whom he did not know, adding "They were waiting for the gym to open." () stated that Rice kept the gun, which he described as "all black," in his waistband, on the left side, with the barrel was pointing down and the butt or handle just above the waist band and that he would lift up his jacket to get to the handle. admitted that he asked Rice to let him shoot the gun and Rice did so. The investigators showed a crime scene photo and he identified the gun in the photo as the gun he was describing. Durin~ the course of the interview, investigators showed a surveillance video clip and he identified himself, Rice and some others. He also confirmed the accuracy of footage on the video that shows Rice shooting "at a car." reaffirmed that Rice put the gun back in his waistband and showed them that action on the video. (One of the interviewers noted that this took place at "15:10" on the video time stamp.) and left Rice and entered the Rec Center. A short while later stated they were out they went outside through a back door of the Rec Center. back when they heard gunshots. He thought he heard three shots "the first two were real quick" and then there was brief pause- maybe a second- and then the third pop. Neither he nor witnessed the actual shooting. An investigator asked about Rice's apparent age and responded, "He was big, ya, he was big. But he didn't look like he'd be older than 16." The eleven year old largely corroborated statement. He told investigators he and walked together to the Rec Center and an·ived at about 2:30 p.m. Rice and his sister were in the park when they atTived but he and did not join them at that time. Instead, they went into the Rec Center for a while. The two boys went back outside and found Rice and another boy shooting "the BBs" at the tires of some cars parked in the lot. told investigators that at some point, he, and Rice were handling the gun and Rice was pointing the gun at people, adding that although Rice was just playing, "some people probably thought it was real." 6 ) The Rec Center has a number of video surveillance cameras which capture areas inside the Rec Center and on the grounds around the Rec Center. The materials I was provided included surveillance videos labeled by camera number (e.g., camera# 1). 3 () Witness , was another person who knew Rice and saw him with the gun that afternoon. In her statement to investigators, advised that she was a high school student who taught "atts and crafts" for credit at the Rec Center. Rice was one of the individuals whom she taught. She indicated Rice was at the center every day and she knew and liked him. told investigators she was walking home past the Rec Center when she saw Rice sitting on the swings and she walked over to talk to him. According to Rice appeared to be playing with a handgun which she described as black with an "orange tip" at the end. 7 She told investigators she asked Rice "is that real?" and he responded in the negative. In her words, "first, I thought it was real. I'm like, little kids shouldn't be coming around with real guns." Rice then showed her the "little green, little, plastic little balls" used as ammunition. 8 claimed that before leaving the park she warned Rice, '"Stay out of trouble!' I'm like 'don't do nothing stupid. Just be careful.' " Investigators located two additional two witnesses who indicated they saw Rice . Neither with the gun that afternoon: and man was acquainted with Rice. () gave a video interview to investigators on March 20, 2015, in which he stated he had gone to Rec Center because he was a "supervisor of the Cleveland Old Tymers Basketball Team." told investigators he arrived at the Rec Center about 20 minutes before 2 p.m. and, as he parked, he saw "a young man. He's got a gun. He's right at the end of the sidewalk, pointing it down [demonstrating with his right hand]." stated he was sitting in his car, and the male (Rice), was "maybe 20 feet" from him when this action occutTed. The two made eye contact and then Rice turned and walked toward [the gazebo]. stated he saw no one else in the area but a shortly thereafter claimed saw one person come out of the Rec Center, get in a car and leave. he was not alarmed because "there was no one out there" and he was focused on checking in the people who were coming to the basketball practice. Nonetheless, he remained sitting in his car until two people arrived and entered the Rec Center, at which point he got out of his car and went inside. described the gun as "black." When asked whether he thought it was a real or fake gun he responded, "I'm not a gun person.... .it was black, and I called it a gun black in color." also told investigators that when he first saw the kid with the gun he thought he was around 12 years old. 9 7 ) Later in the interview, stated she "could tell "it was a fake gun because of the orange tip." This statement is troubling. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the orange safety tip had been removed from the gun before Rice obtained it on November 22,2014. statement on this aspect is simply not credible but it serves no useful purpose to speculate whether she is mistaken or prevaricating on this point. 8 described the projectiles the gun fired as "green" but transparent or translucent. recalled them as being orange. 9 is the only witness, to whom Rice was unknown, who estimated Rice to be 12 years of age. Rice's apparent age as perceived by witnesses will be discussed below. 4 1) provided investigators with a video interview on March 5, 2015. He stated that he had arrived at the park in the early afternoon and was sitting at a table, drinking a beer and waiting for the bus. 10 Investigators asked when he first saw responded that Rice and specifically what Rice was doing. [Rice] was being a gangster. He kept reaching in his crotch, and then when I finally seen the gun, it was time to make the call [to 911]. Cuz I didn't know! Should I get up and leave? Was he going to shoot me in the back? I don't know!" said Rice, whom he guessed to be about 18 years old, was alone when he saw him and he kept reaching into his "crotch" [demonstrating a person pulling at his waistband.] He told investigators Rice's actions "scared" him and it was not until Rice "finally went over and sat down, that's when I left." He stated that Rice went over to the "swing set" [and] "he turned his back to me and that was my time to leave." stated that he watched Rice for about 20 minutes and that Rice was "pulling it [the gun] 11 out" and pointing it. He told investigators he thought the gun was real and, when Rice walked over to the swing set, he called 911, adding "I just wanted to get out of there, you know? But I wanted to make sure I got out safe." s 911 call came in at 3:19p.m. The transcript of the relevant part of the call reads: ( ) I'm sitting her [sic] in the park by West Boulevard by the West Boulevard Rapid Transit Station. There's a guy with a pistol. It's probably fake, but he's like pointing it at everybody. [A brief conversation follows regarding the specific location.] Call Taker: What's the name of the park? Cudell? Cudell, yes. Guy keeps pulling it in and out of his pants. It's probably fake, but you know what? It's scaring the shit out of me. Call Taker: What does he look like? He has a camouflage hat on. He has a gray, gray coat with black sleeves [and] gray pants on. Call Taker: Is he black or white? I'm sorry. Call Taker: Is he black or white? He's black: Call Taker: You said a camel jacket and grey pants? No, he has on a camouflage hat on. You know what that is? Call Taker: Yes. Desert Storm and his jacket is gray, and it's got black sleeves on it. He's sitting on a swing right now, but he keeps pulling it in and out of his pants, and pointing it at people. He's probably a juvenile, you know. The Cleveland 911 emergency system relies on a network of call takers and dispatchers. The call takers handle 911, Fire, EMS and non-emergent calls. When a call J 10 11 5 Video surveillance shows The actual 911 call shows that arrived at the park at 2:52p.m. was unsure whether the gun was in fact real. taker receives the call, he or she will obtain the pertinent information and then send the call, electronically, to the dispatcher assigned to the area where the incident occurred (for police dispatch purposes, the city is divided into five districts.) The call taker enters the infmmation into the Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD") system and it is sent by the CAD to the dispatcher who has the actual responsibility of communicating the call to the assigned police cars. The information provided to the dispatcher is that which is typed into the CAD system by the call taker. The CAD tape reflects what appears to be an initial conversation between two dispatchers regarding call: Dispatcher: Urn, hey, we have a code 112 accidental. Everybody's tied up on priorities. Supposed to be a guy sitting on the swings pointing a gun at people. Dispatcher: What do you have the cars on? Check their status's [and] see if one of them is on 13 break. The first dispatcher responds that two cars were on calls and then goes on the air and inquires of two cars, "Charlie 21 and Charlie 24," whether either was able to "break for this code 1." Charlie 21 advises that it can break for the call and then this exchange occurs over the air: Adam 2-5: We'll take it. The alarm check's OK. Dispatcher: Alright, thanks. Charlie 20 [21 ?] just disregard then. Alright, it's at Cudell Rec Center, 1910 West Boulevard, 1-9-1-0 West Boulevard. calling. He said in the park by the youth center there's a black male sitting on a swing. He's wearing a camouflage hat, a gray jacket with black sleeves. He keeps pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people. () Immediately after ADAM 25 takes the call, car ADAM 26 advises that the call is in their "zone" and that they will take it. This occurs at 3:28p.m. However, ADAM 26 advises the dispatcher it is some distance away and the dispatcher asks ADAM 25 to continue in and assist. The patrol car designated "ADAM 25" was manned by Officers Garmback and Loehmann. Officer Garmback was driving; Officer Loehmann was the passenger. Officer Loehmann was a probationary officer who had begun his field training in August of2014. 