Police Fatality Public Fact-finding Review - Regular Meeting

And,

good morning, everybody, and welcome to today's police fatality public fact finding review concerning the death of ESL Torres Santiago, which occurred on 12/28/2023. My name is Todd Leventhal. I will be presiding over today's proceedings. 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 ESL Torres Santiago 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 ESL Torres Santiago. Chief Deputy District Attorney Banu Palal will present present today's fact finding review on behalf of the district attorney's office. He will determine the 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.

Mister Michael Toriano has been appointed to be the ombudsman. He represents both the public and the Santiago family. He will have the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses as well. 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 reviewing, this hearing may submit proposed written questions on forms. They are located in the back of this room and present it to one of the officers who are also at the back of this room. I will ask the questions 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. Do either of the parties have anything to add at this time?

Mister Palau? Mister Troyano? No. Thank you. If not, mister Palau, please feel free to call your first witness.

Yeah. Yes, sir. Can you introduce yourself?

I'm detective Gilberto Valenzuela. And, how are you employed? I'm employed by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, specifically, force investigation team, otherwise known as FIT.

And were you acting in that capacity on 12/28/2023?

Yes, I was.

And were you responding to the officer involved shooting of ESL Torres Santiago?

Yes, I did. Can you

did you prepare a presentation regarding your investigation into the officer involved shooting mister Torres Santiago?

Yes, I do. Can you please show or present that presentation? I will. So the incident took place at the 1700 Block Of West Charleston Boulevard on 12/28/2023. I'll do a quick area overview of the incident where it took place.

As you could see at the bottom left, that was a fast food restaurant where a stolen vehicle was located by officers. And shortly after they located vehicle, a foot pursuit ensued. The decedent ran in a southeastern direction over to the UNLV Medical Campus where he ran in between buildings to the front of a building where the OIS took place. And you can see it off to the right. The subject officers, the first officer involved in the officer involved shooting was Joseph Bringhurst.

He was hired on 01/30/2018. At the time of the officer involved shooting, he was 33 years of age. He worked out of the Bolden Area Command. He did activate his body worn camera, and I'll be showing the body worn camera footage of the incident. He did provide a walk through, but he did not provide a statement to fit. His weapon was a Glock seventeen nine millimeter firearm equipped with a tach light and an optic. The investigation revealed he fired 11 rounds. The second officer involved in the officer involved shooting was Richard Rivera. He was hired 06/28/2017. At the time, he was 28 years of age.

He works for the out of the Bolden Area Command also. He also activated his body worn camera. I'll also be showing footage of that. He did provide a walk through, but did not provide a statement to fit. His weapon is Smith and Wesson m p two point o nine millimeter handgun equipped with a tachlight, and the investigation revealed he fired four rounds.

Witness officers, the first one's officer Bychinski. He's a k nine officer that showed up during the foot pursuit and joined the foot pursuit, and he ran behind officer Bringhurst. The second and third officers were riding together, Officer Baldman and Officer Ball. They arrived at the parking lot shortly after the Officer and Ball shooting. Officer Arias was the driver where Officer Rivera was a passenger, so they were riding together.

Officer Court, he pulled up behind a stolen vehicle at the fast food restaurant. The decedent was identified as ESL Torres Santiago. He was 33 years of age at the time. Applicable charges, had he survived, would have been resisting with a weapon, attempt murder with a deadly weapon and unprotected person, assault with a deadly weapon and unprotected person, prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and he was he also had two outstanding warrants, one for fraud and one in a traffic warrant. The weapon that he had in his possession was a six hour p three two twenty two caliber handgun, which had one round in the chamber and three in the magazine, as you could see there.

An autopsy was performed on December 29, which was the morning after the incident, by doctor Nathan Schaller. He ruled that the cause of death was a homicide. The manner of death was a homicide, and the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. As you could see here in the toxicology report, he did have a methamphetamine on his person at the time of the incident and THC. This was a

Sorry, I wanted to just clarify on the last line. You said methamphetamine on his person. The toxicology reflects he had actually ingested methamphetamine.

