Police Fatality Public Fact-finding Review - Regular Meeting

That no criminal prosecution of the officers involved in the death of Kyle Norris 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 the public with the essential facts surrounding the death of mister Norris. Chief deputy district attorney, Banu Pala, will present today's fact finding review on behalf of the district attorney's office. He will determine the witness or witnesses to be called. The ordinance does not provide subpoena power on my behalf and does not allow for any other party to call witnesses. Michael Troiano has been appointed to be the ombudsman. He represents both the public and the Norris family. He will have the opportunity to ask questions of the witness or witnesses.

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. Members of the public observing today's review may submit proposed written questions in the forms located in the back of this room and present it to one of the officers. I will ask the question unless I determine that it is irrelevant, redundant, or an abuse of the review process. At the conclusion of this review, no formal determination regarding the manner or cause of death shall be rendered. Rendered. Do either of the parties have anything to add?

No.

No. Mister if not mister Palau, please call your first witness.

Yes, your honor. Can you introduce yourself?

Detective Mark Colon. And with what section are you with? The force investigation investigation team.

And in that in that capacity, were you called out to 5145 on 09/20/2024?

Yes.

And can you tell us a little bit the location?

Yes. The major cross streets were Hacienda and Nellis. And the actual OIS location took place in the rear of the complex.

And can you tell us who the subject officer was in this OIS?

Yes. It was officer Samuel Garcia. He was hired in 2022. He was 21 at the time. He works patrol. His body worn camera was activated. He provided a walk through, and he did not provide a statement to fit.

Now were you able to review officer Garcia's weapon?

Yes. He had he had a staccato p nine millimeter equipped with a tach light. The investigation revealed two rounds were fired.

Were there any witness officers there?

Yes. There was sergeant Alfredo Quintero. He discharged his ECD, which is a taser. There was officer Chad Palmira. He also discharged his ECD. Officer Joseph Gifford and officer Cody Galt.

Can you tell us what an ECD is?

Yeah, it's a taser. It's an electronic control device, works with neuromuscular incapacitation.

So would it be colloquially called a taser, something that we would is a taser? Yes. Okay. Alright. And is that considered a lethal or nonlethal use of force?

Nonlethal. Yep.

Can you tell us about the decedent?

Yes. Kyle Norris. He was 42 years old. He lived in Las Vegas. Had he survived, his charges would have been assault with deadly weapon on a police officer and resisting public officer with a weapon.

And you you mentioned one of the charges would have been with a deadly weapon. Was there a deadly or was there a weapon used and recovered in this case?

Yes. He had a metal baseball bat.

Was an autopsy performed on mister Norris?

Yes. The autopsy was conducted by doctor Abu Bakr Marzoc on September 21. The cause of death was gunshot wounds of the chest, and the manner of death was homicide.

And was a toxicology report done on mister Norris?

Yes. Toxicology was was, reported, and he had high levels of methamphetamine.

Were there any civilians who witnessed, this incident?

Yes. There's two decedent related civilians. We'll refer to them as JS and TD. There was a resident of the complex who we refer to as MR, and there was an apartment complex employee that we will refer to as RT.

Tell us a little bit about the decedent related witnesses.

J s and t d, they met the decedent on a dating app, and they agreed to meet that morning. The decedent arrived at approximately zero eight hundred zero eight hundred hours, and they let him inside the apartment. The decedent asked to take a shower prior to having sex with TD. The decedent showered and exited into the living room nude. The decedent was acting paranoid, so TD asked if he was on something.

The decedent stated he was on methamphetamine and believed there were cameras in the apartment recording. The decedent threatened t d by stating that he would rip out his throat. The decedent threatened to leave the apartment, so both j s and t told him to go. They estimated he was in the apartment for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before he left.

Can you tell us about the civilian witnesses?

Yes. MR, resident of the complex, exited their apartment to go to work. As they were getting in their vehicle, they observed the decedent towards the rear of their vehicle. The decedent recited their vehicle plate out loud. MR confronted the decedent, and he mumbled something and walked away.

