Police Fatality Public Fact-finding Review - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to today's police fatality public fact finding review concerning the death of Seth William Wilson on 06/20/2024. My name is Todd Lementhal, and I will be presiding judge over today's proceeding. This review is being held because the Clark County District Attorney's Office has made a preliminary determination that no criminal prosecution of the officer involved in the death of Seth Wilson is appropriate. Clark County ordinance chapter 2.12 requires a public review following such a determination.

This is not a trial. The purpose of today's proceeding is to present public with the essential facts surrounding the death of mister Wilson. Chief deputy district attorney Madeleine Cole will present today's fact finding review on behalf of the district attorney's office. She will determine the witness or witnesses to be to call to be called today. The ordinance does not provide subpoena power on my behalf and does not allow for any other party to call any other witnesses.

Michael Toriano has been appointed to be the ombudsman. He is here today. He represents both the public as well as the family. He will have the opportunity to ask any questions of the witnesses that he feels is necessary. The procedure for questioning witnesses shall be informal with a view to providing the public with relevant information regarding the use of force, the rules of evidence shall not be strictly enforced today.

Members of the public observing this review may submit proposed written questions on forms that are located in the back of this room and presented to one of the officers that are also in the back of this room. I will ask the questions unless I determine that the question is either irrelevant, redundant, or an abuse of the review process. At the conclusion of this review, no determinations will be made regarding the manner or cause of death. Do either of the parties have anything to add this today, Ms. Cole?

No. Mr. Dreiner?

No. Thank you. If not Ms. Cole, feel free to call your first witness and let's proceed.

Good afternoon, Detective Evans. Before we begin, can you tell us what Detective Bure you're with?

The force investigation team.

And what does the force investigation team do?

We mainly investigate officer involved shootings, uses of deadly force, and violent crimes against police officers.

Okay. As we begin, can you orient us to the location of the officer involved shooting?

This officer involved shooting occurred downtown on the corner of 9th And Ogden. And then this is a drone photo of the scene off of 9th Street. Occurred on the 3rd Floor of building.

Can you tell us some background on the subject officers?

Our first subject officer is officer Kravitz. He was hired in July 2015. At the time of the shooting, he was 35, assigned to downtown area command. His body worn camera was activated. He did provide a walk through of the scene, which we'll cover later on, and he did not provide a statement. His weapon was a Rock River LAR 15. It was a two two three rifle, and the investigation revealed he fired eight rounds.

Now what about officer Buckland?

Second officer is officer Buckland. He was hired in April 2017. At the time, he was 39. Also assigned to downtown area command. His body worn camera was activated. He also provided a walk through, and he did not provide a statement. His weapon was a Danone defense rifle, a two two three, and the investigation revealed he fired six rounds.

Were there any witness officers that you spoke to during your investigation?

Yes. There were several witness officers, sergeant Muncie, officer Colon, officer Daniels, officer Collins, and Officer Sutton.

Can you give us some background on the decedent?

The decedent is Seth Wilson. At the time, was 49 years old. He resided in Las Vegas. And had he survived, the appropriate charges would been assault with use of a deadly weapon, assault with use of

a deadly weapon on a protected person, two counts, and resisting a public officer with a firearm.

His weapon was a Sturm Ruger rifle. And as you can see in the bottom picture, the stock of the rifle was struck during the OIS.

Was an autopsy conducted on the decedent?

Yes. Autopsy was conducted by Doctor Schaller on June 21. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. Manner of death was homicide. And the toxicology came back with alcohol, amphetamine, PCP, THC in the system.

Can you talk about one of the victims in this case?

Yes, the victim identified as JL. He was a victim of assault with deadly weapon. And, this is audio from his 911 call to our 911 call center.

Thursday, 06/20/2024. Twelve twenty one and seventeen seconds. 911 Clayton. 17128. Do you need police, fire, or medical?

Police.

What address do you need the police to?

I

have notified our local security team that was supposed to be called first, and they're apparently on the case, but I'm calling you guys also. I had, just got home to my apartment about twenty, twenty five minutes ago. Walked into my door, which you have to scan a key to get in the front door. And as soon as I opened the door, which it is on camera and they'll be able to see this, there's a guy I mean, I can't even believe what the heck I'm saying right now. A guy standing there pointing a rifle, semiautomatic rifle at the door, basically where my head just was.

And I just I I I you know, I'm thinking it's very fake. This can't even be real. He's got a a red a make America great hat on, a bearded gentleman, 55 to 65 years old, jeans, I think. And I just so, again, I just said that the hat, and I gotta get to my 2nd Floor apartment, and I just skipped every other step praying I wasn't gonna get shot in the back, and I kinda glanced down. He was still at the door. I'm hearing the door going in and out. I was just like, I gotta get I was gonna kick my screen out of the 2nd Floor and climb out the window. I got the guy's got a rifle.

Alright. Where are you now?

Now, detective, did you speak with any civilian witnesses?

Yes. Of the civilian witnesses was identified as SW.

And later on in this presentation, will you provide us more details on SW's witness statements?

