Police Fatality Public Fact-finding Review - Regular Meeting

Concerning the death of Justin Walsh on January 6, 2026. My name is Ozzie Fumo and I will be presiding 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 officers involved in the death of Justin Walsh 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 essential facts surrounding the death of Mr. Walsh. Chief Deputy District Attorney Giancarlo Pesci 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, nor does it allow for any other party to call witnesses. Willard Ewing has been appointed to be the ombudsman. He represents both the public and the Walsh 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 this review may submit proposed written questions on forms located in the back of this room and present it to one of the officers. I will ask the questions unless I determine whether it is irrelevant, redundant, or an abuse of the review process. At the conclusion of this review, no formal determination regarding the matter or cause of death shall be rendered. Do the parties have anything to add?

No, thank you.

Mr. Fesci, please feel free to call your first witness.

Thank you very much. Detective, could you please give us your name?

Yes, it's Brittany Tommaso.

And what do you do for a living?

I'm employed with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Is there a particular detail that you work in right now?

Yes, I'm currently assigned to the force investigations team.

What does that team do?

We primarily investigate the criminal investigation into officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, anytime an officer uses deadly force, And any time an officer is the victim of a violent felony while working.

Were you working in that capacity on January 6, 2026? Yes, I was. And were you involved in this investigation? I was. Could you please tell us about it?

Yes. This occurred in the 9200 block of West Russell Road on January 6, 2026. This is an overview map as to where the officer-involved shooting occurred, showing that it occurred at Russell and Fort Apache. And this is a closer view of that map.

Detective, could I interrupt for just one second? I apologize. On this map, it says OIS. What does that stand for?

That stands for Officer Involved Shooting.

Thank you.

The subject officer on this officer involved shooting was Officer Tristan Taylor. He was hired January 30th of 2024, and he was 28 years old at the time. He was assigned to Summerlin Area Command Patrol. His body-worn camera, or BWC, was activated. He provided a walkthrough and did not provide a statement to FIT.

And I apologize, what does FIT stand for?

The Force Investigations Team.

Thank you.

This is Officer Taylor's weapon. It's a Staccato P2011 9mm equipped with an optic and attack light. It has a 20-round magazine capacity. In the investigation revealed, he fired four rounds. The witness officers. The witness officers for this OAS are Sergeant Jay Legrand, Officer A. De La Torre, Officer C. De La Torre, and Officer G. Reyes. The decedent is Justin Walsh. He was 44 years old at the time. He's 5'10", 185 pounds, and a resident of Las Vegas. Applicable charges had he survived would have been assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon, two counts, resisting with a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence related, domestic battery by strangulation, and kidnapping with a deadly weapon. The decedent's weapon is a Springfield XD 40 caliber handgun, no round in the chamber and six rounds in the magazine. Autopsy. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Nathan Schaller on January 7th, 2026. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. The manner of death was ruled a homicide. Toxicology showed he had alcohol and numerous prescription medications in his system. The victim was identified as AD. AD was 40 years old at the time. AD had been in a dating relationship with the decedent for the past 17 years, but had been wanting to end the relationship. AD was asleep inside her bedroom on January 6, 2026, when decedent woke her up and asked why she was not responding to his text messages. Decedent grabbed AD by the arms, mounted her, and strangled her. Decedent left the bedroom and got a handgun from his nightstand. Decedent took bullets out of handgun and placed them into AD's hands, telling her she was going to shoot him. Decedent held the handgun to AD's head and told her, quote, good night, bitch. Good night, bitch. You took it too far. They're coming and you're first and then I'm going. AD believed decedent was going to kill her and then himself. AD texted 911. Decedent peered out of the peephole when officers arrived at the apartment. AD exited the apartment and she heard gunshots. AD stated decedent had been previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Decedent had taken his medication and had been drinking alcohol. The timeline. 734-32, AD texted 911 stating, quote, help, he has gun, and threatening me, hurry. No address was given, but 911 pinged the phone to the area of Russell Road and Rocky Hill Road. 735-51, officers were assigned. 739-05, officers arrived but could not locate the correct apartment. 745-35, officers called AD and could hear AD and the decedent arguing. 750-25, a 911 disconnect call came from AD's phone. 911 called back and decedent stated everything was fine. At exactly 0800 hours, officers arrived outside of AD and decedent's apartment.