As the decedent walked up a flight of stairs in the complex, MR drove to the front office. MR advised management about the suspicious person and then drove to work. And then the apartment complex employee, RT, stated staff were having a meeting in in the front office when a tenant knocked on the door. MR informed an apartment employee of the decedent taking photographs of license plates near Building 1. RT and other employees contacted the decedent at the South Side of the complex.

When asked to leave, the decedent informed RT he was visiting tenants in the complex for a sexual encounter and made statements about being bipolar and schizophrenic. RT attempted to contact their security team who did not respond, resulting in LVNPD being requested. While officers were attempting to speak to the decedent, RT observed the decedent retrieve a blue baseball bat from a vehicle, raise it above his head, and approach officers. RT thought the decedent was going to attack the officer with the baseball bat. RT then heard pops and saw the decedent fall to the ground. RT observed an officer performing chest compressions on the decedent.

As part of your investigation, did you establish a timeline of the officer involved shooting?

Yes. At zero 09:10 hours, apartment employees called 911 to report the decedent was trying to open car doors in the apartment complex parking lot. At zero 09:11 hours, information was updated that the decedent was standing in front of a gold Dodge Durango. At zero 09:22 hours, the decedent made threats to apartment complex employees. At zero 09:23 hours, the caller reported the decedent retrieved an unknown object from the Durango's trunk.

At zero 09:24 hours, officers arrived. Sergeant Quintero broadcasted the decedent was uncooperative, and he would wait for additional units. At zero 09:25 hours, officer Palmira and Garcia arrived. At zero 09:28 hours, shots fired was broadcasted.

Okay. As part of your investigation, did you learn whether or not the subject officer and witness officers were wearing body worn camera? Yes. And as part of your investigation, did you review the body worn camera of officers?

Yes.

And can we give the admonishment? Thank you, sir. Okay.

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.

Alright. Let's first talk about officer Palmira's body worn camera.

Okay. Officer Palmira, he is riding with officer Garcia, and you'll see sergeant Quintero had already arrived and was speaking with the

Hey, partner. We're fine right now. We're gonna wait for another unit.

Gun off. I got I got What's going on? I got tasered. Is that long range? I got tasered. Yeah. Do you even know his name yet? What's your name? What's your first name? I don't have a You don't have a first name? So can I call you Arizona State?

No. You're here in my right.

What what's your first name then? First. First? Yeah. Hey, First. I need you to come over here to my car. This is the Metropolitan Police Department. Okay. Yeah. It is. No. It's a police department. Yeah. It is. No. It's not. They're be real plates. So no. They're real plates. Is it on? And it's a real uniform, and it's a real car. No. We don't we don't have brown pants anymore. No. This is interesting. No. It's not. I don't guess it is. No. It's not. And did you know that Metro is Clark County, so we cover the whole county? Not Metro. It's Metro. We cover it's Clark County Police Department. So can I have you come over here to me real quick? No. Why is that? We are the real police. We are. We have a light.

We have sirens. We have a uniform. We have our badge. We have everything that shows that we are the police department. Right. So if you are unable to listen to our commands, then we have to go over there and we have to put our hands on you. We don't? Yeah. We do. Right. What we what what's gonna happen? Why is that? I like the result. You're not we're not gonna like the result? No. No. We'll like the result. Okay? So it it's going to be you cooperating and coming over here, or it's gonna be you uncooperating and we're gonna have to go over there. What's the case gonna be?

Over here. Okay. So we are going to take you into custody regardless. Give custody. Me custody. Okay. We got you. We got you. We got you. Go ahead. Reach back. Back. Reach back. Holster. Holster. Holster.

Have a body worn camera still photo. It's showing the decedent with the bat approaching officers.

Alright. And then did you also review officer Garcia's body worn camera?

Yes. Officer Garcia will be getting out of the passenger seat and going to the other side of the decedent, the opposite side of Officer Palmira. Hey, get the fuck over here, dude. In front of

the car.

Get in front of

the car.

Get over there.

Get in front of

the car right now.

In front of my car?

Get in front of the car.

Alright? Yes, sir. Relax. Relax.