Yes.

Now detective, can you take us through the timeline of events that you learned as part of your investigation?

At 11:59, JL entered the building building, and Wilson pointed a rifle at JL's head. At 12:07, another PR, a person reporting, stated there was a male with an AK 47 making threats to kill. At 12:08, an area sergeant acknowledged the call and multiple units were assigned. At 12:11, units began to arrive at the complex. At 12:19, rifles were deployed. At 12:40, officers began clearing the lower two floors and made their way to the 3rd Floor of the building. At 12:47, sergeant Muncie contacted Wilson by phone, and Wilson stated he would exit the apartment. At 12:40 Sgt. Muncy contacted Wilson by phone a second time and requested Wilson exit with his hands up. At 12:51, Sgt.

Muncy contacted Wilson a third time and attempted to explain why officers responded to the building. At 12:52, Wilson exited the apartment and shots were fired. At thirteen hundred, medical arrived on scene, and at thirteen o four, a second subject exited the apartment and was detained.

Now, detective, aside from body camera, were you able to recover and examine any relevant video footage?

Yes, there were cameras throughout the apartment building. Inside the hallway by the main entrance, there was an inside camera that covered Wilson by the front door when our victim jail was entering the building.

Now, the time and date stamp in that upper left hand corner, is that accurate?

No, it's off.

Okay. And it's actually later than what's being depicted. Now detective, before we begin, when we look at the body camera, it's saved in UTC time, is that fair to

say? Yes.

Okay, so there has to be some sort of conversion to get it to Specific Standard Time?

Correct.

Okay, and do you know what that conversion is?

Seven hours.

Minus seven hours? Correct. Okay.

Are we gonna be playing a video right now? Yes. Okay, I need to make the following statement. The following material is required to be presented and may contain graphic images or language. Viewer discretion is advised as graphic content will be displayed at this point. You may proceed. Thank you.

This first video is Officer Sutton's body worn camera. He was in the stairwell at the time of the OAS. This is prior to the OAS, and on the camera, it hears the audio of Sergeant Muncie on the phone with Wilson trying to negotiate him to come out the apartment.

We we just wanna make sure someone said you had it done. So if you just wanna step out, keep your hands up so we can talk to you, clear this all up, and we'll be on our way. How's that? Really? According to the LPR scan. He's here. Alright. He says something about saying out of the sun. I think he's he's sounding a little 4.18. Mhmm. He says

This next video is officer Buckland's camera. This plays a little bit prior to the OAS because it covers another phone call between sergeant Muncy and Wilson, trying to get Wilson to come out of the apartment.

Hey, Seth. It's sergeant Muncy again. Hey. I thought you you were coming out. Right? So we can talk to you. What's that? Why not? Well, all we gotta do is is once we verify there's no crime. It's not a crime we carry your gun, but we just wanna make sure that that didn't happen. So can we talk to you so we can be on our way? Because because there's here here's the issue. We got some concerned citizens. Anytime they see people with guns, they get really they get very annoying and concerned. And so we just wanna we just wanna make sure that they're safe by making contact with you saying, hey.

He's not doing anything wrong. Yes. He does have a gun or no. He doesn't have a gun. And that way, we can be on our way so they don't keep calling us. Does that make sense? Okay. We wanna call the original PR who is a victim, see if we have any support standing. Yeah. In case it goes out wrong.

Somebody get the radio for search. We had lost.

Hands. Hands. Hands. Hands. Drop Drop it.

Shot's fired. Shot's fired. I see. Hold on. Come back in until this clears out. Hold it. Hold it. No. No. No.

Next video is officer Kravatz's body worn camera.

Northwest Side. Somebody get the radio for Serge.

Read my last

Hands in. Drop it. Drop it. Drop it. Drop it. It. Shot's fired. I can't see. Hold on. Come back in. Hold it. It. It. Hold it.

Is a slowed down version of officer Corrette's body worn camera. You can see Wilson come out of the apartment with the rifle raised, and then lower it towards the officers. And here's a still photo from officer Corrette's body worn camera showing Wilson exiting the apartment with the rifle in hand.

Detective, did you conduct some witness officer interviews?

Yes. Sergeant Muncy, during his interview, he stated he arrived at the location and contacted officer Buckland near the suspect's truck and began talking to PR's person's reporting. The suspect was identified by the truck's registration information and prior calls for service. They obtained a phone number for the suspect and officers proceeded to the 3rd Floor. Officers Buckland and Corvettes were on the 3rd Floor hallway with their rifles pointed eastbound.

Sergeant Muncy was in the stairwell between the 2nd And 3rd Floors. Sergeant Muncy called Wilson, who initially stated he was going to exit the apartment, and hung up the phone. Sergeant Muncy called Wilson three times and asked him to exit with his hands up. On the third call, Wilson stated, I'm done with this, and hung up. Moments later, officers Corvettes and Buckland advised there was movement and believe someone was exiting the apartment. The officers issued verbal commands, then sergeant Muncy heard the officers discharge their rifles. Due to smoke in the hallway, one of the officers broke out the hallway window. Once the smoke cleared, the officers approached, took Wilson into custody, and moved him westbound through the hallway. Officers challenged the apartment and a second male exited.