Correct. That's what I meant. Sorry. And this is the stolen vehicle that he was in. It was identified as a 2013 Ford Transit Connect XL. It was reported stolen three days prior, and he was the passenger seat in this he was in the passenger seat of this vehicle when the incident took place. The driver, he was arrested. We'll identify him as AL. He was 50 years of age at the time, and he was arrested for possession of controlled substance, methamphetamine, and for being in possession of a stolen vehicle. And when we tried to talk to him, he requested an attorney.

We'll go into a timeline. So December 28 at twenty one twenty seven hours, the stolen vehicle call was created due to a license plate reader hit in the area of Charleston and Rancho. At twenty one thirty six, the stolen vehicle was located in a restaurant's parking lot. That's the fast food restaurant. At twenty one thirty seven, officers were in a foot pursuit. Twenty one thirty eight, shots fired was broadcasted. Twenty one forty seven, fire and rescue arrived on scene. And at twenty two zero one, the decedent was pronounced deceased. We'll go into third party video. The first one's from a fast food restaurant.

And this is from a corner that shows the patrol vehicle coming in behind the the stolen vehicle. About six, seven seconds into the video, you're gonna see the seat exit out of the side passenger door. The second video is from a bar that's in the Northeast Corner. So, the vehicle stop took place in the Southwest Corner. So you're gonna see on the upper right police lights when they try to come in behind the stolen vehicle.

And then the decedent and officers will be running towards this bar. And they're gonna run just south of the building past the bar. So, there's the decedent coming into picture, followed by the officers.

If I could just speak the following. 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. Go ahead. Thank you.

So the video, this is Officer Bringhurst's body worn camera. So he is at the front fast of food restaurant, and he's gonna pull to the front of the suspect vehicle, and he'll engage in the full pursuit shortly thereafter. And this is a slowed up version of the same video at the culmination point. Here's a still photograph of the decedent on the on the ground holding the firearms. It's circled in red.

And as you could see there, there's a that's where the firearm ended up where I placed that circle, and the firearm is still in his hand. And we'll go into the same picture. And at the bottom right, you'll see the firearm circled in red after the shots were fired. So we'll go into officer Rivera's body worn camera. Again, he engaged he was the passenger seat of of the second patrol vehicle.

He took off running and and paralleled. So he was south of the UNOB campus, and and he entered the parking lot through the south side. We're gonna be running Georgetown, also UNLV of the medical campus. Hey, guys. We're out.

Take it out. Take it out. Out. Alright. Hey.

Show me your fucking hands. Get your hands away from your waistband. Could see where I labeled the restaurant there, the fast food restaurant and the OIS location at the bottom. In total, they ran approximately 300 yards. So there's two cones, one where officer Rivera is at the bottom left, and officer Bringhurst, where he fired.

You could see the cone right underneath his name. And this is the Torres Santiago's firearm located on scene. These are impacts to the little concrete wall just north. So this would be impacts from officer Rivera's shots that were fired. And these are to the south.

So, these would be impacts from officer Bringhurst's fired shots. And this is further south. These would also be officer Bringhurst's shots. Going to walk throughs. So 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 walkthroughs and statements conducted with the involved officers are voluntary. So the first one was Officer Bringhurst. We conducted via the LVPPA attorney, and he stated that he responded to a stolen vehicle call due to an LPR hit, which was a license plate reader. The stolen white van was located at the drive through of the restaurant. Officers boxed in the stolen vehicle.

The decedent exited the passenger door and took off running eastbound, not listening to officers' verbal commands. Officers engaged in a foot pursuit, passed another restaurant, then passed the bar. The suspect ran through the UNLV Medical Campus when officer Bringhurst encountered him. The suspect had a gun in his hand and turned towards officer Bringhurst. Officer Bringhurst fired his weapon because necessary self defense for himself and his partners.

Officer Bringhurst believed he was an imminent threat of harm due to the suspect having a firearm in his hand. And then officer Rivera stated he responded to an LPR hit in reference to a stolen white van. The stolen van was located at a restaurant's drive through lane. Officer Rivera's trainee helped block the vehicle in the drive through. The suspect exited the passenger side of the vehicle and refused to listen to officer commands as he fled eastbound.