Here's a still photo once again showing the decedent with the bat.

And among the other body worn cameras that you reviewed, did you also review sergeant Quintero's body worn camera?

Correct. Here's sergeant Quintero's body worn camera. The audio portion is not in sync with the video portion. And once again, a still photo showing the decedent with the bat approaching officers.

Did you were sorry. Were interviews conducted with the witness officer?

Yes. We have officer Palmira. He was assigned to an auto burglary call, and sergeant Quintero had already arrived. When officers Palmira and Garcia arrived, sergeant Contaro told them the decedent was not listening to commands. The decedent was standing in front of a gold SUV. Officer Palmira took over the role of issuing verbal commands. The decedent accused the officers of not actually being police officers. Officer Palmira assured him they were officers and pointed out that their uniforms and marked patrol that they had uniforms and marked patrol vehicles. The decedent walked around to the front of the SUV and stated he was not going to comply. The decedent opened the front passenger door and retrieved the bat.

He heard officer Garcia instruct the decedent to drop the bat. Officer Palmira discharged his ECD twice followed by sergeant Quintero. Immediately after the ECDs, officer Garcia discharged his firearm. He explained the decedent was walking towards him with the bat raised in an aggressive manner. Officer Palmira was in fear of being struck in the head with the bat.

Did also interview or did was sergeant Quintero also interviewed?

Yes. Sergeant Quintero received details of an auto burglary call involving a subject who was acting erratically. Sergeant Quintero was first to arrive and use his PA system to instruct a decedent to show his hands. Sergeant Quintero exited his patrol vehicle and made verbal contact with the decedent. The the decedent did not believe sergeant Quintero was the police, and the decedent stated he would not comply.

Sergeant Quintero drew his ECD and waited for additional units. Sergeant Quintero instructed nearby citizens to move back. A two man unit arrived, and they continued to talk to the decedent. The decedent moved to the front passenger side of his vehicle and removed a full size metal baseball bat and held it up towards officers. The decedent swung the bat towards officer Palmira and was within close proximity to him.

Officer Palmira deployed his ECD. As the decedent continued to move towards officer Palmira, sergeant Quintero deployed his ECD then heard gunshots. Sergeant Quintero stated that the decedent had the ability to seriously injure officer Palmira with the bat. After the decedent was shot, officers took him into custody and provided medical aid until medical personnel arrived on scene.

Were crime scene photographs and a crime scene diagram done in this case?

Yes. Here's a crime scene diagram. It's showing the locations of the officers' vehicles, the decedent's vehicle, as well as the decedent and shell casings, after officer Garcia's shot. This shows the distances from the decedent to the officers when shots were fired, officer Palmira was approximately six feet from the decedent, and officer Garcia was approximately 10 feet four inches from the decedent. This shows the metal baseball bat that's in close proximity to the decedent after he went down.

It was thrown to the side by officers when they put handcuffs on him. This is the gold SUV that the decedent was standing in front of and retrieved the bat from. This is just a picture the inside of the vehicle. And inside a bag in the front seat, we located a white pottery substance that tested positive for methamphetamine.

Can you tell us what an officer walk through is?

Yes. The purpose of the scene walk through is to assist crime scene analysts and fit 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. All walk throughs and statements conducted with the involved officers are voluntary.

And can you tell us what you learned as a result of this walk through?

Yes. Officer Garcia participated in a walk through led by LVPPA attorney David Roger, who asked questions and the officer would answer yes. Officer Garcia and his FTO, officer Palmier responded to a possible burglary incident at the 5100 Block Of Rawhide Street. Sergeant Quintero was already out out with the decedent who was not obeying orders. Sergeant Quintero was making verbal contact with officer Garcia, and officer Garcia was assigned containment on the opposite side of the decedent's vehicle.

The decedent stood in front of his Dodge Durango and then approached the passenger side of his vehicle and opened the door. The decedent retrieved a metal baseball bat and faced officer Palmira. The officers yelled to drop the bat. The decedent approached officer Palmira. Officer Palmira discharged his taser. The decedent continued toward officer Palmira, and he discharged his taser again, which was ineffective. The decedent was about four to five feet from officer Palmira and sergeant Quintero with the bat raised when officer Garcia fired his gun. Officer Garcia believed the decedent was going to hit officer Palmira and sergeant Quintero with the bat.