Did the officers conduct some walk throughs?

Yes. The purpose of the walk through is to assist crime scene analysts and detectives with developing an understanding of the scene, including identifying officers' locations at the time deadly force was used, identifying items of potential physical evidence, and recreating a timeline of the incident. It should be noted that all walkthroughs and statements conducted with the involved officers voluntary? The walkthrough was led by the LVPPA attorney who asked questions and the officers would confirm with an answer of yes. Both officers responded to a person with a gun call involving a mail making threats.

The officers took a position at the west end of the 3rd Floor hallway near the stairwell. Sergeant Muncy contacted Wilson by phone. Both officers heard the sound of a firearm being manipulated coming from the area of Wilson's apartment. Wilson exited the apartment with a rifle in his hand. Wilson was verbal commands to drop the rifle. Wilson pointed the firearm at officers. In fear of deadly force being used against them, officers, corvettes, and Buckland discharged their rifles.

Did you conduct a civilian witness statement?

Yes. The civilian witness identified as SW. SW was visiting Wilson due to Wilson recently being in the hospital for mental health related issues. After watching shooting videos, SW and Wilson decided to go to the desert to shoot. SW believed Wilson was on medication for schizophrenia and also drank alcohol earlier in the morning. Wilson was acting strange, began placing bins of his girlfriend's property in the hallway. Wilson and his girlfriend began arguing about her property being in the hallway. The girlfriend left for work, and SW took a shower to prepare to go shooting. Wilson put on a suit and tie, which SW thought was strange to wear to go shoot in the desert. SW heard a knock at the door and told Wilson not to go outside apartment with a rifle pointed up.

SW heard multiple gunshots outside the apartment, so he grabbed his AR 15 and hid in the bathroom. Once SW knew police were outside, he threw his rifle down and exited the apartment.

Did the crime scene analysts ultimately create a scene diagram?

Yes, this is a diagram of the apartment in the hallway. You can see where Wilson was located in relation to Officer Buckland and Kravetz. It was approximately 34 feet nine inches from Officer Buckland to Wilson, and approximately 36 feet two inches from Officer Kravetz to Wilson.

Will you take us through some of the crime scene photos?

This first photo is a view down the hallway from the officer's location. This next photo is the other end of the hallway where bullets impacted the wall and the window. This is inside the apartment. To the right of the picture in the red circle is an AR 15. And then to the left of the picture is a bed. And on that bed, another rifle was located. These are the two rifles that were recovered from inside the apartment.

I have no further questions for this detective.

Mr. Tornierni, do you have any questions?

I do. Thank you.

So, let's start with the subject officer Kravitz. You stated that he had an opportunity to participate in a walk through as well as provide a statement. Is that accurate?

He did not provide a statement, he did provide a walkthrough.

Yes, my question was he had an opportunity to provide both? Yes. Okay. Walk us through how that process is initiated by you.

During the walk through, the officer's attorney and union representation is present, along with several detectives and crime scene analysts.

I don't mean to interrupt you, detective, but let's take a couple steps back. How is that process initiated by you?

They're asked by our sergeant to the union representations if they would participate in a walk through.

Subsequent to the shooting, officer has an opportunity to confer with a union representative, is that correct?

After the shooting, before the walk through, they consult with union representation and an attorney.

Shooting occurs, and I just wanna make sure I understand as well as the public, that's what we're here for, transparency, understands the process and procedure. Officers involved in a shooting while on duty. Subsequent to the shooting, they then have the ability to contact a lawyer as well as their union representative. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And what is the timeline between the shooting and the time in which they are allowed to confer with their counsel and union representative?

As soon as their union representation and counsel can arrive on scene, they're allowed to consult with them.

What was the timeline in particular to Officer Kravitz being able to confer with counsel and his union representative?

Are you asking when his representation arrived on scene? Approximately. I can't tell you that, but it's normally fairly quickly.

Okay. Within an hour or two.

Is that fair? That's fair. Okay.

There's nobody else involved as far as Metro or FIT. This is purely a conversation between the officer and his counsel who have his best interest in mind. Correct?

Prior his consultation before the walk through?

Yes. Yes. Okay. Information is this officer privy consulting with his attorney and union representative prior to the decision being made to confer regarding a walk through or statement with you? They're allowed to view their body camera. Okay. Is it fair to say that essentially they get the whole gambit of what may be used against them prior to meeting with you in order to make that determination if they want to volunteer for that?

They get to see the body camera so they know they can see what's on video, good or bad.

So subsequent to conferring with their union representative and lawyer, who reaches out to you to inform you their determination if they want to comply with your investigation? The union representation. Okay. And so, who specifically reached out to you in regards to Officer Kravitz?

Whoever was present during his walkthrough, can tell you. Stand by a second. So during his walk through, his attorney Steve Owens, his representatives Blasco, Lyman, and Gluenski were present.

I'm sorry, can you repeat the representative again?