14 His training officer on this day was Officer Garmback. 12 ') The Cleveland dispatch system categorizes calls by priority. I was provided no information regarding the "code" levels and their meanings. The fact that cars are asked to break from other calls suggest a Code 1 is a high priority call. 13 The transcript reads "on break." The actual wording may be "can break"- the taped conversation is not clear. 14 Officer Loehmann had previously served as a patrol officer for Independence, OH, in 2012. His records indicate he resigned that position in December of2012 and applied for several other police agencies. including the Cleveland, OH, police department. 6 Officers Garmback and Loehmann arrived on the scene at 3:30 p.m. 15 Neither Officer Garmback nor Officer Loehmann made statements to investigators however surveillance video provides substantial details regarding the actual shooting incident. When the officers arrived, Rice was sitting alone at the gazebo. The officers' police car approached from the south and drove through the park grounds to the gazebo, travelinf. at an estimated speed of approximately 19 mph before it slowed to a stop at the 6 gazebo. The police car was a fully marked patrol car; both officers were in full Cleveland Police Uniforms. () Surveillance video camera #I provides video of the incident, viewing the gazebo from the west. There are three tables in the gazebo and Rice is sitting at the northermnost table. At 3:30:13, according to time stamp on the surveillance video, Rice stands up. He takes three or four steps toward the west side of the gazebo and in the direction of the approaching police car. When Rice first stands and walks in the direction of the approaching police car, his hands appear to be out of his pockets and midway between his waist and chest. The patrol car comes into frame at 3:30:19. As the police car comes to a stop, Rice's hands drop to his waistband area. When the police car stops, Rice is standing abeam the "A" pillar and, it appears from the video, that he is in close proximity to the patrol car. Rice's hands continue to move toward his waistband, however, the video is grainy and it is unclear - from the video - whether Rice reaches for his gun. At 3:30:23, Officer Loehmann's passenger door opens. At almost the same moment, Rice begins to fall to the ground. The evidence thus suggests that this is the point at which Rice was shot. Officer Loehmann is seen getting out of the vehicle and moving rapidly around the back of the police car to a position behind the rear of the police car on the driver's side. His handgun is drawn and aimed in Rice's direction. At the same time, Officer Garmback gets out of the driver's seat and moves around the front of the police car to a position near the push bumper at the right headlight. He, too, has his pistol drawn. The officers arrive at their respective positions of cover at 3:30:32 p.m. The critical events took place in less than I 0 seconds. The officers continue to hold Rice, who is on the ground and can no longer be seen from this camera angle, at gunpoint. Officer Garmback moves around to the north side of the gazebo and appears to make a radio call. CAD records indicate the "shots fired" call was made at 13:31:51. 17 The dispatch audio details Officer Garmback's ("ADAM 25") radio transmission: Radio, urn, shots fired! Male down. Urn, black male, maybe 20 [years old]. Black revolver- black handgun. Send EMS this way. And a road boss. Dispatcher: Are you, this is at Cudell? Are you at Cudell? ADAM 2-5: 15 ') See time stamp from surveillance video camera #1. See, also, Ohio State Highway Patrol Reconstruction Report 2015-304-00, p. 10. 16 Ohio State Highway Patrol Reconstruction Report, page 42. 17 I found no evidence in the files indicating the CAD times and the surveillance time stamps from the Cudell videos were based on same source or otherwise synchronized. Any minor differences between the two times are not dispositive in this investigation. 7 ADAM 2-5: Yes, ma'am. At Cudell. [Unintelligible] got a gunshot wound to the abdomen. ADAM 2-1: (another patrol car): Are they OK down there? ADAM 2-5: We're fine. My rookie hurt his ankle. C) Other police cars monitored the call and began responding to the Rec Center. One of those cars was an undercover unit driven by Cleveland Police Detective Daniel Lentz, who was working that day with FBI Special Agent Det. Lentz and provided Agent were nearby and were the first cover officers to arrive. Agent investigators with a detailed written statement and thereafter, on February 27,2015, provided an audio-recorded interview. In the recorded interview, Agent estimated he and Det. Lentz arrived on scene within "maybe 3 minutes." Det. Lentz went to assist Officers Garmback and Loehmarm who were attempting to keep bystanders away from the scene. Agent who had served in the U.S. Marine Corps and in November of 2014 was a member of the Air Force National Guard, had been trained as a paramedic and was "a national registered paramedic." He immediately went to Rice to render aid. He saw Rice had suffered a serious abdominal wound which he was able to see because "his shirt was kind of pulled up and his coat was open." Agent quickly concluded that Rice would need surgery to survive his wound and worked to assure Rice had an open airway. Agent told investigators he thought Rice "was like an older teenager; like eighteen-ish." () Agent administered first aid to Rice until Cleveland paramedics and firefighters arrived on scene. He then went to check on Officer Loehmarm who, he had been advised, had suffered an injury. In his written statement, Agent provided this information: After exiting the ambulance [in which Rice had been placed] I directed my attention to the injured CPD officer who was seated in the front passenger side of a CPD zone car. The officer was holding his ankle close to his body, and appeared to be distraught and in significant pain. I asked the officer if he was okay, and he advised that he had injured his ankle during the incident. I informed the CPD officer that another EMS unit was en route to treat and transpmt him to the hospital. The CPD officer advised me that he would be okay until EMS arrived, and did not require any medical treatment at this time. The officer made a spontaneous utterance that the suspect had a gun and reached for it, after he told the suspect to show his hands and not to reach for it. On May 28,2015, Det. Daniel Lentz gave a video recorded interview to were in the area investigators. He stated that he and FBI Special Agent investigating a bank robbery which had occurred the day before when they heard a radio call in which an "officer called out yelling 'shots fired."' They realized they were close to the location and drove to Cudell Park. The two investigators were in an undercover detective car and Detective Lentz stated that, as they arrived, he activated his emergency lights because we didn't know what we were approaching. Just knew there was a call for shots fired. I didn't know if there was an active shooter. I didn't know if the officers had been shot or if they had shot someone else. Or just shots fired in general. ) 8 (') Det. Lentz stated they arrived on the scene at about 3:33 p.m. He told investigators he got out of his police car and was immediately met by Officer Loehmann, who was limping and appeared injured. Det. Lentz recalled that he asked Officer Loehmann several times to sit down and wait for paramedics. Det. Lentz recalled Officer Loehmann saying he hurt his leg when he "exited the vehicle." Det. Lentz then began working on securing the crime scene - asking citizens to stay back. Det. Lentz stated that he saw the "subject" on the ground and that Special Agent was attempting to administer what appeared to Det. Lentz to be advanced first aid/medical aid. He therefore began working on securing the crime scene as several citizens were approaching the area. "At some point" while he was so engaged, he became aware of Rice's handgun which was "was within the vicinity" of Rice and the officers. Det. Lentz was focused on officer safety and scene security so he went over and looked at the gun. I think I squatted next to it. It was at that point- it was separated. The magazine was out of the weapon. It appeared to be, uh, similar in nature to a Colt 1911 [semi-automatic