Thank you, detective Colon. That ends the state's, examination of detective Colon.

Good morning, detective. Good to see you again. Detective, let's just kinda start from a broad view here. As as you're aware, the purpose of these specific hearings is for transparency and for the public to have an understanding of what all parties are involved in in addition to what we're seeing on that body cam footage. So can you start with explaining broadly your role in this investigation?

We're responsible for the criminal investigation of officer involved shootings.

And I understand what that means, but for the public who's watching us, could you be a little bit more descriptive, I guess, as

to what that exactly means and what your goals are? Yes. We're there to gather evidence, conduct interviews, and determine what happened at the scene, whether, the officers were justified or not. And we compile a report and a case, and we submit it to the DA's office, and they decide if the shooting was justified.

Okay. And so I heard we, and I was assuming you met you, Metropolitan Police Department, then you heard DA decide. So can you educate us on who makes the deciding factor? Do you guys initially make a recommendation as far as Metro is concerned that you believe it was justified or not and submit that to the DA's office? How that go down?

No. We just gather all the evidence, interviews, and everything we gather from the scene, and we submit that whole case to the DA's office, and the DA decides if it's justified or not.

Okay, so your office doesn't make any specific recommendations. You're gathering, investigating, producing that to the Clark County DA's office and it's ultimately up to them to make the decision whether or not it was justified and if they're gonna pursue charges against the officers.

Yes.

Now

let's talk about the subject, Officer Garcia. I believe you said he was fairly young, about 21 years old about the time of the shooting. Is that accurate? Correct. And how long was he on the force at this particular time? He

was hired in 2022 and this occurred in 2024, so approximately two years.

Got it. Okay. And he participated in a walk through. Can you explain how you attempt to set up a walk through? Voluntary. Correct?

We ask the officer if he would like to provide a walk through.

And do you speak directly to the officer or do you speak to his lawyer or union representatives? For the walk through, we either speak we speak to the officer with his union representative present. Okay. And was were you the actual detective who spoke directly with officer Garcia in regards to the walk through? Yes. Okay. Who was present for that exchange?

For just asking if he wants a walk through?

Yes, sir.

Just me. Just me, the union rep, and officer Garcia.

And who was his union rep? I don't recall. You don't recall? Did officer Garcia have an opportunity to speak to his union rep prior to deciding whether or not to engage in a walk through with you?

Yes.

Was he provided his body cam footage and able to review that evidence prior to deciding whether or not to conduct a walk through with you? Yes. Okay. And broadly for the public's education, what exactly is the dynamics of a walk through?

The dynamics of a walk through is detectives, the subject the involved officer, his union rep, and his lawyer, as well as a crime scene analyst walk this go to the scene where the incident occurred. The officer will tell us where he was standing, where he believes he was standing when he fired his weapon, where he believes the suspect, on this case the decedent, was standing when he fired his weapon, and then the attorney and the officer will give us a brief statement of what occurred and why deadly force was used.

So is he, I guess, literally and figuratively walk you through? Is the officer the one that's explaining it in his own words, or is it his lawyer or union representative that is speaking to you explaining it?

It's a combination of both. When we're finding out where his location was and the decedent's location was, the officer is telling us. When we are shown in the walk through slide and explained in the walk through slide that that part, the union attorney asked the officer a question and he replies yes or no.

So he's not really giving a full rundown from A to Z, that being the subject officer of what occurred? That's correct. And again you said that your role in this is to gather information, provide that to the state. Does that handicap your ability to test the veracity of a subject, whether or not it's an officer, if you're not hearing directly from them, but through a representative such as a union rep or a lawyer?

No. Any information we receive is valuable to our investigation, whether it's through him, through his attorney, through the evidence, through other interviews.

Okay. And I agree with you that any information is valuable, but as a detective tasked with investigating a potential crime, do you find that it is more valuable to hear directly from the person that was involved in the incident, regardless if they're an officer or a civilian?