Attorney Steve Owens, PPA representative Blasco, PPA representative Lyman, and PPA representative Glowinski. Okay.

So, we had three union representatives in addition to an attorney, is that

correct? Yes.

Okay. And, who did you have initial contact with regarding the potential to do the walk through statement?

That would have been the sergeant arranging the attorney. I can't tell you which union rep the sergeant spoke to.

Okay. So, it wasn't you directly. You have somebody underneath you who attempted to secure this?

Our sergeant typically handles communication and facilitation of events between union and us.

Understood. And you can't tell us who the sergeant was?

Sergeant Iaculo was on scene and Sergeant Parker was on scene. I cannot tell you which one was in communication with the union.

Were you in communication with either one of your sergeants? Yes. Okay. And, as a detective tasked with investigating the shooting, it's your goal to accomplish these walkthroughs and interviews. Is that fair? Yes. Okay. And, in regards to the walkthrough, is that the first step, and then subsequently your goal would be to have a statement provided, or do I have that flipped?

The walkthrough is the first step. After the walkthrough, we ask them if they're willing to give us a statement. And, on this particular one, they denied to

give a statement. Okay. So, the walk through is your first attempt to kinda get a bird's eye view of what occurred from the officer's point of view. Is that fair? Correct. And, you participated in the walk through? Yes. As well as his three union representatives and his lawyer? Yes. Do you watch the body cam prior to the walk through? Yes. And, do your sergeants participate in this walk through as well? Yes. Do they watch the body cam as well? Yes. Okay. And explain to us in a little bit more detail on how a walkthrough is accomplished.

Typically during the walkthrough, like I said, the attorney and union rep is there. The attorney will make a statement or ask the officer a question that the officer will answer with a yes or no to confirm if what the attorney is saying is accurate to what happened.

So, I'm hearing you correctly, attorney and his representatives predetermined the questions that are gonna be asked of the subject officer. Yes. And they simply reply yes or no. Yes. And in this particular walkthrough, each predetermined answer by his counsel was yes. Yes. And you are not afforded the opportunity to ask any questions yourself as the investigating detective in this situation. Is that correct?

We can, but it's voluntary of whether or they're gonna answer it. Got it. What attempts did you make to ask your own questions in this

particular walkthrough?

There were none because the attorney covered what we needed at the time.

Okay. So you felt that the attorney representing subject officer Kravitz covered all the questions that you would have asked as the investigating detective in this case? Correct. Okay. Subsequent to the walk through, you stated earlier that the next goal is to have the officer provide a statement. Is that correct? Correct. Walk us through the steps in which you attempted to accomplish that.

At the end of the walkthrough, the sergeant will ask the subject officer if they're willing to provide a statement. And at this time, on this particular one, the officers both respectfully deny. Okay.

And again, as the investigative detective in this case, you would prefer that they provide you a statement so you could fully accomplish your job. Is that a fair statement? Correct. And you're trained in securing statements during investigations as a detective of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Correct? Correct. So, this is nothing new to you? Correct. What steps did you particularly take in order to secure that statement?

None, the sergeant facilitates that. The sergeant asks if they're willing to give a statement, and if they say no, voluntary statement.

We can't force them to. What steps did your sergeant take in order to ascertain or to receive that statement?

He asked them if they would provide a statement.

Okay. And, politely declined? Correct. Okay. Let's move on to the second one. Buckland, am I getting that last name correct? Yes. Okay. Similar to subject officer Kravitz, he provided a walk through, but declined a statement. Is that fair? Correct. To save everybody time, am I fair in assuming that all of these same parties were present at the walk through, Owens as well as the union representatives?

Yes.

Okay. So not only does the subject officer have the opportunity to confer with his counsel and his multiple union representatives, they're represented, being both subject officers in the shooting, by the same counsel and same union representatives. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And it's fair to say that this subject officer, as well as his counsel and representatives, was also afforded the opportunity to review all the body cam in this particular case before making a determination on whether they would comply with your request? Correct. Okay. And you were present for the walk through for subject officer Buckland?

Yes.

And in similar form and fashion, was it his attorney and not you or your sergeants who were asking the questions of subject officer? Yes. And were each and every one of those responses to said questions yes? Yes. And is it also true that the request for a statement provided by subject officer Buckland was asked of your sergeant and not yourself? Correct. And were there any additional steps taken to secure that statement in contrast to subject officer Kravitz? No. You mentioned several witness officers in regards to this officer involved shooting. Did they as well complete a walk through?

No. They gave us recorded statements. Was there an attempt for them to do a walk through, or is that only for the subject officers? We typically only do the walk through with the subject officers. Okay. And in similar form and fashion to the subject officers, were they afforded the opportunity to confer with their attorneys as well as union representatives?

Yes, their union representative is present during the interview. Are they also afforded the opportunity to review critical evidence such as the body cam footage?

Yes. And is it fair to say that they are represented by the same attorneys and same union representatives that the subject officers in this particular case Yes. And each one of those Hold witnesses

on, I'm sorry. Sergeant Muncy would've been part of the PMSA. So, it would've been different representation.