Detective, I did ask one question. A moment ago, you said that the phone was pinged. What does that mean?

That means that 911 is able to get a general area as to where that 911 phone call came from and then provides that information to the officer so they can respond to the area. Thank you. 08005, AD opened the door to the apartment. 08007, decedent pointed handgun at AD. 08009, decedent pointed handgun at officers, and Officer Taylor discharged his firearm. 080033, shots fired was broadcasted. 080123, officers took decedent into custody. 080418, officers began rendering aid to decedent. 080924, medical arrived inside the apartment.

Keep my warning here. 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.

This is the body-worn camera, and this is Officer Taylor's body-worn camera footage.

Can you hear me? It's probably recording.

Who does that? Shh. Stack up on the side.

Put your fucking hands up! Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Gun's right there. Gun's right there. Hey, don't move! Don't move! He's on the gun. He's not grabbing. Don't grab the gun! Do not grab the gun. Roll over. Roll over the other way.

Roll over to your back now. Roll over to your back now. Roll over to your back now. You guys just want to approach?

He's laying on top of the gun. Just grab his arms and pull him into the living room, okay? What do you want me to do?

There's stairs right here and then there's all this area. I don't know what's over here.

Ready? Yep. All right, let's go. We're just going to stand over him. You two pull him up. I'm going to hold this door.

I'm going to hold this door.

This is a still shot from that body armor camera. showing the decedent pointing the handgun at AD. And this is another still shot from Officer Taylor's body-worn camera showing the gun now being raised towards officers.

Detective, a moment ago you said that the gun was pointed at AD. Where was she located at that point?

Sure. Can I go back to that slide?

Wonderful.

So she is currently on the floor in front of Officer Taylor.

Thank you.

This is Sergeant Legrand's body-worn camera. This is the still shot from Sergeant LeGrand's body-worn camera showing decedent pointing the handgun at AD's head, and he also is holding onto her wrist. Crime scene photographs. This is the 911 text from AD to 911 saying, help, he has gun, threatening me, hurry. and no address or other information is given. These are the strangulation marks to AD's neck. This is an overview of the crime scene, and in the red circle is decedent's handgun. This is one of the bullets that was found inside of the Target apartment. This is one of the bullets that decedent placed into 80's hands stating when he wanted her to use the gun to kill him. During the officer involved shooting, one of Officer Taylor's rounds or bullets struck the top of decedent's handgun. This was the damage to the gun. That bullet also struck decedent's thumb and fragmented into the ceiling above him. During the OIS, this is one of Officer Taylor's rounds that went through the frame of the slider that was inside the apartment that was behind decedent. These are the four cart cases that were found in the hallway outside of the Target apartment from Officer Taylor's firearm. The witness officer's statement. Sergeant Legrand. Sergeant Legrand responded to a call where a male was holding a female inside the apartment with a firearm. As officers arrived at the apartment, Sergeant Legrand heard a male and female voice coming from inside the apartment. The door suddenly opened, AD was on the floor, and decedent was pointing a firearm at her head. Sergeant Legrand backed away from the doorframe and pulled out his firearm. Officer Taylor discharged his firearm at decedent. Decedent was placed into custody and first aid was rendered. The officer walked through. The purpose of the scene walkthrough 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 walkthroughs and statements conducted with the involved officers are voluntary. Officer Taylor's walkthrough was led by LVPP attorney David Roger, who asked questions and Officer Taylor would answer yes. Officer Taylor self-dispatched to a call regarding a person with a gun. Dispatch had only been able to ping the phone to the area of the 9200 block of West Russell, and the victim had given an apartment number. Upon arriving in the hallway, Officer Taylor heard muffled noises from the Target apartment. The apartment door opened and Officer Taylor witnessed AD crawl out of the apartment on her hands and knees. Officer Taylor witnessed decedent pointing a handgun at AD's head. Officer Taylor issued verbal commands for decedent to drop the gun. Decedent continued to point the gun at AD. Officer Taylor discharged his weapon, fearing decedent would shoot and kill AD. An arrest team was created. They took decedent into custody and rendered first aid.

That concludes questioning. Thank you. Hearing.