pistol]. He then went to look at the magazine which had fallen a short distance away from the gun and, on "a secondary look, I saw like a green BB which confused me. Cuz the gun looked very real to me." () When asked of his initial impressions of Rice's age, his response was "my initial thought, when I saw him? And then what his sister18 told me in the car that he was 12, didn't really match up in my mind. The male that was on the ground was rather large." When asked, specifically, what was his initial impression of Rice's age, Det. Lentz replied, "Ifl had to guess, probably seventeen. Eighteen." Officer Loehmann was armed with Glock 17, 9mm semi-automatic pistol. This firearm has a 17-round magazine and may be can·ied with an additional cartridge in the chamber. Investigators at the scene recovered two spent shell casings. The pistol was submitted to the Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory ("Police Lab") along with 16 live cartridges. Officer Loehmann fired two shots. An autopsy was performed on Rice's body by Dr. Thomas Gilson, the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner on November 24, 2014. Dr. Gilson determined that Rice "died as a result of a gunshot wound to the abdomen which injured his inferior vena cava, intestines and pelvis. The decedent was shot by law enforcement during legal intervention." Rice was shot once. The bullet was removed at autopsy and submitted to the Police Lab. Forensic analysts confirmed it was fired from Officer Loehmann's pistol. Dr. Gilson also found that Rice was 67 inches in height (5 '7") and weighed 195 lbs. ) 18 9 Rice's sister was one of the first citizens to arrive on scene after the shooting. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS () The legal issues in this investigation center around self-defense and reasonableness of the use of deadly force by a police officer. It appears the primary sources of Ohio law regarding self-defense and use of deadly force by law enforcement officers derives from common law and case law. 19 In Ohio, Self-defense is an affirmative defense that requires a defendant to prove tiuee elements by a preponderance of the evidence: "(!) the defendant was not at fault in creating the violent situation, (2) the defendant had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force, and (3) that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger." [Citation.] State v.GojJ, 942 N.E. 2"d 1075, 1082 (Ohio 2010). C) As I stated at the outset, I do not practice in Ohio and it would be inappropriate for me to engage in an analysis or application of Ohio law. It is for Ohio attorneys to determine and resolve issues with regards to Ohio self-defense laws. However, I am aware that where issues arise regarding the criminality of use of force by police officers, Ohio courts have looked to Federal constitutional analysis and principles. In its recent decision in State v. White, ~N.E. 3rd ~(Ohio 2015), slip op. 2015 WL 687461(0hio), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the United States Supreme Comt's rulings in T(!nnessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, (1985) and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) provide the framework for reviewing criminal prosecutions of officers involved in deadly force encounters, stating: Although the [U.S.] Supreme Court's decisions in Garner and Graham involved an officer's civil liability of deprivation of civil rights under color oflaw, these cases nonetheless help to define the circumstances in which the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to use deadly and non-deadly force. Courts therefore apply Garner and Graham in reviewing criminal convictions arising from a police officer's use of deadly force. White, slip op. at 24-25. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discuss the principles established in Garner and Graham as they may be seen to apply to the facts of this case. In Garner, the Court addressed the "constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon." 471 U.S. at 3. The Court first held that when an officer has restrained the freedom of a person to walk away, the officer has seized the person and "there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment." 471 U.S. at 7. The Court went on to find that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally ) 19 Ohio has codified the "castle doctrine". Ohio Revised Code §2901.05. That provision is not applicable to this case. 10 unreasonable. on to note: 20 However, and of critical importance to the instant case, the Court went Where an officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officers or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon ... deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, ... 471. U.S. at 11 [italics added.] In Graham, the Supreme Court returned to the question of whether and how to apply the constitutional standards set forth in Garner to allegations of excessive physical force by law enforcement officers. The Graham Court, after confirming that the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard also applies to excessive force claims arising out an arrest or investigatory stop of a citizen, set f01th guidelines for applying the standard: Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the " 'the nature and qualify of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interest'" against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. . .. its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each patticular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempt to evade arrest by flight. 490 U.S. at 396 (italics added). C) Of particular importance in the context of the Rice investigation is the statement next made by the Court: The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. ... The calculus of reasonable must embody allowance for the fact that police offices are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. 490 U.S. at 396-97. The Ohio court reaffirmed that, in deadly force encounters, Garner stands for the principle that "a peace officer acts reasonably in using deadly force when the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm or death to the officers or to others." White, slip op at _. In determining the reasonableness of an officer's actions, close attention must be focused on what the officer knew or reasonably should have known at the time in determining whether a reasonable officer could have concluded the subject posed a threat of serious physical harm or death or whether there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical hmm. ... ) · 20 At issue in Garner was the constitutionality of a Tennessee statute authorizing the use of all necessary means to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. II DISCUSSION Determining whether Officer Loehmann's actions were objectively reasonable requires a careful analysis of the circumstances surrounding the officers' attempt to contact Rice with particular emphasis on the facts known to Officer Loehmann at the time and such reasonable inferences as may be drawn from those facts. Officers Garmback and Loehmann were responding to a call of a party with a gun at a park and recreation center. Additional information was that the party was said to be pulling the gun out of his pants and pointing it at people. They were provided no more facts other than a description of the suspect's clothing and a possible location. A "gun" call suggests to any reasonable officer that there is a concern for his safety and the safety of others, particularly where the officer is responding to a location where there may be children and young people - such as a park and recreational center - and where the suspect is said to be aiming the weapon at people. When responding to such a call, a reasonable officer may either remove his firearm from its holster or place his hand on the holstered gun. As they arrived, Officer Garmback drove the patrol car to the gazebo where one party was located. He approached and stopped in such fashion that Officer Loehmann was in a position of great peril- he was within feet of a gunman who had stood up, was approaching the police car and reaching toward his waistband. 