HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedacted Internal ReviewPERSONNEL INVESTIGATION
IA# o I S2019-001
Officer Involved:
Officer Amanda Enriquez
Investigating Supervisor:
Sergeant Nick Andre
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Employee Being Investigated:
Officer Amanda Enriquez
Palm Springs Police Department
Officer assi ned to atrol
Cell phone:
Witnesses:
Officer Jeff Burton
Palm Springs Police Department
Officer assi ned to atrol
Cell phone:
SYNOPSIS:
On August 8, 2019, Officer Enriquez was employed by the Palm Springs Police
Department as a Police Officer assigned to the patrol division. She was dressed
in a full "Class C" patrol uniform and was driving a marked patrol unit. At
approximately 1617 hours, dispatch received a call of a fight between four
individuals and another male at Bank of America, located at 588 S. Palm Canyon
Drive.
One reporting party stated the subjects involved in the incident were near a
barbershop, which is located to the east of Bank of America, across S. Indian
Canyon Drive. Another reporting party called advising the police were needed
because there was a "crazy guy" who has a knife, that just entered a business.
Dispatch received information that the subject was a white male adult wearing a
black tank top, camouflage pattern shorts, carrying a knife. Officer Enriquez and
Officer Burton were dispatched to the location.
Officer Enriquez and Officer Burton arrived on scene and attempted to detain the
subject, Kevyn Weintraub, who ran from the officers. After a short foot pursuit,
Weintraub punched Officer Burton in the nose and a physical altercation ensued.
During the altercation, Weintraub continued to punch Officer Burton in the face
and eventually bit down onto two of the fingers on his right hand. As the fight
continued, Officer Burton attempted to defend himself and ordered Weintraub to
stop biting him.
Officer Enriquez, who had arrived at their location, attempted to stop Weintraub's
assault on Officer Burton and attempted to taser Weintraub several times, which
was ineffective. Fearing that Weintraub was going to cause serious bodily injury
to Officer Burton and bite his fingers off, Officer Enriquez removed her duty
weapon from its holster and fired one round into Weintraub's right leg. Weintraub
then stopped biting and assaulting Officer Burton. Weintraub was then detained
and transported to the Desert Regional Medical Center where he was treated for
his injuries. Weintraub was arrested and later transported to the county jail.
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT NARRATIVE
I am currently employed by the Palm Springs Police Department as a Patrol
Sergeant. One of my collateral duties as a sergeant is my assignment to the
Critical Incident Investigation Team (CIIT). The CIIT investigates officer involved
shootings, in custody deaths, and other major investigations conducted on police
department personnel.
On August 8, 2019, 1 was at the Palm Springs Police Station preparing to begin
my shift as the Swing Shift Sergeant when I heard this call for service
broadcasted. During the progression of the call, I responded to the scene with
several other officers and arrived at 1630 hours. At the conclusion of the
51
incident, I met with Lieutenant Hutchinson, Sergeant Beard and Sergeant Fieux
to coordinate the Administrative Investigation.
While on scene, we attended a debrief with the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department Central Homicide Unit and the District Attorney's Office. During the
debrief we learned that Officer Enriquez had fired her service weapon at Kevyn
Weintraub, and he had been transported to Desert Regional Medical Center.
PSPD personnel had secured the crime scene, which was contained in the areas
of S. Palm Canyon Drive and S. Indian Canyon Drive, south of Ramon Road and
north of E. Camino Parocela. They had also identified and interviewed witnesses
and canvassed the area for surveillance video. Officer Reynoso responded to
Desert Regional Medical Center to remain with Weintraub and preserve any
evidence.
After the debrief, Sergeant Beard and I returned to PSPD. An interview with
Officer Burton was conducted by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Central Homicide Unit. Officer Enriquez was interviewed on 8/10/2019, by the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department Central Homicide Unit. The criminal
investigator's interviews were secluded from the administrative investigation.
In early May of 2020, 1 received a copy of the Central Homicide Unit's
investigation from PSPD Captain Kovaleff. The primary investigator was RSO
Investigator James Dickey. I read through the book, listened to the audio
recordings and reviewed the evidence photographs and videos.
I checked the Palm Springs Police Department dispatch log (section F, #5 of the
RSO OIS book) and found that the following was documented in the event logs:
According to the dispatch log, the first call for service came in at approximately
1617 hours. During the review of the dispatch log, several different reporting
parties called 911. I separated their statements to assist with clarification based
on the specific dispatcher adding the dispatch note and the noted time it was
added.
At approximately 1617 hours, the initial reporting party stated there were five
males involved in a physical disturbance, advising it appeared it was four males
against another male near a barbershop (520 S. Indian Canyon Drive). The
reporting party said the main aggressor appeared to be a white male adult
wearing a black tank top and "camp" pants.
At approximately 1618 hours, a second reporting party called and stated there
was a "crazy guy" in his business, he needed the police, and the male had a
knife. The reporting party then disconnected.