Good morning, sir. Yes, sir. Yes.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Yes.

Can I refer to my notes real fast?

Yes, the call was created at 734.32.

Now this area, this Russell Road development,

could be safely described as a mixed use development. Is that right? Yes. You had residences and you had commercial businesses in the same location.

That's correct.

And sometimes in the same building.

Yes.

And I believe your outline indicated that the victim would be the female, correct?

Yes.

She indicated at least that it was apartment 460 in her text message.

Yes.

So they had that much information.

That's what they were given, just the apartment number.

And the ping came to 62, excuse me, 9265 West Russell Road. That was the ping. So it pinged the whole building.

It did, yes.

Okay, but not the apartment. Correct. And Officer Taylor arrived at 64205 AM, about an hour into his shift, is that right?

Yes.

And... He was told by an employee that in the apartment that they thought was the correct one, the employee told them there is no 460 in this building, is that right?

Yes.

And the employee directed them to 9325 West Russell Road.

That's correct.

Officers went to that building and located that specific apartment, correct?

They located 460.

I'm sorry?

460 is what they located, not 8460, just 460. 460. Yes.

And they checked that apartment out?

They did.

And they located the occupants?

Yes.

And determined they got the wrong apartment?

Correct.

Okay. They left that building, and was that Officer Taylor and the two Officer De La Torres and Officer Reyes?

Yes, the three of them were together at that apartment.

Sergeant hadn't joined them yet? Correct. They left that building. Sergeant, what was his name again?

Sergeant Legrand.

Yeah, he joined them then, correct?

Yes, outside.

And they actually went back to the original location of 9265 West Russell Road, correct? Yes. And they were able to find apartment A460.

Yes, sir.

And this effort to go through the complex, go from building to building before they finally found the correct apartment was a reason for the delay between 7.34, 32 a.m. and 8 o'clock a.m. Yes. Is that right? Were you able to watch the body cameras of them engaged in this search for the correct department?

Yes, I did remove that body camera.

While the officers were looking for the correct department, did they have some kind of a distribution of responsibilities?

Like were they assigning roles?

Correct.

Yes, they did assign most.

Explain that. How does that work?

Sure. So what officers are tasked with doing is they don't want all officers either being all lethal or all being low lethal. They need certain officers to have certain roles when they arrive. So they'll designate that one officer will be lethal cover, someone will be less lethal coverage, and then they'll also have officers that are hands-on to be part of the arrest team.

And in this particular case, Officer Taylor was designated as lethal.

He was.

His handgun. Correct. Officer Reyes was non-lethal, or less lethal.

Yes.

And he had that . . .

The 40 millimeter . . . BMAG? He had the 40 millimeter . . .

Officer De La Torre was also less lethal. She had a taser.

Yes.

And then the other Officer De La Torre was hands-on.

Yes.

Okay. So when officers approached the actual apartment door, was there any conversation about how they would proceed with their different roles? Who would go where? Who would stand where? Who would do what?

When they first arrived at the apartment, no, that wasn't discussed when they got there. But when they arrived at the door, the sergeant started stating who he wanted to be standing where. So as officers are trying to form that, that's when the apartment door is opened. So they aren't able to complete as to where they wanted certain officers to stand.

And we watched the video. Yes. We saw the timeline. And it looked, correct me if I'm wrong, it looked to me like from the time they got to the door to the time of the shooting was maybe three or four seconds. Yes. Is that about right?

Yes, sir.

You indicated that 911 received a text message from the victim?

Correct.

And that's what started this whole thing?

Yes, sir.

And that text message only indicated a couple of things, right? Yes. There was a gun involved, an apartment number, police hurry, those kinds of things?

Yes.

Did dispatch try to call that number back?

Yes.

And were they successful?

Yes.

Do you recall the approximate length of that call when they returned the call? Do you recall the approximate length?

I don't remember. I just remember that the phone call was disconnected after they were able to talk to the persons inside the apartment.

If I were to tell you the call was about five minutes, would you have a problem with that?

No.

Did you have a chance to listen to that?

Yes.

In that call, is it safe to say that the dispatcher was making some effort to get the female on the phone.

Yes.

And she was talking to the male.

Correct.