Sure.

Yes. Okay. And subsequent to the walk through, there was a request for statement to be provided. Can you explain how those particular statements work, that dynamic?

We provide the opportunity for all officers who are involved in deadly force to give us a statement, and it's up to them. It's voluntary, so they can say yes or no. So in this case, after the walk through, we'll ask the officer directly if he would like to provide us a statement, and he will answer us directly, yes or no.

Okay. In this particular incident, he declined, is that accurate? That's correct. Okay. In a situation in which they agree to do it, is it a similar dynamic that their attorney or union representative is speaking on their behalf, or are you speaking directly to the subject officer?

In my experience, when the officer does provide a statement, he provides a statement directly. Are the

lawyers present for those interviews or statements?

He may have a lawyer present.

Okay. It's a choice.

It's up to them. Yes.

It's up to them. Okay. In your experience, you generally have some sort of representative present?

Yes. At least at least a union rep is present.

Okay. And he's particularly that being officer Garcia fired two rounds. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. And both of those contacted the decedent? Yes. Okay. Witness officer Quintero, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, did he provide a walk through?

Sergeant Quintero? No. Sergeant? No?

No. Okay. Okay. Was he offered the opportunity to provide a walk through?

In this case, I believe we just asked officer Garcia and officer Palmira to provide a walk through.

Okay. So Palmira, Galt, Gifford, none of

them were requested? Galt and Gifford were just involved in taking the subject into custody, so we did not applying handcuffs, so we did not ask them for a walk through.

Understood. Now you played the video earlier of the incident, and just prior to the decedent grabbing the baseball bat out of the vehicle, one of the officers says that that we're going to take you into custody custody regardless. Why were they taking him in a gusty excuse me, into custody regardless at that point before weapon was used or threatened?

Well, they had information that he was committing auto burglaries and lifting door handles and bothering residents of the complex. And at this point, he wasn't listening to officers' commands, so they were going to detain him. Yes.

Okay. And earlier on during your presentation, you mentioned potential charges, I believe one being assault with a deadly weapon against a protected person. I didn't see anything, or maybe I missed it and you can correct me if I'm wrong, regarding auto burglaries. Was that one of the charges that would have been presented?

We went with the most serious charges, and after the investigation revealed he didn't make entry to any automobiles. But at the time officers contacted him,

they didn't have that information. Okay. So that statement, in your opinion, based on what you heard, saw, and during the walk through, was it more regards to getting him detained at least potentially temporarily to ascertain what was going on with the vehicles?

Yes. The information they had was that he may have been committing auto burglaries Okay. Before they got there.

Understood. Okay. In regards to the taser, that was utilized by two officers. Is that accurate? Yes. And is that considered less than lethal use of force? Yes. Can you explain that in more detail for the public what that

It is not likely to cause death. So the subject it's a less lethal way to take the subject into custody.

Do the officers on that particular day, whether on their person or in vehicle, have any other less lethal options in addition to, tasers?

Yes. They had pepper spray. They may have had a low lethal shotgun that fires beanbags in their vehicles.

Have you come to any conclusion or any of the officers involved on why the TASERs failed to incapacitate the decedent?

No, it may not. Both prongs, there's two prongs that shoot out and both have to make contact with the body. Both prongs may have not made contact. And that's accurate for both officers, because again correct me if I'm wrong, two separate officers utilized the TASERs and none

of them, based on the video we all saw, seemed to phase the subject whatsoever? Correct. Okay. In regards to the autopsy, were you present for that?

No. I was not. A different detective was.

Do you know the name of the detective that was present?

Yes. Detective Valenzuela. And

in this particular investigation, what's the chain of command? Does he work underneath you?

Detective Valenzuela? No, he's equal to me. He's on the force investigation team.

We're all detectives. So how many force investigation detectives were involved in this particular investigation? Six. Six. And so there's no chain of command? That seems like a lot of

Well, detectives you asked about detective Valenzuela. We have a sergeant and we have a lieutenant.

