News Blog
The county’s multi-agency law enforcement Critical Incident Response Team continues to investigate the Eureka Police Department’s fatal shooting of a 31-year-old man, with EPD Assistant Chief Brian Stephens saying the department likely won’t release more information until the end of the week.
Details about the shooting remain scant, mostly confined to a 257-word press release EPD distributed roughly nine hours after the shooting.
According to the department, an officer or officers attempted to pull a car over shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Nov. 26 in the vicinity of Second and M streets, though the press release does not indicate a reason for the enforcement action.
“During the traffic stop, a 31-year-old white male occupant of the vehicle fled from the scene,” the press release states.
It’s unclear at this point whether the man had been driving the vehicle — a red Honda sedan — or was a passenger.
Officer searched the area and located the man behind the Humboldt County Library’s main branch on Third Street, according to the release.
“While officers attempted to detain the male, a physical altercation ensued,” the release states. “During the altercation the suspect produced a firearm, shots were subsequently fired by officers and the suspect was struck. Life-saving efforts were immediately performed by officers and Humboldt Bay Fire personnel. Due to the extent of injuries, the suspect succumbed to his injuries on scene. A loaded firearm was recovered from the suspect at the scene.”
At some point during the search for the suspect and the subsequent shooting, two other occupants of the Honda fled the scene in the vehicle, which isn’t mentioned in the press release but was reported based on scanner traffic by kymkemp.com. According to the website, officers located the vehicle about five hours later parked in a lot off Myrtle and West avenues and seized it as evidence in the case.
Asked to confirm whether EPD had recovered the vehicle in the traffic stop that preceded the shooting, Stephens told the Journal only that the department had “no outstanding vehicles at this time.”
Stephens did not respond to follow-up questions regarding whether EPD had identified and contacted the other two occupants believed to be in the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop and how many officers are on administrative related to the shooting and ongoing investigation.
According to the press release, the multi-agency investigation is being led by EPD and the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office. The release also notes the “incident was captured on body worn camera” and the footage will be released “upon completion of the investigation.”
State law, however, requires the footage be released within 45 days, with limited exceptions.
Since taking effect in 2019, Assembly Bill 748 amended the state Public Records Act to require that police agencies release video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” or those in which police discharge a firearm or cause great bodily injury, be released within 45 days of the incident unless disclosure would “substantially interfere” with an ongoing criminal or administrative investigation. (A League of California Cities primer on the law cites examples where disclosure would “substantially interfere” with ongoing investigations as instances where it would endanger a witness or confidential source’s safety.)
In instances when an agency does withhold audio and video recordings of a critical incident citing the exemption, it is required to reassess the withholding every 30 days.
In light of the new law, many police agencies have taken to the practice of editing video and audio footage into an incident narrative that is released to the public. While police organizations say this allows agencies to offer a clear account of what transpired, including important context, noting that body worn camera footage is often jumbled and difficult to decipher, some police watchdog groups have countered this allows police to shape public perception of a shooting. Either way, releasing an edited narrative video of a shooting does not alleviate agencies’ legal responsibility to also release the underlying unedited recordings.
Senate Bill 1421, meanwhile, requires that law enforcement agencies release all documents related to its investigation of a police shooting — including photographs, reports and notifications of disciplinary decisions — to the public. Under the law, agencies are entitled to — but not required — to temporarily withhold the documents’ release until related criminal and administrative investigations are complete, and in instances in which criminal charges are filed, agencies can withhold the documents until the criminal case has concluded.
Police shootings in Humboldt County are investigated under a Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) protocol agreed upon by the 14 members of the Law Enforcement Chiefs Association of Humboldt County. The protocol is designed to ensure all criminal investigations of police shootings in the county are conducted in a consistent manner by personnel with extensive training and experience. CIRT investigations are criminal in nature, meaning their aim is to determine if there is evidence the officers involved in an incident violated the law. Once complete, CIRT investigations are turned over to the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, which then has 60 days to determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
Back in 2019, California passed a law changing the standard dictating when police are allowed to use deadly force. Previously, the law held officers could use “reasonable force” to effect an arrest, prevent a suspect’s escape or overcome resistance, noting that officers “need not retreat” in the face of resistance. The standard was evaluated from the perspective of a “reasonable officer in the same situation,” based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the involved officer at the time force was used.
Assembly Bill 392, however, modified the law to state that police are only legally entitled to use deadly force “when necessary in defense of human life” or to prevent an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or another person based on the “totality of the circumstances.” The new law also specifies that the “totality of the circumstances” is meant to mean everything know to the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force, including the use of less-than-lethal force and de-escalation techniques where appropriate.
Parallel to the CIRT investigation, agencies conduct their own administrative investigations to determine whether involved officers followed departmental policy, which can lead to disciplinary action, changes in policies and procedures, or additional training for officers.
The timelines of these investigations, and subsequent reviews by the district attorney’s office, can vary greatly depending on an array of factors, from the number of witnesses involved and the need for forensic testing and analysis to the staffing levels of investigating agencies.
In the case of the 31-year-old man killed by police near the library this past weekend, Stephens indicated some additional information would be released Nov. 30 or Dec. 1, which will likely include the identity of the man killed and the officers involved. Then, the deadline for releasing video and audio recordings from the shooting is Jan. 11, absent a finding it would “substantially interfere” with the investigation.