I'm sorry, could you say that a little louder?

Sergeant Muncy would've been part of the PMSA, so it would've been different representation. So, Sergeant Muncy would've been part of the Supervisor's Union, not the Police Officers Union.

And I was just gonna ask you that,

can you elaborate on that acronym? It's the PMSA, the Police Managers Supervisor Association.

Okay. So, the sergeant has separate union representative in comparison to the actual officers? Correct. Okay. And it's your understanding that, you just answered the question it's a separate union, but are you aware or not aware that if it's actually the same representation or representatives?

Different representatives.

Okay, so different union, different human beings representing. Correct. Or just Sergeant Muncie?

Correct.

What about the lawyer, Mr. Owens?

To my knowledge, he does not work for the PMSA. Okay.

Do you know who his lawyer was, Sergeant Muncie, that?

He didn't have a lawyer on scene, just a rep.

And each and every one of the witness officers did in fact provide a statement. Is that accurate? Correct. And you were present for each and every one of those?

No, I was not present for each interview. We divide tasks. We have several detectives that work with us. So when we're on scene, divide tasks of who's gonna do interviews, who's gonna canvas for video, who's gonna assist with documenting the scene. So I would not have been present for every witness officer interview. How many

witness officer interviews were conducted?

Five.

And how many different officers, or sergeants, or whatever their respective and earned title was conducted those interviews?

I'd have to look at each interview to see Do you want me to look at each interview to see? It been would approximately four or five different detectives doing the interviews.

Okay. Is it the goal to have a different detective for each witness, or is it allowable as part of your procedure for multiple witness officers to be interviewed by the same detective?

It depends on manpower and how many officers we have to interview. Every situation is slightly different.

Understood. So, in this particular situation, at least multiple out of the five that were interviewed, to your Correct.

And

when approximately were these interviews conducted?

They were conducted on scene.

On scene, so the day of the incident. Correct. Well within a quick timeline. Were you present for the autopsy? No. Can you tell us who was present for the autopsy It other than the medical

was detective Fusulo, detective Venezuela, CSA, and the coroner's forensic assistant Cox.

And then forensic assistant Star, and forensic tech Canard. So several employees of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department were present for the autopsy?

In the Clark County Coroner's Office. Understood. And what is the role of law enforcement during an autopsy?

To document, get information on injuries, information from

the doctor, and observe. Observe. Is this typical in any sort of shooting death?

Yes. In

prior officer involved shootings, have you been present for the actual autopsy?

Yes.

Okay. Is there any particular reason in this case that you were not present?

Just the way tasks were divided. There were other things I needed to handle.

Delegated to another detective. Your colleagues in Metro, were they there for the entirety of the autopsy?

They were not there for what they call the cut, where the doctor actually goes, makes an incision in the body, and examines the inside of the body.

What portion were they present for that you're aware of?

So, the way the autopsy works is typically they bring the body into a room, they clean off the body, to give better exposure to the injuries. So, in this case, gunshot wounds and things like that. That way, we can document where on the body there's those specific injuries.

Who spoke with the alleged victim, JL, as far as law enforcement is concerned?

Detective Tomaso. Okay.

And approximately when did this interview occur?

On the twentieth at approximately sixteen thirty hours.

Now JL is a civilian, correct? Correct. So, it's fair to assume he didn't have a union representative with him? Correct. Was he afforded an opportunity to have a lawyer representative with him during questionings, similar to the subject officers?

He wasn't being interrogated as far as being accused of committing a crime, so there would be no reason for him to need an attorney.

Okay. So that wasn't my question. Was he afforded the opportunity to have representation there in the form of an attorney for that questioning?

He wasn't, like, told or specifically said, you can have an attorney. But had he wanted one, he would have been allowed to have one present.

So your testimony is he wasn't prevented, but he wasn't provided or encouraged. Correct. Approximately how long did that interview occur?

I don't have the timestamp as far as when the interview ended, but I would imagine ten to twenty minutes.

Okay. Anything remarkable or of note from that interview?

Just that he said that the gun was pointed at him. He said that he became scared for his life. And he got inside his apartment, and then he wanted to find a way to leave his apartment.

And you've mentioned multiple individuals as far as Metro is concerned in regards to this investigation. Who specifically was tasked with reviewing the interview and looking for any potential inconsistencies?

The detective that does the interview will review transcript to the audio.

Okay, so the interviewer is responsible for reviewing the transcript and what, passing on to you if you felt that the person was

You mean inconsistencies as far as facts of what was happened or

Their statement. Any inconsistencies from the statement. That's the job of the interviewer.

So the detective doing the interview, if they find inconsistencies during the interview, it's their job to question those inconsistencies and to try and clear things up.

And then they would bring that to your attention? Correct. Okay. And in this particular case, there were no inconsistencies that were brought to your attention. Is that fair? Correct. Who was tasked with interviewing civilian witness SW?

That was detective Mendoza. Okay.

And in this particular situation, he works underneath you. Correct?

He works with me.