21 The officers did not create the violent situation- they were responding to a situation fraught with the potential for violence to citizens. () As neither of the involved officers made a statement, the evidence available in the materials I reviewed regarding the immediate threat Officer Loehmann perceived is found, first, in the video showing Rice's movements as the police approached, second, in the statement Officer Loehmann blurted out to Agent that suspect had a gun and reached for it, and third, and as can be seen on the video,22 in Officer Loehmann's rapid exit from the car and immediate retreat from an exposed position to a position of cover. These facts, considered together suggest, Officer Loehmann was reacting to an immediate threat resulting from the actions of a gunman. When viewed through the prism mandated by Garner and White, Officer Loehmann's decision to shoot to protect himself from that threat is objectively reasonable. Of particular import is the statement he made to Agent I am mindful that this case has resulted in great controversy, much of it ·stemming from three facts: 1), Rice's age; 2), the fact Rice was armed with an airsoft pistol; and 3), the short time between the officers' arrival on scene and the shots fired. Neither Rice's age nor the nature of his weapon were known to the responding 21 ·.) The Cuyahoga County Sheriffs investigation concluded Rice was within seven feet of Officer Loehmann when Officer Loehmann discharged his weapon. Cuyahoga County Sheriffs Final Synopsis, June 2, 2015, ~.4 2 The fact that Officer Loehmann injured his ankle getting out of the car is evidence of a rapid or "panic" exit 12 () C) officers. However, the statements of the witnesses compel the conclusion a reasonable officer responding to the call would have believed Rice was an older teen or young adult. Rice was 5'7" and 195 lbs. When Officer Garmack made the "shots fired" call, he told the dispatcher, "Male down. Urn, black male, maybe 20 [years old]." Det. Lentz first who had watched Rice for several thought Rice was 17 or 18 years old. n who minutes, told the 911 call taker Rice was "probably a juvenile." knew Rice, told investigators, "[h]e was big, ya, he was big. But he didn't look like he'd be older than 16." The gun Rice possessed was not, in fact, a functioning firearm. That Loehmann perceived it to be a real gun was, in retrospect, erroneous. 23 However, "searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact can be reasonable." Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct 530, 536 (2014). "The limit is that 'mistakes must be those of reasonable men.' Brinegar, [338 U.S.] at 176, 69. S.Ct.1302." Ibid. The issue is, in short, could a reasonable police officer have believed Rice's gun was a real firearm. The answer must the juvenile who gave Rice the gun, clearly be answered in the affirmative. told investigators when she first saw the gun warned him it looked real. her thought processes were, "first, I thought it was real, I'm like, little kids shouldn't be admitted that coming around with real guns." The eleven year old although he knew the gun was a toy, "some people probably thought it was real." told investigators he "saw a young man, he's got a gun .... " called 911 to report a man with a gun, adding, "it's probably fake, but, you know what? It's scaring the shit out of me." Lastly, Det. Lentz, a veteran police officer who saw the gun immediately after the shooting, first thought the gun was a "Colt 1911" semi-automatic pistol and expressed surprise when he realized it was not a firearm but an airsoft. Concerns about the interval between the officers' arrival at the gazebo and the firing of the shots are, essentially, an inquiry into the officers' tactics. The police car, driven by Officer Garmback, drove up to and stopped within ten feet of Rice as he stood up and walked toward the car. As Officer Garmback has not made a statement, I am aware of no evidence regarding this decision. However, it is critical to note that Officer Loehmaun, a "trainee" officer, was not in control of the police car. Officer Loehmann, in the passenger seat and closest to Rice when the patrol car stopped, was in a position of greater peril. In a case decided earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court wrote [I]ndeed, even if [the officers] misjudged the situation, [Respondent] Sheehan cannot "establish a Fomth Amendment violation based merely on bad tactics that result in a deadly confrontation that could have been avoided." [Citation.] Courts must not judge officers with "the 20/20 vision of hindsight." City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct 1765, 1777 (2015). To suggest that Officer Garmback should have stopped the car at another location 23 .) The threat posed by toy guns has long bedeviled law enforcement. I have attached a 1990 Bureau of Justice Statistics and Police Executive Research Forum report on "Toy Guns- Involvement in Crime & Encounters with Police." Note, particularly, the statement regarding "Circumstances Related to Police Officers Use of Force When Mistaking an Imitation Gun for a Real Gun." p. ix. 13 () is to engage in exactly the kind of "Monday morning quarterbacking" the case law exhorts us to avoid. There can be no doubt that Rice's death was tragic and, indeed, when one considers his age, heartbreaking. However, for all of the reasons discussed herein, I conclude that Officer Loehmann's belief that Rice posed a threat of serious physical harm or death was objectively reasonable as was his response to that perceived threat. I am hopeful that this discussion is of some assistance to you and those members of your office who are handling this matter. S. Lamar Sims, Esq. () ) 14 () The parking lot, gazebo .and swing set ) Rec Center, gazebo and swing set and the officers' patrol car. ) 15 16 I/?x 17 ,, . .. . ~·· .INVOLVEMENT IN GRIME &ENCOUNTERS WITH POLICE ( ~- ') · BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS d'\' ·~- ·liD··· POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FOR.UM . l .. ,, TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Lists of Dlustratlons and Figures iii · List of Tables ·v · Executive Summary vii Preface· xi SECTION I. II. ) ·III. IV. ) Introduction 1 Advisory Board 1 Research Methpds 2. Defining · the Is·sues • 5· Nature of the Incident 5 Nature of the Weapon 8 The Dynamics of Toy Gun Incidents 23 Nature of the Gall Dispatch 23 . Expectations of the Officer 23 . Environment at the Scene of the Incident 24 Shape/Design of tb.e Gun 24 Actions of the Person 25 . Crimes and Police Encounters With Toy Guns 27 Imitation Guns an,d Robberies 27 Imitation Guns and Assaults 30. Imitation Guns and the Use of Force by the i'olice 30 :} LISTS OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND FIGURES PAGE ILLUSTRATION ) 1. LARAMI "Uzi" Water Pistol 10 2 LARAMI "Magnum Series" Cap Pistol 1l 3 LARAMI Pulsar"' Water Pistol 12 4 Future Cop Laser Sound Pistol 14 5 Flash Blaster Z~Matic Pistol 15 6 Jnterdynamic 9mm Luger Pneumatic Oim 17 7 Marksman Repeater BB Pistol 19 8 MGC Manufactury .44 Caliber Replica 22 FIGU~. PAGE 1· Response Rate by TyPe of Law Enforcement Agency 2 Police Encounters by the Nature of the Incident 6 3 Gun Classifications by the Nature of the Weapon 6 4 Factors Predicating aPolice Officer's Reaction Pw:ii!g a Gun En.co1111ter 26 5 Robberies Committed Involving Imitation GilDs. Bas'Cd on Gun Type 29 6 'Assaults Committed Involving Imitation Guns Based on Gun Type · 32 7 ·Number of Reported Imitation Weapons Seized Between January 1, 1985 and September 1, 1989 · 33 Incidents Where an Officer Has Wanted or Threatened the Use of · · Force Based on the Be~iefThat an Imitation Gl!ll Was Real 34 . 8 .9 · ) . · Incidents Where an Officer Has Used Actual Force (Peadly or Less Than · .· Deadly) Based on the Belief That an Imitation Gun Was Real · .· 35 · .. () LIST OF TABLES TABLE C) ) PAGE ·1 Robberies Committed. Involving Imitation Guns Based on Gun Type .· . 27 ·2 Assaults Committed Involving Imitation Guns Based on Gun Type 30 3 Number of Reported Imitation Weapons Seized Between January 1, 1985 lind ~eptember 1, 1989 · . . . . 31 4 Incidents Where an Officer Has Warned or Threatened the Use of Force Based on the Belief That an Imitation Gun Was Real . 32 5· Incidents where an Officer Has Us~ Actual Force (bea,iny or Less Than · l>eadly).Based on the Belief That an Imitation Gun Was Real · 33. Pollee Jnvolvemont Wldt Toy Guns.. Jvlll · /) enforcement agencies were visited for the project representing an agency types included in · . · · thestudy. · · · . Characteristics of Police-Toy Gun Encounters .As the problem and issues were examined, it was determined that in order to ineet · the spirit of the study's mandate, the problem would. have to be broken .down into more operat!.onal components. Broadly viewed, circumstances involvmg toy guns ~;an be · categorized for study based on. the nature of the incident or nature of the weapon. · Nature of the Incident ... · · • Commission of a crime with an imitation. gun being intentionally used as an instrumentality of the crime. . · . · ' • Mistaken encounters when a citizen iu!d/or officer encountered aperson with a toy gun but, as a result of the. gun's appearance and the circumstances of the incident, the people involved reacted as if the gun were real. · · • ·Officer-involved shooting; in non-criminal situations where the. circumstances facing the officer reasonably appeared threatenin,g an.d/or criminal. · • Commission of a crime and/or the brandishment of a toy gun as a real weapon resulting in an officer•involved shooting.· In these cases the suspect wets involved m a () crime (or a <;riminal attempt) an~ attempted to dissuade officer intervention by acting as if the imitation weapon were real.· · Nature of the Weapon ... · ·• Toys. ·These are imitation we~pons designed with the specific intent for playing. They include Cl wide array of game types such as a child using the toy in concert with . his/her imagination (e.g., "cops and robbers");· the use of watetguns; toy guns designed for some type of "target practice' ; and the more sophisticated games such as "laser tag." . • Pnelimaitc Guns. Types ofguns using pneumatic pressure to propel s~me type ofpf!