Okay. And so I guess a better way to ask that, you two were equals in regards to this particular investigation. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. And he was tasked specifically for the autopsy portion? Yes. Okay. Is that just come down to timing, or is there any specific reason why he went to autopsy? Just timing. And who in addition to that detective was present at the autopsy?

There's a crime scene analyst as well as the coroner and the coroner's technicians.

And what is Metro's role in an autopsy?

We just observe and take notes of what the coroner tells us.

Were you provided any information from your colleague in regards to the autopsy to assist you in completing your not recommendation, but your report that you provided to the Clark County District Attorney's Office?

Yeah. I received notes from Detective Valenzuela about the locations of the gunshots, but we ultimately wait till we get the full coroner's report to submit that to the district attorney.

Anything out of the usual in this particular autopsy? I'm sure you've been a part of or reviewed documents on on many in your career. No. No. Okay. Normally in these presentations, there's a slide regarding the criminal history of the decedent. Did he have any?

It wasn't extensive if if he did. We did not include it in here because the officers didn't know his criminal history when shots were fired. So we're presenting a case to show what the officers knew and why they used deadly force. So they didn't have any history they didn't know his criminal history when they made contact with him.

Fair enough. But through your investigation, because you go beyond what's there on the scene, you're saying that you did pull his history and it was not extensive. Are those your words?

Correct, yes.

Okay. Another thing that came up, I know you've participated in many of these, I have as well, generally were provided some sort of next to kin to contact in regards to this. I was informed that there was no next to kin. Can you describe to the public the efforts that Metro took in order to locate the next to kin?

Just reaching out. The coroner's office also tries to reach out to find next of kin, and we were unable to locate any.

Thank you, detective. No further questions.

Mister Pallad, do you have any follow-up? Yes. Just a few questions.

Just to make this abundantly clear, Metro does on your unit in particular, not make a recommendation as to whether or not to charge a subject officer, correct?

That's correct.

And that decision is solely the decision of the district attorney's office, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. You were asked a question about the statements being voluntary. Is it true that in any criminal investigation, whether somebody gives a statement or not is voluntary?

Correct.

That's true of officers and civilians and just anybody? Yes. You were asked about, sergeant Quintero and officer Palmyra, whether or not they gave a walk through. And in this case, they did not. Is that true?

Correct.

But they were interviewed. Is that right?

Yes.

So they gave full statements to your unit?

Yes.

Now you were asked about less the less than lethal use of force here. It appears that the tasers did not seem to be effective on the decedent. Is that right?

Correct.

And there are many factors of that including you had mentioned two prong, whether two prongs make contact with the skin. That's part of it. Yes. Has it also been in your experience sometimes when people are on certain substances, they can be less affected by less than lethal taser force.

Yes.

That's all. Mr. Troy, have any follow-up?

Just briefly, you were asked about the voluntariness of of statements, and I I think what the state's alluding to is, Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings aren't given to subject officers. Correct? It's more, I guess, informal whether or not they wanna give you any sort of walk through or statement?

Correct. They're not in custody.

Correct. And then when it comes to civilians who may or may not be given a Miranda warning depending on where you're at in your investigation, is it common in your practice as a detective in the Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to provide those subjects, body worn camera, discoveries, etcetera, for them and their attorney to review before deciding to provide an interview to you or your officers? No. No further questions. Thank you. Mister Pillow? Okay.

Are there any members of the public that wanna file any written questions? Seeing none. This public fact finding review was held because the Clark County District Attorney's Office made a preliminary determination that no criminal prosecution of the officers involved in the death of Kyle Norris is appropriate. Clark County ordinance chapter 2.12 provides requires a public, review following such a determination. The purpose of today's hearing was to present the public with the essential facts surrounding the death of Kyle Norris.

Michael Troiano was appointed by the Clark County manager as the ombudsman to represent the public and the Norris family. Mister Troiano was given the opportunity to ask questions to provide 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 the 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 Toriano and myself copies of law enforcement investigation regarding the death of mister Norris.

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 at www.clarkcountynv.gov. This concludes the public the police fatality public fact finding review into the death of Kyle Norris. Thank you.