The Justice Department announced today that the independent
federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Alton Sterling on July 5,
2016, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, found insufficient evidence to support federal
criminal charges against Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD) Officers Blane
Salamoni and Howie Lake, II. Career
prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Middle District of
Louisiana and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, along with
officials from the FBI and the Justice Department’s Community Relations
Service, met today with Sterling’s family and their representatives to inform
them of the findings of the investigation and the decision.
Overview
The Department conducted a ten-month, comprehensive, and
independent investigation of the events surrounding Sterling’s death. Federal agents and career prosecutors
examined evidence from multiple independent sources, including all available
footage from police vehicles that responded to the scene and the body-worn
cameras from responding officers; cell-phone videos of the incident; interior
and exterior surveillance video footage from the store where the shooting
occurred; evidence gathered by the BRPD’s crime lab; BRPD documents related to
the shooting; personnel files and background material for both involved
officers, including prior use-of-force incidents; BRPD policies and training
materials; all relevant dispatch recordings between and among local law
enforcement, including the originating 911 calls; forensic evidence reports;
the autopsy report; photographs of the crime scene; toxicology reports; EMS
reports; and extensive additional electronically-stored evidence. As part of the investigation, the FBI
laboratory conducted an expert forensic analysis of the video footage capturing
the incident between Sterling and the officers.
The FBI also interviewed dozens of witnesses, including civilian
witnesses who were present at the scene and officers who responded to the scene
after the shooting. The Department also
consulted with two independent use-of-force experts whom the Civil Rights
Division has previously used as government witnesses in criminal prosecutions
of civil rights violations.
Applicable Law
The Department examined the facts in this case under all
relevant federal criminal statutes. The
federal criminal statute applicable to these facts is Title 18, United States
Code, Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. In order to proceed with a prosecution under
Section 242, prosecutors must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a law
enforcement officer acted willfully to deprive an individual of a federally
protected right. The right implicated in
this matter is the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable
seizure. This right includes the right
to be free from unreasonable physical force by police. To prove that a police shooting violated the
Fourth Amendment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
use of force was objectively unreasonable based on all of the surrounding
circumstances. The law requires that the
reasonableness of an officer’s use of force on an arrestee be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with added
perspective of hindsight. The law set
forth by the Supreme Court requires that allowances must be made for the fact
that law enforcement officers are often forced to make split-second judgments
in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
Additionally, to prove that a shooting violated section 242,
the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers acted
willfully. This high legal standard –
one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law – requires proof that the
officer acted with the specific intent to do something the law forbids. It is not enough to show that the officer
made a mistake, acted negligently, acted by accident or mistake, or even
exercised bad judgment.
Although Sterling’s death is tragic, the evidence does not
meet these substantial evidentiary requirements. In light of this, and for the reasons
explained below, the federal investigation concluded that this matter is not a
prosecutable violation of the federal statutes.
Factual Summary
While this summary is based on, and consistent with, all
facts known to the government after a thorough investigation, it does not
include or discuss all facts known to federal law enforcement officials or
gathered through this investigation.
Many of the facts gathered through the federal investigation are not
permitted to be disclosed, and other particularly sensitive facts and evidence
are not being disclosed in order to protect the integrity of the State Attorney
General’s inquiry into whether any state statutes were violated.
The investigation revealed that at approximately 12:30 a.m.
on July 5, 2016, an individual called 911 from a location near the Triple S
Food Mart (“Triple S”) and reported that he had been threatened outside of a
store by a black man wearing a red shirt and selling CDs. The caller reported that the man had pulled
out a gun and had the gun in his pocket.
The caller’s first call disconnected, but he called back a few moments
later and reiterated his report.
Dispatch relayed that information to Officers Lake and Salamoni, who
responded to the Triple S, where they saw Sterling, wearing a red shirt and
standing by a table with a stack of CDs.
The subsequent exchange between Sterling and the officers
happened very quickly, with the events – from the officers’ initial approach to
a struggle on the ground to the shooting – happening in rapid succession. From the moment when Officer Lake gave his
first order to Sterling, through the firing of the final shot, the entire
encounter lasted less than 90 seconds.
More specifically, from the start of the officers’ physical struggle
with Sterling on the ground, through the firing of the final shot, the
encounter lasted less than 30 seconds.
Multiple videos captured portions or the entirety of the
officers’ interaction with Sterling. These
include cell-phone videos, surveillance video from the store, and video from
the officers’ body cameras and a police vehicle. FBI video forensic experts also provided
enhancements of relevant videos for the portion of the struggle that
immediately preceded the shooting.