Officer Rivera ran behind officer Bringhurst as they both gave chase on foot. The suspect ran past the bar then in between two UNOV campus buildings. Officer Rivera ran eastbound parallel to the UNOV building south of suspect. Officer Rivera ran into the UNOV campus parking lot where he observed the suspect on the ground. The suspect had a firearm in his hand and he believed he was gonna shoot at officers. Officer Rivera fired his weapon in self defense and believed that officer Bringhurst was an imminent threat of harm due to the suspect having a firearm in his hand. And that concludes the presentation.

No more questions.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Sorry. Yes. I'm I'm ready to proceed. Go ahead. Thank you.

Detective, let's start with officer, Bringhurst. You stated that he conducted the walk through via LVPPA attorney. Can you tell the public what you mean by that specifically, via?

So basically the LVPPA is the Las Vegas Police Association, the union. So the attorney Steve Owens basically leads the walk through and Officer Bringhurst will confirm what Officer Owens basically saying.

So this walk through as well as the statement which was refused, those are both voluntary for an officer in this situation?

That is correct.

How do you go about inquiring if they want to participate or refuse?

So they do the walk through and just after the walk through, the lieutenant or sergeant in charge at the scene, they'll ask if he's willing to give statement. We usually give them forty eight to seventy two hours if they do wanna give a voluntary statement after the incident. And so at that point, the opportunity was given to him to give a voluntary and he refused.

Now back to the walk through, how do you engage as to whether or not they're willing to participate in that portion?

So basically what happens is the attorney, the LPPA attorney and other representatives of the LVPPA, I'm sorry, they're with the officer who was involved in the shooting and they decide basically give the option to the officer to decide if he wants to participate in the voluntary and or the walkthrough.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, the officer that's involved in the shooting, the subject prior to a walk through or any sort of statement, he's given the opportunity to confer with his own attorney as well as union members that have his best interest in mind? Yes. Okay. And this specific walk through, again, if you could be a little bit more clear for me. When you said conducted via, I'm imagining you said the attorneys leading it. Can you be a little bit more specific so the public

understands Yes, that is correct. So basically he leads it. He just to give a quick little example, he'll say something like, is it true that you responded to a stolen vehicle call at this intersection? And he'll confirm or say no.

Are those questions primarily limited to yes and no?

For the most part, yes.

Okay. So you're the detective involved and charged in the use of force, correct?

Correct.

But you were not afforded the opportunity to directly engage with the subject officer under these circumstances?

Not without his attorney or representatives from the PPA being present.

Okay. And based upon that, hypothetically you just provided us, is that how this went where he only answered questions direct by his own counsel and not yourself?

That is correct. Okay.

Can you tell us who specifically was present for officer Brinhurst's walk through?

Yes. If you give me a quick little second here. So there was a lieutenant Young who was our fit lieutenant at the time. He's since retired. Sergeant Parker, sergeant.

Detectives Colon, Jackson, and myself. The LVPPA attorney Steve Owens and LVPPA representative Greg Stinnett. Approximately what's the frame between the shooting itself and the actual walk through? So the walk through took place on December 29, which was the day after, the morning after, at zero through twenty eight hours. So I'd say five, six hours after the incident.

Was officer Bringhurst afforded the opportunity to review his body cam footage before meeting with you?

Yes. He Was

there any other ancillary evidence, surveillance footage, etcetera that he's privy to prior to the walk through?

Yes. He's able to watch whatever footage we have of the incident. But in this incident, he only wanted to see his body worn camera.

Thank you. Now as to officer Rivera, he was in a similar situation. He was afforded both the walk through and the fit, but refused the fit interview. Correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Who was present for his walk through?

The exact same people with the exception of LVA representative Greg Stanet was replaced by representative Glowinski.

And was it about the same time frame between the shooting and the interview, five, six hours?

It was after Bringhurst's walk through. After his was done, we we did officer Rivera's walk through. So it was at 03:41. So thirteen minutes after.

Were those two officers represented by the same attorney?

Yes. Okay.