>jectil.e. The propellant system may be either throng~ an internal pump, hand operated by the person · · . using the gun or one using a compressed. C02 air cartridge. • Replica Guns. Guns that are replicas of actuai weapons. Replica· guns are full size "working" reproductions of firearms. Replicas are . . manufactured so they. are unable to fiJre, Major Finding$ . . • ·Between January 1, 1985 aitd September 1, 1989, ~58 police departments (65.5% · of the study population) reported 5,654 robberies known to be committed with an imitation gun. Robbery investi~ators interviewed estimated that, on a:p. average, 15% of a1l robberies· were committed .with unitation guns.. . · . . . . . • In the same time period, police departments reported. 8,128 known assaults with imitation guns. · . · · · . . · · : . · · . . . J Ponca Involvement Wllh Toy GUn$ .../ll • Shape/Design ofthe Gun. A finding repeateH in eve;ry incident was that the shape or design of the gun was aparamount factor in the officer's decision to.shoot. · Many of the imitation guns are modeled after real Y~eapons. Even those made of plastic and with some degree of coloration are. frequently indistinguishable from . real guns, particulllrly under low light conditions. · ' . . • Actions o/the Person(s) Involved in the Incident. in the shooting incidents ·examined by the researchers, the factor· ultimately .influencing the officers' decisions to. shoot was· the actions of the individual. The actions were more than · simply pointing the weapon, but included such things as· overt thre~tening movements, shouting, and even acting like they were going to shoot at the . officer. · . Sitevisitinterviews andcomtnents on some surve;ysindicated.thatthere had been 'crimes or police encounters with imitation guns which did have marldngt. However, the data were insufficient to determine the proportion of all incidents involving guns with markings or to distinguish between the· types of guns (i.e., toy,"pneumatic, or replica). . . ) Pollc~ Involvement With To;v Ouns••./xii C) inteJ.Pretations of the collecied da~. interviews, and content analysis o£ doCuments andreports. These conclusions should not be construeli to be the opinions, or, position of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Departn'lent of Justice. The res~hers are most gra~ful to the police executives who helped us in this study and patticularly thank those law enforcement chief executives who opened their departments and availed their staff to us for the site visits. Especially important has been . the support and flexibility provided by Dr. Rob~rt Tro~anowicz, Michigan State University and Dr. Richin'd Holden, Central Missoun State University. Their . assistance truly f~ilitated tile smooth and timely colllplelion of this project We !llso extend our p-a:titude to the staff of the Police Executive Research Forum who assisted us in making arrangem!)nts and facilitating logistics on o/llicaJ!y short notice. We patticularly thank LeJtta Taylor. for his ~:~~pid work in assisting with imJ?Ortant aiTangements and Jennifer Brooks for her usual reliable assistance on a wide vanety of matters. The time.conumtment and lidvi~e of our Advisocy Board members have been important ingredients in formulatirig the final report. Their entbusiiiSm and selfless contributions are truly appreciated. We also thank our BJS Project Monitor', Paul White, for his valuable iitsights and assistance from the design com;ept through completion of the final report. · · Finally, we wo~ld like to express' our special appreciation to Captain Paul Connor of the Las .Vegas Metropoli~n Police Department. Captain ·Connor went "the · extra mile" in his preJJaration for our site visit and set important standards that have helped us immensely throughout this entire project. · · . . . . . C) ... · ) David.L. Carter East Lansing, Ml Allen D. Sapp Warrensburg, MO Darrel W. Stephens Washington, DC Polioelilvolvement With Toy GQIIJI.../l. ·survey, status repons, and intetpretations of the research team. It was the concern of the .researchers to present a balanced perspective of the problem and ensure accuracy in all . aspects of the report. As a result, the Advisory ·Board includes persons from different . ~~~trsan:.C,~xperlences which provide ~. balanced view of the issues, Advisory Board • Dr. Helen Boehm, Children's Advertising Review Unit, Council of Better Business Bureaus · · · • Detective Don Cahill, Prince Wiliiam County (VA) Police Department • Mr. Paul Estaver, National Iilstiiute of Justice • Mr. Williani Moulder, Chief of Police, ~sMoines PonCe Department • Mr:Thoma8 B. Nelson; President, Collector's Armoury, Inc. • Mr. Robertlleid, Vice President of Marketing, Daisy Manufacturing • Dr. Stanley I. Warshaw, Associate Director for Industry and Standards, National Institute of Staridards lllld Technology • Mr. Paul White, Project Monitor, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Ex-officio) Research .Methods ' ) .· The flrst step in the research process was to deflne the specific issues and goals · which needed to be exiunined to meet the Congressional mandate. This necessitilted that the researchers identify the types of toy gun incidents which have occurred and analyze them for trends or similarities. This was initially done through a content analysis' of news stories.selected through al.exis®/Nexis® computer search ofilew$ stories. (See Appendix 3 for news sources.) · . · · · · · · · · · With this analysis s~rving as the foundation; two primary· data collection · methodolosJ.es were developed and used: survey research and law enforcement. agency site visits. · · · · Survey Research. · A survey was developed which colle~ted data on the experiences of police departments with toy gun incidents. The survey was sent. to aU munjcipal police and consolidated police departments serving populations of 50,000 or more inhabitants; all sheriff's departments with 100 or more sworn employees; and aU primary state police agimcies. Of the- 699 agencies in the study population, a total · tesponse rate of 70% was received.based on 489 responses. Thin)i-one questionnaires were not. included in the analysis because they were either improperly completed, received too !a!C,. or returned withou~ being comP.l~ted. . In these ca:ses the agency acknowledged rece1vtng the survey but chose not to parttc1pate. As a result, the usable response rate was 65.5% (458 responses-·Figure 1), . By aU measures of survey research, this is an above . average response rate. (Appendix 4 shows responses by census i:egiQn of the country.). Excluding the state police agencies, the police· departments silrveyed cover slightly over one-third (33.6%) of the U.S. Population aueported in tbe-1988 Statistical Abstract of the. United Stat(lS. With respect to police acdvity, since the agencies. surveyed represent the · Pollco :irivolvorttent With Toy·Ol!nS .../4 · incidents, crlterla for site selection included jurisdiction sb:e, geographic distrlbutlon, and .agency type. (Those agencies Visited 81'0 listed in Appendii!:5,). · · . · · ·During the site visits the researchers interviewed officers involved in toy gun incidents; investiglltors; police commanders; and training personnel. Reports were also . reviewed and seized imitation guns were examined. In some cases, the researchers were . given weapons seized in toy gun incidents which were no longer needed for evidence• . While in the various site 'Visit cities, the researchers also went to stores which sold toy, . imitation, or replica guns in order to get a perspective on the natio~al imitation gun market. Pollee Involvement With Toy Guns.../6. ·Figure 2 POLICE ENCOUNTERS. BY THE · NATURE. OF THE INCIDENT Comm.lrrlon of • Crhae /) Figure 3 GUN CLASSlFICATIONS BY NATURE OF THE WEAPON NATURE OF THE IMITATION WEAPON Pollee Jitvolvement With Toy Guns .../1! /_). ·b· As illustrated by the above scenarios, fundamental distinctions can be made etween the Incident types which are useful for both analytic and descriptive purposes. Nature of the Weapon This categorization became problemadc. Weapon typ.es transgressed the viuious lncident types. Moreover, while clearly not fu:eanns, many of the guns were also not "toys''ln the traditional sense. The guns found In the Incidents may most accurate!y be described as imitations. In some Instances the weapon was not il\cluded in Public Law 100-61s requ~ments for distinctive markings. Y11t, police officials were adamant about their concern for these types of weapons, Because· of these dilemmas, ~tation weapons were categorized IntO th!ee groups (Flgure·3): . . • ToyGuns · • Pneumatic Guns • Replic:a Guns . . . Toy Guns. The first group of weapons is simply toys. These are imitation weapons designed with the specific intent for playing. They in.clude a w~d~ array of game types such as a child usine:. the IllY m conce~ with his/her imagination (e.g., •~Cop s an~ robbers ·); the use of. waterguns; toy guns destgned ~or. some type of "target practice";· and the more sophisticated games such as "laser tag." . . There is a wide viuiety of toy guns available m the market-:-too many. to c;ompletely address In tbis repo!