Yes. With you? Yes. Okay. So he's not a subordinate? No. Okay. Who was present for that interview other than the detective and the civilian witness?

The detective and the civilian witness were the only people present.

Okay. Were there any inconsistencies that were brought to your attention from said interview? No. One of your sergeants spoke to the decedent approximately three times prior to the shooting. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. And we saw some of it on the body cam, but I wanna walk through this chronologically with you. Approximately, how long did the first phone call last?

I don't have call records with me. Can't tell you. But based on the body cameras, they were fairly quick

conversations. Okay. And again, we heard some of what your sergeant said, but I don't believe, and you

can correct me if I'm wrong, we

could hear what the decedent was saying on the other side. What did the decedent say on the other side on the first phone call?

I don't know what he said on the first phone call. I know in his statement he said on the last phone call he made that quote along the lines of I'm done with this, and then hung up the phone. But I don't know what was quoted on the first phone call. Call's not recorded.

We have no idea if he expressed that he was going through distress or mental health issues or overdosing on drugs or just flat out have no idea what he stated to your officers in that first phone call?

Correct.

What about the second phone call? Same.

And what about the third phone call? The only information we have on

the third call is that at end he said that quote of I'm done with this and then hung up the phone.

And you can correct me if I'm wrong. This necessarily is not considered a hostage situation, correct? There wasn't a hostage per se? But you guys, you being metro law enforcement, are obviously concerned for your own safety as well as the public at large during this crisis situation. Is that fair? Correct. And you have the officers in the hallway with their guns drawn, as well as the sergeant making phone calls with the decedent. Is that a fair description?

Yes.

What steps are being taken in the background for you guys to figure out who you're dealing with and why you're there?

Typically officers will request our fusion center to do a work up on the person to find what their criminal history is, are there any family contacts that we can get ahold of vehicles, things like that. And then also direct communication with the person on the phone to try to get them to peacefully come out.

So in this particular case, who was responsible for gathering that background information while the situation was live?

They gathered some of that before they went into the building. Because they had information that the person reported with the gun was associated with the pickup truck. And so they ran the vehicle registration off the pickup truck to identify the potential suspect. And then from there they were able to get

a phone number throughout the records. Okay.

And who in particular had that responsibility on this date to gather said information?

That was done over dispatch. Somebody ran the plate over the radio and the dispatcher was able to run the license plate.

So you can gather a lot of information from a license plate, such as the name, DMV records, etcetera. What information was gathered about the decedent by law enforcement prior to the shooting?

Information as far as address, the vehicle information, and they had information of a couple prior calls for service.

Okay. Was there anything relevant from those prior calls of service regarding this alleged schizophrenia or any other issues that would be helpful for your officers while engaging?

No. No

further questions. Thank you, detective.

Anything further, miss McCull?

Yes. A few questions. Detective, during the course of your investigation, you are conducting a criminal investigation. Is that correct?

Correct.

There was a lot of questioning about securing statements and the efforts you went to. Do you remember that line of questioning about the subject officers?

Yes.

Okay. When speaking specifically about Officer Kavetz and Officer Buckland, they have the same right to decline to speak to a detective that any other suspect has during a criminal investigation. Is that fair to say?

Correct.

And under those same premises, it's also fair to say that the subject officers are provided all of the same constitutional protections as any other citizen?

Correct.

And then detective, I wanna circle back to a question and answer that you previously gave. Do you remember the line of questioning regarding your interview with JL, the man who had a gun pointed at his at his head? Yes. And the answer you gave regarding whether or not you asked him if he wanted a lawyer present and the significance of a witness being interviewed and a subject of a criminal investigation. Can you kind of explain the difference between a witness and interviewing a suspect in a criminal investigation?

A person's Miranda rights don't apply to them if they are a witness or a victim of a crime. So, if they were considered a suspect or having potential criminal ramifications, they would have been advised their Miranda rights, informing them that they had the right to have an attorney present.

Okay. And the reason that you didn't ask JL if he wanted an attorney is because he was not the suspect in a criminal investigation. Right. He was a victim of a crime.

Correct.

I have no further questions.

Anything based on that, miss?

Briefly. You were just asked, that or it was inferred, and you responded in the affirmative that these officers have the same rights as civilians in regards to afforded the opportunity to invoke counsel prior to questioning. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And in your career as a detective, is it commonplace or has it ever happened where you have a civilian suspect on scene that you're investigating a potential crime that you afford him the opportunity to review an officer's body cam footage before he answers your questions? Typically, no. Thank you.

Anything based on that, miss?

No.

At this time we're going to take a brief recess. There's a number of questions that I have received. We're going to gather in the back and go through them and make sure that the questions that are going to be asked are relevant. So, we're going to take a brief recess. If there are any other questions, can we get those now? Thank you.

We're going to be in recess if

the attorneys can come to the back. Thank you.

Hello, yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much. There were a number of questions that were asked and I'm going to go through most of them. There was just a few that seem like they were redundant that have already been asked and answered, but I will go through all of the questions that were asked.