And is it safe to say that eventually the female did get the phone?

Yes.

And there's a period of a couple of minutes where she is basically continually asking to be able to leave. Yes. And during that period of a couple of minutes while she's asking to leave, the dispatch officer didn't say anything.

The dispatcher didn't say anything to the female?

Yes, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Would it be normal for a dispatch officer to ask questions?

It's normal for them to ask questions, yes.

Could they ask questions like, does anyone have a gun?

Yes.

Or ask questions like, is anybody having a mental health episode?

Yes.

Or is anybody under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

Yes.

But none of those questions were asked?

Correct.

Is that right? So when the police officers approached the door of the apartment in question, is it safe to say that they really didn't know anything about the occupants? Yes. They didn't know ages, races, anything about their criminal history, or anything about them?

It was very limited to what the officers knew, yes.

Later on, you discovered through interviewing the victim that Mr. Walsh had mental health issues, he's bipolar, he was taking medication, and he'd been drinking.

Yes, sir.

But the officer didn't know any of that. Correct. When they approached the door. If they had known any information about his mental health history, bipolar disorder, medications he was taking, could that have changed anything they had done when they got to the door?

It's possible, but I can't say for sure.

What factors in this case would influence your opinion about what they could or couldn't have done, other than the fact that they didn't know anything?

You're asking me to render my opinion about what I think the officers could have done differently?

I guess my question is, if they had known anything about Mr. Walsh's mental health condition, alcohol consumption, drug consumption, in this particular case, would it have been reasonable to expect them to do anything differently?

I don't know. I don't know if it would have changed the outcome of this call. I really can't answer that as to whether or not if they knew that information ahead of time, if it would have changed any of the outcome of this call. I don't know.

And that's fair. Thank you for that. Officer Ray has also had a chance to call and talk to the Occupants Department, correct?

Yes, he did.

And that was on his own, or was it a... Metro-issued cell phone?

Yes, sir. It's a department-issued cell phone.

And that call wasn't recorded?

It was recorded, like, through the body camera, but, like, the actual, like, just audio of the phone call, that wasn't, like, recorded or saved anywhere.

Was the body camera able to pick up the conversations?

Yes. So when the female answers the phone, but all the officers can hear is the female crying and the male arguing with her, so they're not able to get anybody on the line to gather any more information as to what's going on or what they're responding to.

So Officer Reyes wasn't able to ask them any questions?

That's correct, sir.

And how long did that phone call last?

It was very brief. It was probably less than a minute.

And was there any other contact with the apartment prior to entry being made?

No, sir.

All five officers had body cams.

Yes, sir.

On at the time. Yes. Is it true that it appears that the two officers, De La Torre, grabbed the victim and pulled her out of the way?

Yes. At least a couple of feet. Yes. Once AD lands in the hallway on her side, Officer De La Torre is able to assist her further down the hallway to get her away from the apartment.

And neither of their body cams were able to catch the shooting.

Correct. Based on where they were standing in the hallway, they're up against the wall, the same wall as to where the door is going to open. So they cannot see into the apartment. All they see is the female come out, they grab her, and they move down the hallway.

Officer Reyes had the beanbag gun. Yes. And he was, I believe, to the left side of the door, facing the door. Is that right?

He was on the right side of the door. He was behind Officer A, deletory, and Officer C, deletory, and he was the last person in that hallway.

And his body cam didn't pick up the actual shooting.

Correct, because of where he was in that stack behind those other two officers. And he also couldn't see into the door. So none of his body or camera captured what was going on inside that apartment.

And Sergeant, why do I keep forgetting his name? Sergeant Legrand. Yes, he was actually, when the door opened, he was the one closest to the victim. Is that right? And he kind of jumped to his left.

Yes, he did move back.

And his body cam... was able to see the gun pointed at the victim, but not at the officer, is that correct?

Correct, yes. Based on how he moved, yes, it didn't pick up that part.

So Officer Taylor's body cam was the one that actually captured the shooting itself?

Yes, sir. Okay.

And when Officer Taylor gave his walkthrough that was kind of narrated by his attorney, he indicated that he fired because he was in fear for... The victim?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And he indicated that the gun was pointed at the victim's head? Yes. Is that correct? So he never indicated in his statement that he was in fear for his own safety?