The videos show the officers as they arrived on scene and
engaged with Sterling. The videos show
that the officers directed Sterling to put his hands on the hood of a car. When Sterling did not comply, the officers
placed their hands on Sterling, and he struggled with the officers. Officer Salamoni then pulled out his gun and
pointed it at Sterling’s head, at which point Sterling placed his hands on the
hood. After Sterling briefly attempted
to move his hands from the hood, Officer Lake then used a Taser on Sterling,
who fell to his knees, but then began to get back up. The officers ordered him to get down, and
Officer Lake attempted unsuccessfully to use his Taser on Sterling again. Officer Salamoni holstered his weapon, and
then tackled Sterling; both went to the ground, with Officer Salamoni on top of
Sterling, who was on his back with his right hand and shoulder partially under
the hood of a car. Officer Lake joined
them on the ground, kneeling on Sterling’s left arm while Officer Salamoni
attempted to gain control over Sterling’s right arm. Officer Salamoni then yelled, “Going for his
pocket. He’s got a gun! Gun!” Officer
Salamoni then unsuccessfully attempted to gain control of Sterling’s right
hand, while Officer Lake drew his weapon and yelled at Sterling, again
directing him not to move. Less than one
second later, during a point at which the location of Sterling’s right hand was
not visible to the cameras, Officer Salamoni again yelled that Sterling was
“going for the gun!” Officer Salamoni
then fired three shots into Sterling’s chest.
After the first three shots were fired, Officer Salamoni
rolled onto on his back, facing Sterling’s back, with his weapon still
drawn. Officer Lake stood behind both of
them with his weapon drawn and pointed at Sterling. Sterling began to sit up and roll to his
left, with his back to the officers.
Sterling brought his right arm across his body toward the ground, and
Officer Lake yelled at Sterling to “get on the ground.” As Sterling continued
to move, Officer Salamoni fired three more rounds into Sterling’s back. Within a few seconds, Officer Lake reached
into Sterling’s right pocket and pulled out a .38 caliber revolver. Investigators later confirmed that Sterling’s
gun was loaded with six bullets at the time of this exchange.
Following the shooting, Officers Salamoni and Lake each
provided a detailed statement offering his version of how and why this shooting
happened. According to the officers,
Sterling was large and very strong, and from the very beginning resisted their
commands. The officers reported that
they responded with multiple different compliance techniques and that Sterling
resisted the entire time. Both officers
reported that when they were on the ground, they saw Sterling’s right hand in
his pocket, with his hand on a gun.
Officer Salamoni reported that he saw the gun coming out and attempted
to grab it, but Sterling jerked away and attempted to grab the gun again. Officer Salamoni then saw “silver” and knew
that he had seen a gun, so he began firing.
Both officers reported that after the first three shots, they believed
that Sterling was attempting to reach into his right pocket again, so Officer
Salamoni fired three more times into Sterling’s back.
Discussion
In light of the officers’ explanations of the shooting, the
government, in order to prove a Fourth Amendment violation, would be required
to (1) disprove the officers’ accounts, (2) prove an alternative account that
demonstrates that the officers’ actions were objectively unreasonable; and (3)
prove that the officers knew that their actions were unreasonable and took them
anyway. The evidence in this case is
insufficient to bear the heavy burden of proof under federal criminal civil
rights law.
To fully assess whether this shooting constituted an unreasonable
use of force, federal investigators closely examined, among other things, all
of the evidence concerning the location of Sterling’s right hand prior to the
first set of shots. As mentioned,
although the videos do not show Sterling’s right hand at the time those shots
were fired, they show that Sterling’s right hand was not under Officer
Salamoni’s control. The evidence also
cannot establish that Sterling was not reaching for a gun when Officer Salamoni
yelled that Sterling was doing so.
Federal investigators interviewed numerous civilian
witnesses to determine whether they could provide additional relevant
information on the question of whether Sterling reached for a gun.
Only two witnesses reported to the FBI that they could see
Sterling’s right hand, and they indicated that his hand was not in his
pocket. However, because of other
inconsistencies in their statements, and because of the fact that parts of
their accounts are materially contradicted by the videos, their accounts are
insufficient to prove the position of Sterling’s right hand/arm beyond a
reasonable doubt at the time the shots were fired. Although the Department found no reason to
doubt the sincerity of the witnesses’ accounts, this incident happened in an
instant, and the witnesses may have had no reason to be specifically watching
for the precise location of Sterling’s right hand at the time of the
shooting. Given the inconsistencies in
the civilian witnesses’ perspectives and recollections and the fact that the
video establishes that Officer Salamoni did not have control over Sterling’s
right hand just before the shots were fired, the evidence simply cannot
establish beyond a reasonable doubt the position of Sterling’s right hand at
the exact time of the shooting, a split-second later. The Department therefore cannot disprove the
officers’ claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
The investigators also consulted with two independent,
nationally recognized use-of-force experts with whom the Civil Rights Division
has previously consulted in civil rights cases.