-'f. . Instead, the research11rs ·have identified selected toy guns as illustrations. These were 11el~cted because of their prominence In identified ~ctcients; because theli characteristics "illustrate the 1ssues encountered during t!J.e course of the research• .and/or because the guns ai'e widely available. ' ,) RANCHO . CUCAMONGA, CA - Late one evening a citizen called the San Bernardino County Sherjff s Office reporting prowlers who were possibly . armed at a school. Deputies responded to the school and began a · systematic search of the premises. They obsel'lledprofiles of people moving around the school as if . they were stalking. One deputy, · · armed with ci shotgun, looked around a corner ami saw a person · approaching with a weapon In · hand that appeared to be a. "Desen Eagle'' automatic pistol. As the man .approached, the . officer yelled and ordered the man to drop the gun. Instead, the man turned, assumed a shooting position, and appear:ed to fire at the officer. The deputy fired the shotgun, spinning the man around. The man turned back in a shooting position again and the deputy f~red a second shotgun r:ound, killing the man. As the · officer approached the downed man, he kicked the gun out of his ha,nd and ''heard 'the sound of plastic." At that point the deputy learned the gun was a tay and that the man had been playing "Laser Tag." Because ofthepsychologi· cal trauma of this incident, the ·deputy, a seven-year veteran with · a good service·record, remains on disability leave and will probably not be able to return to duty. In addition, two trained reserve deputies who responded to the ·call a, the school, resigned their. commissions as a direct result of the trauma of this inciqent. SOURCE: Officer interviews and .review of incident reports during the site visit. · · in ~ attempt to ·get apers~ctive of thetypes of ~oy guns available on the ~t~arket, the researchers visited toy gun stores iii cities throughout the ·country. S~me stores were nationlll or regional chain · sto~es wbtl~ oth~rs were locally owned. ·Some · vanation extsted m the inyentory depending on the region. of the cou_ntry and, ·1t appeared, depending on · the a~tude or philosophy of the stores' management. Desptte these anomalous variaiions, some clear trends emer~ed concerning the avaUiibllity of vcuious types .. of toy p1ns. A '!umber of manufacturers (notably dotpestic c?mpames) have stopped making toy guns wh1ch rephcate real weapons. Some foreign companies still appear to be making these · · Poilcel'nvolvement Wllh Toy Guns.../10 C) Dlustration 1 LARAMI Water. Pistol Modeled After the Uzi Automatic Pistol (Seized hi Las Vegas, Nevada Involving What Appeared to be a Kidnapping)t () tThls gun is made of black plaslic,with no lllllrldngs signifying it is a tciy. ) Polioelnvolvement With Toy Guns.../12 /) ' mustrat,ion 3 ' LARAMI :Nontraditiolially Shaped PULSAR~ Water Pistolt i .. I, I . I 1 ! . f·, .. -':·. /} . .·.:' I L_ . tThis gun is made of abrl~t pink plastic. Not shown is a black plastic ,;watllr clip" which is Inserted in ~' '' ,) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : Polioo ll>.volvomellt With Toy Guns .../14 Illustration· 4 Futute Cop "Laser Sound Pistoi"-ARCO Toys Ltd./Mattelt ').· ! .· L.c ) tThis gun is made of whitll plastic. · Police rnvolvelllent With Toy Guns.../16 propellant system may be either through an internal vump, hand operated by the person using the gun or one using a compresseii·Cpparent present ability to execute· attempt, if. not The man said the driver had a ptev!'llted" [Black's Law Dictionary, West ~un_, handcuffs, and b~dge and Pubhshing Company (1968), p. 147]. · (Emphasis cla11!1ed to be a police officer. added). Whlle it is conceivable that a person could be The man further said the driver physically assailed with an imitation gun, the more pulled the .gun threatening to . likely crime is the "sinlple assault" where a person is 8hoot him, showed the badge and threatened and in fear of injury. · · . ·or4ered the man to turn over his money. The driver then forced The survey results (Table 2/Figure 6, page the man into the car, bear him 31) show notably· more assault incidents with with the handcuffs saying, "I'm imitation guns than robberies despite the fact that the law. You better be cool with there were fewer agencies reporting assaults on the the law man or I'll take care of · survey. No meaningful comparisons can be made · you." The driver continued to . betY~een tb,ese findings a:nd the Unifonn Crini.e . threaten the man with his badge Report assault data since the UCR statistics reflect · and gun . . The Houston officers only aggravated assaults. · got the driver out to investigate As a collateral issue of imitation guns and the incident and found the · · crime,· law enforcement agencies reported that driver-who had calmly remained . between January 1, 1985 and September 1; 1989 in the car--. had handcuff!, a· they had seized a total of 31,650 imitation guns badge that said "Special Police" . (Table 3/Figure 7, page 33). This does not include and a black Uzi type toy cap gun. . guns which were stolen property, only those which SOURCE: Officer interviews . were directly or indirectly involved in some incident during tlze site visit. (e.g.,. robbery, assault, domestic disturbance,· '--..;....;.._ _ _ _ _ _ _....J suspicious person, etc.) where the police took some form of action. NEW YORK, NEW YORK. While on foot patrol a New York Imitation Guns and the ·use of Force by police officer observed a man Police with the butt of what appeared to be a semiautomatic pistol sticking . · The police departments were.asked on the out of his pants. The officer survey to report the number of incidents where · pulled .his. service r.evolver, officers had warned/threatened ·to .use force or stopped the man and conducted a actually used force in a confrontation where an frisk, ·seizing the gun which inlitation gun had been mistaken for a real firearm. A turned out to be a water pistol. total of 1,128 incidents between J'linuary 1, 1985 and · The .case Involved an official ac- September 1, 1989 were reported wh~e officers had tion· of a police officer who law- warned or threatened to usr fore~ (Table 4/Figure 8, . fully stopped and frisked a citizen pa~e 34). Base~ on the Site vis1ts, the. res.e!'fchers in the course of an investigation. believe tha,t thts number may be stgmftcantly · When asked if he made a report · underreported because the incidents were sim~ly not on the incident, the officer 8tated, known to the agency•. Repeatedly when i!ltemewing ·"No, it turned out there was officers, they would talk about incidents they (or their .nothing to report: you can legally friends) had been involved in where a, person wa:s carry a watergun." SOURCE:. told to drop the gun or be shot. In nearly all the · Officer interviews during the site cases, when asked whether a reP-ort had been made on the incident, the answer was 'no.'.' visit. '· Police Involvement Wllh Toy Guns.../32 · /) Table 2 ASSAULTS COMMITTED INVOLVING. IMITATION GUNS BY GUN TYPE To~ Reelicab P.rteullillticc TOTAL 1989 (9 Months) 1988 1987 1986 .1985 TOTAl: 567 686 601 615 635 um: 128 213. 120 124 110 ~· 693 1,188 935 780 733 ~.~~ 1,388 2,087 . ·1,656 . 1,519 1,478 . · B,i~B . ·asakf Q:l 121 agencies reporting assaul18 kQown to havlf ~n committed · with a toy gun. . . . · · · bB&sed on 65 agencies reporting assaui!B kllown tO have been committed with a replica gun. · cBased on 154 agencies reix>rdng assaul18 kllown io have been committed wilh a pneumatic gun or starter's pistol. / ·.·). '• ' · Figure 6 ASSAULTS COMMITTED INVOLVING . . IMITATION GUNS BY GUN TYPE 1200 1000 800 •Toy 600 0 . 1111 f'neumatl~ . 400 200 0 . 1980 (9 inos) ) Replica 1988 1981 1986 1985 .Pollee Involvement With Toy Guns.../34 C) Table 4 INCIDENTS WHERE AN OFFICER IJAS WARNED · OR THREATENED THE USE OF FORCE BASED ON THE BELIEF TIJAT AN IMITATION. GUN WAS REAL Tot R~J!liCa~ 1989 (9 Mcinth~) 1988 1987 1986 1985 TOTAL 91 106 72 61 Pneumatic11 TOTAL 59 113 55 103 28 23 106 67 61 263 289 281 156 13.9 385 272 471 1,12§ 59 124 8 B!ISed on 82 agencies repoiliQg incidents known to have been committed · . · · . · · b.Based on 32 agencies reportfug incidents known.to have been committed · with a repllea gun. . · CSased on 72 agencies reporting incidents kriown to have been committed with a pneumatic gun otstarter•s·plstOI. with a toy gun. (} Figure 8 · INCIDENTS WHERE AN. OFFICER HAS WARNED OR THREATENED THE USE OF FORCE BASED ON THE . BELIEF THAT AN IMITATION GUN WAS REAL 140 120 .Toy 100 . 80 dReplloa 6Q llil Pheum.atlc 40 20 0 '1989 (9 mos) ) 1988 1,987 ' 1·986 1985 Pollee Involvement Wllh Toy Guns .../36 "). Figpre 10 COMBINED TOTAL REPORTED ROBBERIES AND ASSAULTS 2500 2000 1500 • RObberies 0 .1000 A~;saults 500 0 1989 (9 mos) 1988 1986 .1987 1985 ) Figure 11 COMBINE~o1~~A!:N~~n due. to the threat during the site visit. inherent in the mc1dent. Th1s 1s parttcularly true ._____________ underlowlightconditionsandwhenthe.sh~peo~the. · · . . . gun fs similar to a real firearm. In such ll!c1dents the · • . . officer's attention is devoted to many different facets of pubhe safety, self-protecuon, mairitairrlng control of the incident, and resolviJ!g the incident. The o~cer'~ focal concern is not on the gun, per se, but on the person holding the weapon and thC!r acttons. The concern wa~ also expressed that with a gun ch,sign that looks real, but with minimal identification markings, one could still not be assured ti!at the gun was a toy· Particularly in cases ofrobbe.ry, there have been instances when vic~s have said that they · · · · thought the gun was a toy by Its appearance, yet; the gun looked sufficiently real. that theY felt endangered. In Houston, for example; the victi~s in one robbery OVERLAND PARK, said the weapon was a re~ cap .Pistol. In another KANSAS -A Sl-year-old man robbery weapon w_as Identified ~s. an oran~e ·committed an armed robbery of a watergunthe • Yet, mboth mstances the v1ctil11$ were tn convenience store with a toy gun . . · Atier the robbery he kidnapped sufficient fear to comply with the robber's demands. ) the clerk and took her to a remote· area and raped her. The gun, clearly shown in a surveillance camera photograph, had a distinc· tlve marking on the cylinder. The suspect was caplur~d and convicted of robbery. and rape. SOURCE: Officer interviews and .review· of incident reports during the site visit. .