Details about the shooting remain scant, mostly confined to a 257-word press release EPD distributed roughly nine hours after the shooting.
According to the department, an officer or officers attempted to pull a car over shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Nov. 26 in the vicinity of Second and M streets, though the press release does not indicate a reason for the enforcement action.
“During the traffic stop, a 31-year-old white male occupant of the vehicle fled from the scene,” the press release states.
It’s unclear at this point whether the man had been driving the vehicle — a red Honda sedan — or was a passenger.
Officer searched the area and located the man behind the Humboldt County Library’s main branch on Third Street, according to the release.
“While officers attempted to detain the male, a physical altercation ensued,” the release states. “During the altercation the suspect produced a firearm, shots were subsequently fired by officers and the suspect was struck. Life-saving efforts were immediately performed by officers and Humboldt Bay Fire personnel. Due to the extent of injuries, the suspect succumbed to his injuries on scene. A loaded firearm was recovered from the suspect at the scene.”
At some point during the search for the suspect and the subsequent shooting, two other occupants of the Honda fled the scene in the vehicle, which isn’t mentioned in the press release but was reported based on scanner traffic by kymkemp.com. According to the website, officers located the vehicle about five hours later parked in a lot off Myrtle and West avenues and seized it as evidence in the case.
Asked to confirm whether EPD had recovered the vehicle in the traffic stop that preceded the shooting, Stephens told the Journal only that the department had “no outstanding vehicles at this time.”
Stephens did not respond to follow-up questions regarding whether EPD had identified and contacted the other two occupants believed to be in the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop and how many officers are on administrative related to the shooting and ongoing investigation.
According to the press release, the multi-agency investigation is being led by EPD and the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office. The release also notes the “incident was captured on body worn camera” and the footage will be released “upon completion of the investigation.”
State law, however, requires the footage be released within 45 days, with limited exceptions.
Since taking effect in 2019, Assembly Bill 748 amended the state Public Records Act to require that police agencies release video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” or those in which police discharge a firearm or cause great bodily injury, be released within 45 days of the incident unless disclosure would “substantially interfere” with an ongoing criminal or administrative investigation. (A League of California Cities primer on the law cites examples where disclosure would “substantially interfere” with ongoing investigations as instances where it would endanger a witness or confidential source’s safety.)
In instances when an agency does withhold audio and video recordings of a critical incident citing the exemption, it is required to reassess the withholding every 30 days.
In light of the new law, many police agencies have taken to the practice of editing video and audio footage into an incident narrative that is released to the public. While police organizations say this allows agencies to offer a clear account of what transpired, including important context, noting that body worn camera footage is often jumbled and difficult to decipher, some police watchdog groups have countered this allows police to shape public perception of a shooting. Either way, releasing an edited narrative video of a shooting does not alleviate agencies’ legal responsibility to also release the underlying unedited recordings.
Senate Bill 1421, meanwhile, requires that law enforcement agencies release all documents related to its investigation of a police shooting — including photographs, reports and notifications of disciplinary decisions — to the public. Under the law, agencies are entitled to — but not required — to temporarily withhold the documents’ release until related criminal and administrative investigations are complete, and in instances in which criminal charges are filed, agencies can withhold the documents until the criminal case has concluded.
Police shootings in Humboldt County are investigated under a Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) protocol agreed upon by the 14 members of the Law Enforcement Chiefs Association of Humboldt County. The protocol is designed to ensure all criminal investigations of police shootings in the county are conducted in a consistent manner by personnel with extensive training and experience. CIRT investigations are criminal in nature, meaning their aim is to determine if there is evidence the officers involved in an incident violated the law. Once complete, CIRT investigations are turned over to the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, which then has 60 days to determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
Back in 2019, California passed a law changing the standard dictating when police are allowed to use deadly force. Previously, the law held officers could use “reasonable force” to effect an arrest, prevent a suspect’s escape or overcome resistance, noting that officers “need not retreat” in the face of resistance. The standard was evaluated from the perspective of a “reasonable officer in the same situation,” based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the involved officer at the time force was used.
Assembly Bill 392, however, modified the law to state that police are only legally entitled to use deadly force “when necessary in defense of human life” or to prevent an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or another person based on the “totality of the circumstances.” The new law also specifies that the “totality of the circumstances” is meant to mean everything know to the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force, including the use of less-than-lethal force and de-escalation techniques where appropriate.
Parallel to the CIRT investigation, agencies conduct their own administrative investigations to determine whether involved officers followed departmental policy, which can lead to disciplinary action, changes in policies and procedures, or additional training for officers.
The timelines of these investigations, and subsequent reviews by the district attorney’s office, can vary greatly depending on an array of factors, from the number of witnesses involved and the need for forensic testing and analysis to the staffing levels of investigating agencies.
In the case of the 31-year-old man killed by police near the library this past weekend, Stephens indicated some additional information would be released Nov. 30 or Dec. 1, which will likely include the identity of the man killed and the officers involved. Then, the deadline for releasing video and audio recordings from the shooting is Jan. 11, absent a finding it would “substantially interfere” with the investigation.
Comments