While both experts criticized aspects of the officers’ techniques, they
also concluded that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the
circumstances and thus met constitutional standards. The experts emphasized that the officers were
responding to a call that someone matching Sterling’s description had
brandished a weapon and threatened another person; that Sterling was large and
strong; and that Sterling was failing to follow orders and was struggling with
the officers. The experts noted that the
officers also attempted to control Sterling through multiple less-than-lethal
techniques before ultimately using lethal force in response to Officer
Salamoni’s perception that Sterling was attempting to use a gun.
The investigators’ review of BRPD files revealed no prior
incidents involving substantiated allegations of misconduct by Officers
Salamoni or Lake.
In light of these facts, the evidence gathered during this
investigation is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the use
of force leading up to and including the shooting violated the Fourth
Amendment.
The federal investigators also considered whether the
evidence proved the distinct statutory element of willfulness. To establish that the officers acted
willfully, the government would be required both to disprove the reason the
officers gave for the shooting and to affirmatively establish that the officers
instead acted with the specific intent to violate Sterling’s rights—meaning
that, in shooting Sterling, the officers knew that what they were doing was
unreasonable or prohibited, and chose to do it anyway.
For many of the same reasons described above, the evidence
is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers’ actions
were a willful violation of the Fourth Amendment. When Officer Salamoni first reported that
Sterling was going for the gun, he said, “Going for his pocket, he’s got a gun!
Gun!” Significantly, Officer Salamoni
did not shoot Sterling at this point, and, instead, attempted to gain control
of Sterling’s right hand. Officer Lake
also warned Sterling not to move.
Seconds later, Officer Salamoni yelled again that Sterling was “going
for the gun!” and only then did he fire his own weapon. This evidence suggests that Officer Salamoni
fired his weapon when he believed that Sterling was going for his gun a second
time, after Officer Lake had warned Sterling not to move. In order to prosecute this matter, the
government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Sterling
was not reaching for his gun, but also that, despite Officer Salamoni’s
contemporaneous statements to the contrary, he did not believe that Sterling
was reaching for his gun after being warned not to move. The Department lacks the evidence to prove
either of those propositions beyond a reasonable doubt.
The investigators also considered whether Officer Salamoni’s
second series of shots was a prosecutable Fourth Amendment violation. Although
the videos show that Sterling’s right hand was not in or near his right pocket,
Sterling was continuing to move, even after being shot three times and being
told again not to move by Officer Lake.
Meanwhile, the officers were behind Sterling, and Officer Salamoni was
lying on the ground, facing Sterling’s back.
Given these circumstances, the evidence cannot establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that it did not appear to Officer Salamoni that Sterling was
reaching for his pocket. Nor could the
Department prove that the officer’s conduct was willful.
Conclusion
In sum, after extensive investigation into this tragic
event, career Justice Department prosecutors have concluded that the evidence
is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officers Salamoni and
Lake willfully violated Sterling’s civil rights. Given the totality of the circumstances –
that the officers had been fighting with Sterling and had attempted
less-than-lethal methods of control; that they knew Sterling had a weapon; that
Sterling had reportedly brandished a gun at another person; and that Sterling
was much larger and stronger than either officer – the Department cannot prove
either that the shots were unconstitutional or that they were willful. Moreover, two different, independent experts
opined that this shooting was not unreasonable given the circumstances. With respect to the first series of shots,
the experts assessed that it was not unreasonable for Officer Salamoni to use
lethal force, in light of all of the circumstances referenced above. With respect to the second series of shots,
both experts emphasized that officers are trained to eliminate a threat, and
that Sterling appeared to pose a threat because he was still moving and his
right hand was not visible to Officer Salamoni.
Accordingly, the federal investigation into this incident has been
closed without prosecution. Federal
officials intend to provide the investigative file to the Louisiana Attorney
General’s Office, which intends to conduct its own investigation into whether
the conduct at issue in this investigation violated state law.
In this case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle
District of Louisiana, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, and the
FBI each devoted significant time and resources to investigating the
circumstances surrounding Sterling’s death and to completing a thorough
analysis of the evidence gathered. The
Justice Department remains committed to investigating allegations of excessive
force by law enforcement officers and will continue to devote the resources
required to ensure that all serious allegations of civil rights violations are
thoroughly examined. The Department
aggressively prosecutes criminal civil rights violations whenever there is
sufficient evidence to do so.
Posts
