Murderer? Part 2

ROGER D. WILSON
Of Counsel
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC

This story is continued from the November issue of PORAC Law Enforcement News.

Judge Stephens’ Decision

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Judge Stephens directed the parties to submit briefs on the facts and law related to this case.

In its brief, the DA argued that Officer Lamantia violated MPD policies and the law when he fatally shot the suspect. The DA relied primarily on the testimony of the MPD sergeant and IA sergeant to support its contentions that Lamantia rushed to use lethal force when he encountered the suspect at the church. The prosecution used Lamantia’s IA interview statements to bolster its position. The DA also challenged their expert, Martin, by claiming he had failed to consider certain facts of the case and rendered opinions unsupported by the evidence.¹

In his initial brief and reply brief, Lamantia argued that a reasonable officer with his training and experience would have responded as he did during the encounter with the suspect. Martin, and the witnesses identified as MPD SWAT Detective, MPD Officer and MPD Sergeant, agreed with Lamantia’s position. Lamantia’s briefing also included the following arguments:

1. The primary question presented in this case was whether a reasonable officer after considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the particular incident involving the suspect would find the level of force employed by Lamantia to be necessary.
2. Based on the totality of circumstances of the incident involving Lamantia and the suspect, a reasonable peace officer would believe that the suspect possessed a firearm and had the ability, opportunity and present intent to use that firearm. The facts known to and perceived by Lamantia on December 29, 2020, demonstrate that his conduct was within the law and the shooting was justified.
3. The entire incident involving the suspect and Lamantia transpired in a matter of seconds. All encounters by law enforcement officers with criminal suspects are unique; indeed, no two are alike. On December 29, 2020, only Lamantia was in a position to assess the suspect’s conduct and the imminent threat posed by him to his family, the community and other MPD officers.
4. Undisputed facts received during the preliminary hearing show that at the time Lamantia fired his handgun on December 29, 2020, he feared for his life and the lives of the suspect’s family who were located nearby. Lamantia’s decision to use deadly force was a justifiable response to the suspect’s criminal threats to kill his family with the gun he purchased the previous night, the family’s actual fear that caused them to flee their own home, the suspect’s refusal to comply with basic commands and the suspect’s continued furtive movements toward his waistband after being told to get on the ground or keep his hands up. Consequently, Lamantia had a lawful excuse or justification under Penal Code Section 196.
5. Peace officers are trained that they do not have to wait until a handgun is pointed at them before they use deadly force; after all, if officers wait for the gun to be pointed at them, the officers’ reaction will be too late. Peace officers are trained that armed suspects can shoot their firearm while they are running away.
6. Finally, peace officers are trained to reasonably perceive a person they know is armed with a handgun on their person as having the potential to cause serious bodily injury or death. In this case, Lamantia, the MPD officer and even the MPD sergeant knew the suspect was armed with a firearm, was resisting apprehension, had made credible threats of violence against his immediate family and had threatened to kill MPD officers. Moreover, Lamantia observed the suspect making furtive movements toward a location where guns are commonly carried. Therefore, it was reasonable for Lamantia to believe the suspect had the apparent intent to use his firearm.

Lamantia and his counsel requested that Judge Stephens dismiss the case, and she agreed. Stephens’ decision was thoughtful, comprehensive and precise. Stephens agreed with the opinions of Martin and noted, “The People presented no evidence to rebut these opinions.”

Further, Stephens stated: “The Court’s rulings are based entirely on the evidence received and the law that governs. As indicated above, the People have produced no evidence to contradict Mr. Martin’s opinions as to the necessity and reasoning of [Lamantia’s] use of force. As discussed in their briefing, [Lamantia] had received considerable training and he was an experienced officer, yet they failed to establish how this training and experience would have informed, guided or directed a different response from [Lamantia] confronting [the suspect] under the circumstances.

“No witness offered their opinion that [Lamantia’s] conduct contravened his training or that his experience should have yielded a different response to the situation. [IA Sergeant] largely discussed [Lamantia’s] responses to questions during the interview. [Lamantia] was aware of and previously employed techniques such as staging and making a perimeter during his interviews with [Lamantia].

“[IA Sergeant] did not testify that these techniques were the most appropriate law enforcement response to the situation [Lamantia] encountered. No one did.

“[MPD Sergeant] testified that his initial plan was to use staging and triangulation. But he explained that that plan was contemplated when no one knew where [the suspect] was.

“When that changed, the entire situation changed. [MPD Sergeant] explained that triangulation was preferred to locate an individual whose position was unknown. When [Lamantia] was confronted by [the suspect], his position was known and so triangulation was not necessary.”

Conclusion

Like so many cases today involving fatal police shootings, this case began with a terrified call from the decedent’s family, whom he had threatened to shoot with a gun he had just purchased. But after the fatal shooting occurred, the family quickly retained lawyers to sue the involved officer and his employer, and enlisted the local media to condemn the officer for the force. The resulting wave of unfavorable publicity resulted in Officer Lamantia’s employer and the Stanislaus County District Attorney succumbing to the heated rhetoric from the family and their assembled supporters. Thank goodness that, in the end, this case found its way into the courtroom of a judge who focused her attention on the facts and applicable law, and restored our collective faith that police officers, even in today’s times, have a chance of overturning baseless, politically motivated decisions by public officials and politicians.

About the Author

Roger D. Wilson is Of Counsel to Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC and represents peace officers in administrative, disciplinary, critical incident and criminal defense matters.

_______________________

In their briefing, the prosecution made no mention of the statutes and law governing OIS events, voluntary manslaughter or justifiable homicide by a peace officer (Penal Code §§ 192, 196, 835a).