Correct. He stated he was in fear that the decedent was going to shoot and kill the victim. The victim.

But the body cam showed the gun pointed at Officer Taylor.

It does show that.

When officers are making a decision on whether or not to use less lethal force, how does the fact that the victim has a gun enter into their decision-making process?

I'm sorry, that the victim has a gun?

Excuse me, Mr. Walsh, let's just call him by his name. Mr. Walsh.

Okay.

How would that affect their decision whether or not to attempt to use less lethal force?

So, Judge, hearing officer, I'm going to object as to the speculation as to what those officers are thinking.

I'm going to overrule the objection. I think it is speculation if we were in court a lot, but because the rules of evidence are lax, I guess I'll let you ask the question here.

I guess, let me try to make my question a little bit simpler. Are officers less likely to attempt to use less lethal force if the subject has a handgun?

Yes.

And why is that?

Well, another person can use that firearm to shoot and kill somebody, so they're not going to meet that with less lethal force when somebody's armed with a deadly weapon. Okay.

Okay. You testified that Officer Taylor fired four rounds.

Yes, I did.

One round hit Mr. Walsh in the chest, correct?

Two, two rounds.

And one in the abdomen?

Yes, I mean, his center torso is where he was struck.

One round hit the firearm and Mr. Walsh's hand.

Yes.

And that firearm, that projectile kind of disintegrated and went up into the roof ceiling?

Yes, sir.

And then one round hit the frame of the slider? Correct. And we have no idea which order those rounds were fired in?

I don't know that.

And he still had six... rounds, Mr. Walsh had six rounds in his semi-automatic.

He did.

None in the chamber.

Correct.

And when you interviewed the victim, she indicated that he was taking some rounds out of the gun, correct? Yes. Giving them to her. Did she ever say he put any rounds back into the gun?

She never said that.

When the bullet from Officer Taylor's handgun hit Mr. Walsh's weapon, did it disable the weapon in any way?

No.

Was it still functional? Yes. Did they do ballistics tests to demonstrate that?

Yes, they did.

And that gun was still fully functional? Yes. Did the victim... In the interview indicate that Mr. Walsh had been taking pills and drinking alcohol.

Yes, she did.

And was that supported by the toxicology report through the coroner's office?

Yes, sir.

He was under the influence of alcohol?

Yes.

Prescribed medication?

Yes.

Including pain medication?

Correct.

And medications to treat anxiety and depression? Yes. And those were, I believe the photographs indicate those were prescribed medications that were in bottles in the bathroom? I don't have any other questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner, do you have any redirect?

Yes, please. Detective, a moment ago you were asked some questions about engaging an individual with a firearm and the decision for an officer to utilize lethal force or less lethal force. Do you remember those questions?

Yes.

And you talked about how if an officer sees someone with a firearm, they're going to employ lethal force because that other individual has a firearm that could kill somebody.

Correct.

Along those same lines, whether or not that same officer and that same fact pattern knows that the decedent or the person with the gun is bipolar or not doesn't change the officer's duty to protect the person that has the gun pointed at them. Would you agree?

Yes.

Thank you.

Any requests based on that, Mr. Mayor?

The only follow-up I have to add is just simply, when officers approach a situation like that, they would want to have all the information they could have to assess the situation, is that right? Yes. Thank you.

Anything further? Okay. Are there any questions for anybody in the audience or general public? Okay, seeing none. Close out the hearing. 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 Justin Walsh is appropriate. Clark County Ordinance Chapter 2.12 requires a public review following such a determination. The purpose of today's hearing was to present the public with essential facts surrounding the death of Justin Walsh. Willard Ewing was appointed by the Clark County manager as the ombudsman to represent the public and the Walsh family. Mr. Ewing was given the opportunity to question and provide public with relevant information regarding the use of force in this case. I was appointed by the Clark County manager 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 Mr. Ewing and myself copies of law enforcement investigation regarding the death of Mr. Walsh. The documents provided by the prosecution are considered public record. If you missed a portion of this review or would like to obtain a recorded transcript, a video of the entire proceeding is available at the Clark County website at www.clarkcountynv.gov. This concludes the police fatality public fact-finding review into the death of Justin Walsh. Thank you.