What is your response to the autopsy findings confirming Wilson's arm was pointed toward the ceiling when shot? When reading the autopsy report, you have to keep in mind that the autopsy report is written from perspective anatomical positioning. So, the body in a position with the arms kinda to the side slightly out. So, it's not directly correlated to what is seen on video. The doctor doesn't write the report based off video, they write it off of what they see physically on the body. Okay.

Is it necessary for the muzzle to momentarily move while setting down a weapon? When you move a weapon, the muzzle will move. Why didn't officers advise Wilson on how to drop it, in quotes, perhaps asking him to turn around first, etcetera? Again, officers didn't give a statement,

so I can't give specifics as to why they said certain things or didn't say certain things, but when dynamic situations, when someone is coming out armed with a rifle, the officer is gonna try to give brief, short, clear commands, not long, drawn out instructions. Why

was Wilson handcuffed after he was no longer a threat? And two, did he receive medical aid first? I apologize, it's a two part question.

He was handcuffed prior to medical aid. Officers will typically handcuff a suspect to ensure that they're safe and secure and no longer a threat to them, or medical staff. So that way the officers and medical staff can safely render aid. Is this fact finding why were the tote boxes moved before scene photos were taken? When officers approached the apartment, they moved the totes further down the hallway room to call out the second subject in the apartment and to provide them enough room to be able to clear the apartment in the hallway. The

next set of questions. Was the gun pointed at JL's head or at mister Wilson's truck, which was parked outside the door? Per JL's statement, he said

it was pointed at his head.

Okay. The next set of questions asks, the coroner's report states the bullet trajectory

through the forearm was back to front with negligible upward or downward deviation. How does that trajectory support the conclusion the rifle was being lowered to aim at officers? Again, the coroner writes the report based off the anatomical position of what they're seeing in the lab in the coroner's office. You But you also have to keep in mind that during the shooting, Wilson was moving his arm, so his body is also in motion in relation to the bullets. Next

set of questions asked,

Is there a reason for not using any non lethals? When presented with a deadly threat, such as a rifle being pointed at you, a safer option for the officers is to use a lethal option.

Question number two is how fast was medical aid initiated?

So the officers discharged their rifles at 12:52 forty five, and medical arrived on scene at 12:53 forty nine. Okay. Was moving the totes with Seth's firearm a measure of tampering with a crime scene? No, when the scene is still dynamic and officers are trying to still clear the apartment, it's appropriate for them to move things and make things safer for them to be able to work and operate.

Okay. And the final question on this is why is it that both shooting officers were unaware of their round count? Were they not properly trained?

The officers never stated they were unaware of their round count and they did receive training.

Okay, the next question from somebody else in the public is, Why didn't anyone attempt to contact the tenant of the apartment?

I don't know which apartment tenant that's referring to, but we do know that Sergeant Muncie contacted Wilson by phone when they found when they learned that which apartment he was in based off records check, they were able to contact him by phone for that specific apartment.

Okay.

And the next set of questions from the public is why did they not announce that they were police? When Sergeant Muncie was on the phone with Wilson, he did identify that there were police officers down the hallway.

Okay. Next question is, why did they not announce that they would shoot?

The officers saw a threat when he came out, and they did not have time to give a warning.

The next question from the public is, if the rifle began being pointed upward and commands were given to, quote, drop the weapon, how did investigators determine the downward movement of the barrel was an act of aiming rather than an act of compliance? I think you answered this, but go ahead and answer that.

So, the downward motion of rifle and the rifle being pointed at officers, use of force is evaluated based on the officer's perception at the time. When a rifle is moving down, pointed at an officer, it is reasonable to understand how an officer would perceive that rifle pointed at them as a deadly threat when it takes less than a second to pull the trigger of a rifle.

Okay. The next set of questions from the public begins. Did the sergeant who spoke with my father by telephone relay any information from that conversation to the officers who subsequently discharged their firearm? And if so, what information was communicated and when?

Based on body camera, there was minimal information relayed, just information that he hung up and said that he wasn't gonna come out.

Okay. Next question is, what level of

threat did the sergeant assess my father to pose during the telephone conversation, and what factors informed that assessment? The sergeant didn't bring up any threat level. However, they were responding to a call involving a person with a long gun, so the officers, as they're arriving to that, understandably have a heightened threat perception for their safety and the public safety.

Did the officers who fired the shots observe there was no ammunition loaded in the firearm and that my father's finger was not inside the trigger guard prior to discharging their weapon? If not, why was such verification not conducted?

It is not reasonable to expect an officer to physically see if a gun is loaded from 30 feet away when that gun is being pointed at them. Okay.

And the next question is, body worn camera footage shows my dad saying, here I am, in quotes, as he exits his apartment door. After officers issued the command to drop the weapon, how many seconds was he given to comply with their orders before he was killed?

So at 12:52 forty one, Wilson exited exited the the apartment with his rifle in hand, and then at 12:52 forty five is when rifles were discharged.

Okay. The next question. Does possession of an unloaded firearm always lead Las Vegas Metro Police Department officers to use deadly force or just in this case?