· . · . · . . The fact that some toy guns are simply marked by a biaze orange plug or orange collar around the barrel .is further complicated by the coloration of front sights on real guns. It has long been a practice of police officers and ,sportsmen to color the front sight ramp on firearms red or orange as a means to more rapidly and distinctly aim the weapon. As a result, some gun manufacturers have .made handguns wit!t barrel options that have the front sight colored· orange durmg the manufacturing •' P~Uce ~volvement With Toy GUIIS .../40 ~-·). ' . ') they reinforce the lesson ttl officedrs that ~ythgunt, LDS ANGli,LBS COUN'l'f, regardless of color, must be tteate · as a rem rea CA - A sheriff's department deand no distinction between guns should be made until tectlve in an unmarked. car saw a the situation is under control. Similarly, officers are teenage boy lean from a car and trained that anyone can pose.a threat with a gun po{ntwltatanofflcerthoughtwas. regardless of age or ~ex. Thus, officers are· ~old that a .45 caliber automatic _pistol. evert when encounte!1fig a youti\ ',Ylth a fPlD• 1t shou~d ·The tktective called for uniformed be treated as a hfe ·threatenmg crrcumstance. deputies who stopped the car and (Reinforcing this is the distur~ing fact that police ordered the driver, her two sons. · de~partnients are arresting increasing numbers of 11- (ates16 and 10), and a daughter year-old to ~4-year-old juveililes-male and fen:ialc- (age 11) out of the car at gunon weapons charges, most frequently associated with point.· The officers searched the drug offenses.) · · car and found a ·toy· .45 caliber pistol and a watergun modeled Another element of police fireanns training is Q/'ter an Uzl automatic pistol, . what is known as ''sho6t/d(ln't shoot" ·Scenarios. SOURCE: Review of report This 1\pproach invol~es interacti~e ~edia wherein an submi_ttecf by the agency..· . officer watches a vignette or crrcutnstance ·and is .__ _....;..~_...;._ _..._..__. . confronted with the need to waifP)®mlcdlfi~ n. THE FEDERAL ENERGY. MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1988 PUBLIC LAW 100·615, Section 4 16 usc . 6001 . •. SEC. 4•.PEN.\LTIES FOR ENTERING INTO COMMERCE OF IMITATION FIRE· ·ARMS. · . · (a) It shall be unlawf\.11 for any pl!rsOn to manufacture, enter into .conunerce, ship, transpol;'l;, or receive anY toy, loolt·allke, ot imita· tlon ftrelll'ID unless such fireartQ contalits, or has affiXed to It, a marlting ai!Proved by the Secretary of Commerce, as provided In subsection (0). . · · · . · · (bXI) E.xce. pt as prqvid . ed. in. paragraph (2. ) .or (8), each t.Qy, lookalike, Qi' imitation firearm shlill have as an 'intemd r·art; pl!rma· · nently aff'U(ed1 a, blaZe orange pli!IJ inserted in the 6arre of such toy, look-lil!ke, or tmitatlon ruearm, Suoh plug shall be recsssed no more · fl1'e8l'JD, than 6 llii1Umetots from the muzzle end of the biU'rel of . such . . !lr{. me.ns :) Re~rts. Effective date. State and local ~overq.menta, ) (2) The Secretary of Commerce provide for an alternate meddlllf or device l'or any toy, look .e, or imitatiqn firearm not oapeble of being marked as J!rovided In paragraph (1) and ml1)' waive the requirement of any sycb marking 11r device for any toy, l®lt· alike, or imitation fireiU'ID that WiU only be used In the theatrical, movie or television Industry. . . · · (3) The ~retsry is 8\lthorlzed to make adjustments and changes In, th~ marking system provided for by this section, Bl'ter consnltiJ!g With mterestea persons. · . . · . . (c) For· purpo&ell of. this section; the term "look-alike firearm" . I!DY itiiitation of any o!ilrinal firearm which was manufactured, deslglled, and p~odu~. since 1898, biobiding and .Hmited; to · toy guns water guns, replica nonguos, and air-soft 61Jns ·f~r~ng · nonmetallic prqjfilCtiles. Supb term d~ not iDclude I!DY look-alike, ncinflrli1g, coUector l'I!Plioa of an antique firearm devel«?ped prior to . 1898i or. treditlonal B•B, .paint-ball, or pellet-firing liU' guns that i:IXPfl a projectUe through' the force of air pressure. (d) The Ditsctor of. the Bureau of Justice Statistics is authorized and· directed to conduct a study. of the orimina1 misiiB!I of tQy, look· alike and bnltetlon fireanns1 inoludiDg studying police reports of such incidences and shall report on such incidences relative to marked and unmar~ed firearms. . . . . · (c) The Director of Na~onallnstltute of Justice is authorized and . directed to conduct a ~ evaluation of the marking syate.ms . provided for in subsection (b) t.o dete~e their effectiveneis in PQlice combat situations. The Ditsctor shalt btigln the study Within 8 month$ after the date of emtctll!ent.oftbis section 111\d such study shaJ! be coiJ!pletlld within 9 months after suoh datil of enactn~ent. (f) 'l'hl4 section shall become effective 011 the date 6 months after the date of ItS enac!t~nent and shall applY to toy, look-alike, l!lld imitation firearms· m!lllllfactured 11r enteitd into commerce after such ~Ill of enactment: . . . . .. (g) Th.e provisions of' this section shall supersede any prQyjslon of State or lOcal laws· or ordlllances .which proviiJ'.l fpr markings or identlfieation Inconsistent With provisions of i.~Jt; &i!«:tlon provided that Jio State shall· · · . (i) · prohibit the sale or manufacture . of any look-alike, nontirlng, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898, or . · (ilj prohibit the sale (oth11r than prohibiting the sale to minors) of traditional B-B, paiDt ball, or pellet-firing air guns .thatexpol a proj~Ue through the force ofair pressure. Approved November 6, 198~. Pollee Involvement Willt Toy Oune.../46 )' Rules 8n.d . poa(Uon.theta totelbanonre.Uallotoy · lnCtuslonor'BBSUDBand the ilkeW~dat . Exqout/vo Ordorizmz · the oaope of lh• Nsu)allon. »eoause the · Tbla rule doee not contain pollp!ea opposed the r8sulallon as too weak, and exoluaiOilS·.e plus ao anaooapt·a·bl.e..,.kJDs, oppoa!Dir. IL Tbi CoiUIUDier Protection Tble rule doas notltlvolve Federal · and eecond, the! a complete ban on Board.-t1fone itate full!r eupported the .flnanolelaaelatanlll, db:ilot Pa~er.al "'illlatlo toy fiUIIII waeneedsdo l!faht reBulaUon. is did the Deplll'lment of · developmen~ clr the payD>ent of i!DY. commentel's ra!aed the flrat leeuelllld Hwllllll )leaouroas of a lll!COncl elate. The malabiDs lunda fro"' ••tate or local live ralaad the eecondo No ebllli8ea ere · Conewner·Counell ofaetate Deportment sovomment:Aooorcllnaly,.lhe · belns "'ado to the reaulauoi!B •I thl.s of Asrioul!Ui'e oupPOI'!ed tho altemlllvo reqWrenlen18 ofBxeiniltva Ord!lf 12872 thea ae ueault ofelib•r OOilllJIBDL Tbs "'erklng 8ebemeo; bil~ queellonad the · are not applloable to th1a rule. Teebllotow:AdnllnlatqdiQnls iwaltllis uUUty o1 Ole recaased. tilazil orange PIUS• Executive Ordet 111830 the reaulte of'ae\Udyby t¥Dirtoto; of reooi\UIIelldlns ellmlnaUon oflhll . the NaUonallnst(tute of )u.auoa, method ofmirklna· One atate Seoator Tbla rule do~e not po.ee itsnlfloant . mandated by oeC!Uon ~(a).Ofthe AoL oppolll!d the reBUiallon, atrOIUily . · taklase JmpUoaUo•a within l)le meaning before deil!dlns wbelbet t~ remqve the supporting In Ita pleoa a to!afban on toy ofSxeoudve0rder1203D. . · · reoeeeed o~op!sa p11J8 as '!l!.ac!oaptoble suns lllld Jook-allkea. · .· marldilg. That al!ldf le a t~a81 . Bliven COll!lllente wera reoalvld l'roni. · IIBIJUIDI()l'f FIBiiJbiUty Aql · evaluaUon of thsmiorklvs a~atam · the senerill publl. ....'"111'. senerillly · Tl!e GenerAl Coimeel of the eatabpshed b)' the Act l!lid.!lf th.e . sulliiOrllnll thil:ririlaUoli and thrOe Depattment ofCUJ Sl'ante l.'lexlblllty Jlnal~li li.JIOI tegulrea to be ""d their 1;8Jirii,entailye~,ll!l·aenetaUy . .P,ceo~ euppbrled 018 "'ethoda ofmukl118 or rec0 eellll exa.,pttolllllldreUiVee prake.olear the Iiilent of Consreaa that elfeotlva wl.tb.out.a ao day delay ltl the ragulatlo~tclld not apply. to toy, look· elfeoUve di!te. · coUeaUonrequlremenl8 aubjeot to the aUke or lmllatlon.flreiii'Dill thalllfll nan• Paperwork Red.ucdoi!Aot. flrlns rapUoae of o,llantlqua flreerm AdciiUonallnfoft!UIIIon ·Nolfonal Bnvfr911111rm!a/ Pollay Aol' "'odeled on a I'Galflreerm deetsned. Exqo~tfvo Orrlsr 12181 manuf~o!Ui'ed. and produoad.prlor to Tbla rule wD111ot&Jsnlflc~Uy eff~t · 1898, The final resuJadon baa.been The Under Seorateey for 'l'eahitolo8)' . lbe quidfty of theli~an envltonmanL revlood to accommodate tble requeet. bas determined that thle rule Is ilol a 1'harefore1 lllloDYironmental use~amept · One coDUIIentor requee~d all exemptl~n ~or rule Within the meanltls of eeoUon o~ )l(iYiro11111eatallnlpaot Siatqment li from tlie reBUiallona for aJrsu!!s alld 1[b of Bxecuthie Order111.291 "'cause lt · not required to·bo PrePared lll!der the look-all)cpor\8. have not been ma~e. bacauae the Federal. stale orlooalsoverullient ShlppJns, Toye, 'l'l-11118port~Uon, Priolshl, Secreta- orCollllllolC4 beano authority . asenolee or seosr•Pid• rol!lons: or, lnaorporat16n bi' refer&IIC8, ., • ~ · k lb · 1 d (8) Slonlfl00111 aclve,.e elfeol8 on · th LDtW.MOrCIU, . . ·=ae.e ""''to"" '' 'requee e ...,.lltf ..ddoonn. O.,ploy.ilen~. lnv.eebDen~ Dspuly!