And you were present for Rivera's walk through as well, correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Let's transition into the autopsy. Were you present for that? No, I wasn't. Do you know who was present?

Yes. So there was two fifth detectives there, Detective Ubunt and Detective Fusulu.

In this particular shooting incident, do they work under you? Is that a proper characterization?

Yes, if you want to call it that. So yes, there are detectives that work in the same unit. And basically we break off and do things that need to be accomplished. Investigation.

You lead the investigation. Okay. So did they attend the autopsy at your direction?

That is correct.

Okay. And what was their role and purpose of attending the autopsy?

So basically they're there as the coroner is doing their own investigation. So basically they'll see where the officers' impacts into the decedent were located and they'll document that.

Do you have an opportunity to speak with them regarding their observations? Yes. Anything of note?

No. The decedent had eight gunshot wounds, but that's basically the Okay.

About notes? Did they take any handwritten or typed notes during their observation of the autopsy?

They basically yes, the notes are taken. By then a crime scene analyst who was also present. And some items are recovered from the decedent's person and impounded.

Did you have the opportunity to review their notes?

Yes, I did.

Anything of note?

Just let me see, give me a second. So no, just the injuries that he had and other abrasions on his person. That was basically it.

Thank you. You mentioned the driver with the initials AL. He was arrested on scene. And I don't know if you specified, but if you could, do you know who attempted to interview him?

One of our fifth detectives. I don't know exactly who it was, to be honest with you.

Fair enough. And he, like the officers, requested attorney. Correct?

That is correct.

He but he, unlike the officers, was not afforded the opportunity to confer with counsel. Correct?

That is correct. He he basically requested an attorney right away. You

stated the decedent had outstanding warrants, I believe, for fraud and traffic related matters? Correct. Do the officers have any idea who they were engaging with prior to the pursuit? No, they didn't. Okay. So they weren't privy to that information?

That is correct. Okay.

You referenced several times the photo approximately the scene of the shooting and commented that the gun moved away. Would you say what approximately five, six feet or?

That's pretty accurate.

Okay. And how was that gun moved approximately five to six feet away from the decedent's body?

So basically, in reviewing the body worn camera, when officer Brighurst And point. Other so, that's

arm to go to the five six. So medical I personnel, law that's enforcement, they didn't move that firearm? No.

It was never touched.

Okay. And the officers yelling at him to show his hands during the walk through or questions asked about that as when he became aware if at all that he was separated from his firearm?

No, no questions were asked in reference

to that. Would you find that to be a relevant question?

Yeah, but again they afforded their rights to counsel and we couldn't ask those questions.

You can ask those questions, but his attorney did not.

Just what he had on walk through there.

Understood. No further questions. Thank you detective.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any follow-up?

Yes just very briefly. I just want to clarify something regarding the suspect that was in the driver's side vehicle of the suspect vehicle. I think there was a statement that he wasn't afforded an opportunity confer with counsel. He actually requested an attorney prior to being interviewed. Is that right?

That's correct.

And at that point, did all interviewing stop?

That is correct.

And in fact, he was booked for various charges related to the paraphernalia found inside the stolen vehicle as well as possessing the stolen vehicle. Is that right?

That is correct.

But he was afforded the opportunity to not speak with officers, request an attorney, and in fact at that point all questioning of that suspect stopped.

That is correct. Nothing.

Mr. Tornier, any follow-up based on the questions?

No your

honor. No? Thank you. Officers in the back, have there been any submitted public questions? No?

Seen a response in the negative. 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 ESL Torres Santiago 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 the essential facts surrounding the death of mister Santiago. Michael Troiani was appointed by the Clark County manager as the ombudsman to represent the public well as the Santiago family.

Mister Troiani 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 provide to preside over the public review, I too was given an opportunity to ask any 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 to Troyan and myself copies of the law enforcement investigation regarding the death of Mr. Santiago. The documents provided by the prosecution are considered public record.

If you missed any portion of this review or would like to obtain recorded transcript, a video of the entire proceeding is available on the Clark County website at www.clarkcountynv.gov. That concludes the police officer public fact finding review into desk of ESL Taurus Santiago. Thank you for being here today. Thank you.