If that unloaded firearm is pointed at the officers and the officers perceive that as a threat, it would be appropriate to use deadly force. It's not reasonable for an officer to expect an officer to know without physically checking if a firearm is unloaded or loaded.

Okay. When feasible, officers must give a clear warning that they're going to shoot their firearms. In this case, it was obviously feasible. Why did the officers opt not to give

a warning? When feasible, again, Wilson exited the apartment at 12:52 forty one, and then within four seconds, the rifle was pointed at them and the officers had to discharge their weapons, so I don't think that matter of seconds would be feasible for them to provide a warning.

The next question. Statements and body cam footage have any discrepancies? No. The next question, Were officers trained on what to do in the circumstance of an armed but non threatening individual?

Officers will handle again, each situation is different, but in this call, the officers had no way of knowing that the firearm was unloaded. And, they had information that the gun was pointed at people, so their threat perception is gonna be heightened with a higher or a lower tolerance of what 's gonna be allowed as far as threatening actions.

Okay. Next question is, is it feasible that an individual experiencing fear and attempting to comply with police commands would place a firearm on the nearest surface directly in front of them rather than dropping it in another manner, question, especially when he was given only roughly three seconds to comply.

It's feasible to put the gun down. It's not, feasible to point the gun at officers.

Question. Why was Breonna Davis, the tenant, never interviewed?

She left the scene. We were unable to contact

her. What

was the perceived mental state of my father during the incident? Was there any belief or assumption that he was under the influence of drugs or having a mental health crisis? It's a three part question. If so, what evidence supported that belief and is there different protocol to accommodate this behavior? If you could break that down.

On the body camera, you hear at one point Sergeant Muncie say he's 421 a, which is the radio code for someone that is mentally ill. As far as their response, all the officers on scene were CIT certified, which is the crisis intervention team, which is additional training on dealing with people that are having mental episodes and a mental distress or crisis.

How does the department consider a fact finding review to be complete and accurate when no follow-up occurred of the deceased's son who had direct contact with our father immediately prior to the incident and was present at the scene.

His son was interviewed.

The officers on scene were reasonably close to a corner wall where they could have obtained cover. Were any non lethal alternatives such as verbal de escalation, containment or use of cover considered before discharging firearms? If so, why were they rejected?

I would consider the phone call between Sergeant Muncy and Wilson verbal de escalation. As far as containment, there were also officers in the stairwell on the other side of the building in case Wilson or the other occupant was able to get out of the apartment and attempt to flee. As far as non lethal options, there were non lethal options. There was a shield present. Officers have tasers and pepper spray on them. But when you're dealing with a threat with a subject who's armed with a gun, you have to match that with lethal coverage. It's just a necessity.

Why were they rejected? Okay. So, next question. Was any post incident analysis conducted regarding the timing, sequence,

and necessity of the shots fired, and who conducted it, and what standards were applied? So the force investigation team is tasked with doing the criminal investigation of the deadly use of force. The department also has an administrative side which reviews tactics, policies, and procedures to make those determinations, which my section is not privy to. It's a separate investigation.

Next question is, were all available witnesses, including family members and neighbors, interviewed promptly after the incident? If not, what were the reasons for excluding certain witnesses?

Everyone was interviewed on scene, and again, the girlfriend had left the scene. We were unable to contact her.

Next question is, during the time that my dad was in the hallway, did he verbally refuse to comply with any command? Not

in the hallway. However, he did refuse to comply when he was in the apartment by refusing to come out the multiple times that he was asked to come out by sergeant Muncie. The

next question, did you observe my father take a stable firing stance at any point before shots were fired?

Someone is not required to have a stable firing stance to be a threat with a firearm. A firearm can be discharged, aimed at somebody, shot at somebody without having a textbook stable firing stance. And

the final question is, were multiple officers giving commands at the same time? Yes. Okay. Concludes the, questions that were raised by the public. Is there anything further from

No. There's not.

No. Okay. Thank you detective. The public fact finding review was held because the Clark County District Attorney's Office made a preliminary determination that no criminal prosecution to the officers involved in the death of Seth Wilson is appropriate. Clark County ordinance chapter 2.12 requires a public review following such determination.

The purpose of today's hearing was to present the public with the essential facts surrounding the death of Seth Wilson. Michael Troiani was appointed by the Clark County manager as the ombudsman to represent the public. Mister Taranto was given an opportunity to ask questions to provide the public with relevant information regarding the use of force in this case. I was appointed by the Clark County Manager as the presiding officer to preside over this public review. I too was given opportunity to ask questions to provide the public with relevant information regarding the use of force in this case.

Prior to today's public review, the Clark County district attorney's office provided mister Troiani and myself copies of the law enforcement investigation regarding a mister Wilson. The documents provided by the prosecution are considered public record. If you missed any portion of this review or would like to obtain a recorded transcript, a video of the entire proceeding is available on the Clark County website @www.clarkcountynv.gov. This concludes the police fatality public fact finding review in the death of Seth Wilson. Thank you. We'll be in recess. Thank you.