/ildsr&mororyfo~~,;los.l' Amoq tl!e ten po~oa offlolala, illl · produotJvlty,lllDovadon. or on the Dated,! Apttlaa, i9a1J, aenerally eupp~rted the proposed . ablllty of\I.S. baaed entorprl"a to· resu)auon. althousba• cllecueeed above, oompeta With. rorelp:baaed enterprteee For renaolle eat fortb In the prailil!ble, elx of the tan queeUoned the . In dome,uo ouxportmerketa. . 'l'lde1G, SubUde B of the Coda of · · Pedaralll.eaU!aUoiiB li ""'tndedby · effeotlvllllee$ of a reoeaaad Of8J!8e Plll8 TbireCCre, praperelloDof a ll.eBulatoey wltbout adclldonal merlcJDs.ln adciiUoil, lnlpaot Analyellle not raqulred !pider a.ddJns·a C!iepter ;xi, ~olll!lellng of Part · two of thoten commontara augeqte.d lho · Bxeoullve Order 1U91. · · 11&0,t.o reacl ae [ollowe: · . IJUIII wee l)ea0seeey and tharefore . "b.·..ian.. ) ) u., AJPJP~!Dl®lft~ ~· /-) '·· . .NEWS' SOURCES REVIEWED.FOR TOY GUN INCIDENTS. As· noted in the "research· methods" section, incidents and locales involving toy guns were initi!llly identified through a computer sear~h of news stories found in the Lexis®JNQxis® data base. / ) • Associated Press· . • Boston Globe · • Cilic::!ljiO :I'rlbune . • DetrottFree Press . . • Federal Information Systems Corporation • Gannett News Service . · . • Kansas City Star/I'imes · • Los Angeles Times . . • Newsday, Inc. •.Reuters News Service . • States News Sei'vice • Time Magazine • United ·Press IIiternadonal •USA Today • U.S. News and World Report ~Washington Post . I ' ) .• A!ID IID®llil cdlfiX~: § . . . LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES VISITED IN SITE VISITS Alexandria, VAPolic~Department Broward County, FL Office of the Sheriff · · o Qearwater, FL Police Department o Corpus Christi, TX Police Department o Dallas, TX Police Department · • Florida Department of Law Enforcement · . o Harris C0unty, TX Offic!l ofthe Sheriff o Houston, TX Police Department · • Independence, MO Police Department o King County, WA Sheriff's Department o Las. Vegas; NV Metropolitan Police Department · · · · • Los Angeles, CA Police Department o Miami, FL Police Department o New York, NY Police Department o Newark, NJ Police Department • Overland Park, KS Police Department · o o Los Angeles-~~·1 Santa Ana San. Bernardino Count Las Vegas ,) San Bernardino' County, CA Sheriff's Department · . · • San Francisco, CA Police Department • Santa Ana, CA Police Department • Seattle, WA Police Department • St. Petersburg, FL ~alice Department • U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco; and Firearms ·Detroit Office • U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco; and Firearms -Houston Office • U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and . Firearms -Las Vegas Office • U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -Washington Headqu~trters • U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration · -Las Vegas Office . ·o U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration - Washington Headquarters o S. LAMAR SIMS Page I S. LAMAR SIMS Senior Chief Deputy District Attorney PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: January 2012- Present Senior Chief Deputy D.A.- Administration & Operations (The District Attorney, the two Senior Chief Deputies, and the Office Manager- Senior Chief Deputy comprise the leadership team for the office.) May 1992-January 2012 Chief Deputy District Attorney- Police Liaison/Administration: Supervise civil asset forfeiture unit; Provide legal advice and support to the Denver Police Department on a 24-hour on-call basis; Coordinate the D.A. 'son-call program; Prosecute special high-profile cases; Handle special assignments. June 1987-May 1991: Chief Deputy District Attorney - Police Liaison/ Special Projects and Intake Units: Supervise felony charging functions; Director of training; Provide legal advice and support to the Denver Police Department on a 24-hour on-call basis; Responsible, with other members of senior legal and administrative staff, for responding to queries and concerns of media and general public. Nov. 1984-June 1987: Chief Trial Deputy District Attorney: Supervised one of six felony trial divisions and maintained full felony trial docket. Nov. 1981-Nov. 1984: Deputy District Attorney: Prosecuted misdemeanors cases (Nov. 1989--May 1982); -juvenile cases (May 1982--Nov. 1982); -adult felony cases (Nov. 1982--Nov. 1984). Oct. 1979-Nov. 1981: Associate: Ireland, Stapleton & Pryor, P.C. 1675 Broadway, Suite 2600, Denver, CO. Sept. 1978-Sept. 1979: Law Clerk to the Honorable William E. Doyle, Judge Tenth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Denver, CO. () () S. LAMAR SIMS Page2 EDUCATION: MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS: () TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Harvard Law School, 1975-1978 (J.D. Degree- 1978) Cambridge, Massachusetts Member: Board of Student Advisors Hampshire College, 1971-1975 (B.A. Degree- 1975) Amherst, Massachusetts Member ofthe Bars of the State of Colorado; the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado; and the Tenth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals Member, Supreme Court Nominating Commission, State of Colorado, 2009-2014 Member, Mayor's Task Force- Commission on Police Reform 2004 Past Member of the National Black Prosecutors Association and Coordinator of the NBP A 1990 Annual Conference. Past Member of the National District Attorneys Association Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Canoe and Kayak Team 1995-1997; Vice-Chair, 1993-1995 Member, 1989-1993, 1999-2002 Member of Board of Directors, Metro Big Brothers 1983-1989 Member, Denver Community Corrections Board, 1987 - present Who's Who in American Law, lOth Ed., 1998-1999 Member, JTTF -Rocky Mountain Region Instructor with Harvard Law School's Trial Advocacy Workshop Program: 1984 to 2012 Instructor -- Denver Police Department Academy Recruit classes: 1986 to present Coordinator- basic law instruction 1993- to present Chief Legal Instructor -- Denver Sheriff Department Academy Recruit classes: 1989, 1994 to present ) Guest Lecturer/presenter Cuyahoga County (OH) Prosecutor's Office Symposium on Use of Deadly ForceOfficer-involved shootings, 2015 U.S. Office of Community Oriented Police Service Director's Forum, 2013 Reducing Officer-involved shootings Colorado POST- Morgan County Sheriff Dept., 2009 Understanding Death Investigation (presented with Lt. Jon Priest, DPD) () () \ ) S. LAMAR SIMS Page 3 Colorado State Investigators' Association Annual Training Conference, 2008 Courtroom Testimony and the Expert Witness (presented with Denver Mgr. of Safety AI Lacabe) Lorman Educational Services, Seminar - Recent Trends Involving the Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure in Colorado, 2006 Colorado District Attorney's Council, Crime Scene Response- Role of the D.A., 2006 CSJ-Regis- l ''Annual Conference, Crime Scene Response & Control (presented with Sgt. Jason Brake, DPD), 2006 Colorado District Attorney's Council Investigation and Prosecution of Gun Violence, 2004 Colorado District Attorney's Council Felony Prosecution Skills Course, 2003,2004,2005 Lorman Educational Services Interview & Interrogation seminar, 2003 (presented w/ Lt. Jon Priest, DPD) Colorado District Attomey's Council Murder Prosecution School, 2002 Regional Office, Federal Bureau of investigation Courtroom Testimony - 2000 Rocky Mountain HIDTA (wiLt. Jon Priest, DPD) 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2000 Cheyenne, WY, Police Department Courtroom Testimony- 2000 Colorado District Attomey's Council Annual Fall Training Conference- 1999 and 1998 U.S. Probation Department, District of Colorado Fall Training Conference - 1998 Rocky Mtn. Div., lntemational Assoc. for Identification Fall Conference - 1998 Colorado Coroners Training Conference - 1996 Colorado Interagency Training Institute - 1996 and 1996 Colorado Association of Robbery Investigators 1995 Regional Conference Denver Fire Department Advanced Arson Investigation Seminar- 2005,2003,2001, 1999, 1995 and 1993 Denver Police Criminal Investigations Detective Training Seminar - 1995 Colorado Division of Wildlife - 1992, 1991, 1989 Colorado Welfare Fraud Council - 1989 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Inspector General's Office oflnvestigations- 1988 () S. LAMAR SIMS Page4 Denver Police Department Certified Assistant Tactical Firearms Instructor 1988- 1998 ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTS: C) Venue Announcer for Slalom Canoe-Kayak events at the 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games; Commercial pilot with multi-engine and instrument ratings; Certified Group Exercise instructor, kayaking, strength & conditioning.