At approximately 1619 hours, a third reporting party called advising a white male
adult, wearing a black shirt, "camo" shorts, with a knife, and was walking
southbound, adding the knife was black in color and approximately 3 to 4 inches
5
in length. The reporting party then said the subject was kneeling down on the
south side of Bank of America (588 S. Palm Canyon Drive).
At approximately 1620 hours, a fourth reporting party called in advising a subject
with a black shirt had a knife.
At approximately 1618 hours, Officer Enriquez and Officer Burton were
dispatched to the call; both arrived at approximately 1620 hours, and located the
male, later identified as Kevyn Weintraub. As the officers arrived and located the
male, they were given "1033" emergency radio traffic by dispatch. At 1621
hours, Officer Enriquez advised over the radio they were "physical". Shortly
after, Officer Burton advised over the radio they were "still physical." Officer
Enriquez then advised over the radio "taser deployed." At 1622 hours, Officer
Enriquez advised over the radio that shots were fired and to stage medical
assistance.
At approximately 1622 hours, dispatch entered a call for service for medical aid
and dispatched the Palm Springs Fire Department (PSFD) and AMR paramedics.
At approximately 1626 hours, PSF❑ and AMR arrived on scene. Both Officer
Burton and Weintraub were then transported separately to the Desert Regional
Medical Center.
During review of the dispatch logs and radio traffic, it should be noted there is a
slight time delay between officer's radio transmission and the dispatch
transcription into the call log due to the time needed to manually enter the
information into the log.
I listened to the audio recordings of the 911 calls (Thumb drive in the RSO OIS
book). The following is a summary of the 911 calls:
The first caller, who is never identified, states there is a "crazy guy" in his
business and that the male was last seen walking near the Bank of America. The
caller adds the male has a knife and then disconnects from the call.
The second caller, states there is a fight on Indian Canyon Drive
near Bank of America and the Gentlemen's Barbershop. - advises there
are six males against one male, whom she stated looked transient. -adds
the male who appeared to be transient was instigating the incident and that
although the group of six males was walking away, he was still charging toward
the group. -describes the transient looking male as being a white male
wearing "Army" pants, a black tank top, purple backpack, flip flops and a black
hat.
The third caller, states there is a male threatening people
with a knife, walking south on Indian Canyon. -describes the male as
being a white male wearing "camo" shorts, a backpack, flip flops, a black shirt,
0
and describes the knife as being black in color with a 3"4' blade. -
said the male is kneeling near the south side of the Bank of America, near an
area under construction.
A fourth caller, states several males were involved in an
altercation. She adds the male in the tank top appeared to have pulled out a
knife and was blocking a lane of traffic. said it appeared the male
pulled out the knife and began walking toward the other group of men. -
confirmed the male with the knife was wearing camo pants and a black tank top.
I listened to the audio recording of the radio traffic between dispatch and the
officers (thumb drive in the RSO OIS book). The following is summary of the
radio traffic:
Dispatch alert toned patrol and dispatched Officer Enriquez and any other officer
to a "415 Physical" at the Bank of America (588 S Palm Canyon) near a
barbershop, involving four males and one transient with no weapons seen.
Officer Enriquez acknowledges the call and advises she is enroute, and Officer
Burton advises he would also be enroute to the call.
Officer Burton then advises dispatch that he and Officer Enriquez have arrived in
the area of the call.
Dispatch then advises one male may be armed with a knife, approximately Y- 4"
in length. Dispatch then copies "out with him," and advises "10-33 (Emergency
Traffic) until Code-4". During this series of radio transmissions, the officer who
advised they were out with the male is not heard, as it is possible the transmitting
officer was covered by the dispatcher's radio traffic.
Officer Enriquez then broadcasts over the radio "six -seven physical", meaning
officers were fighting with the subject. Shortly after, Officer Burton broadcasts
over the radio "we're physical". Other officers are heard responding to the scene.
Officer Enriquez advises dispatch "Taser deployed", meaning a taser had been
used during the incident. Officer Enriquez then advises "six -seven shots fired".
Officer Enriquez then requests dispatch to "stage medical", which means to
dispatch the Palm Springs Fire Department to respond for medical assistance
and to place themselves near the scene, so they can quickly respond to provide
aid once the scene is safe.
The radio traffic coincides with the dispatch log.
I listened to the audio recordings and read the transcripts of the interviews of the
witnesses to the shooting.
7
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSP❑ Officer
Arellano on 08/08/2019 (section B, #1 of the RSG OIS book):
On 08/08/2019 _was leaving her job (500 S. Palm Canyon Drive #101) in
her vehicle to go to Rite -Aid down the street. As -was preparing to exit the
parking lot, she saw a 20-30 year old white male adult, wearing a white shirt,
"camo" shorts, and a backpack walking in the parking lot. As_ neared the
male, he walked in front of her car, causing her to have to stop. Upon stopping,
the male seemed to become angry as if he believed she was going to hit him.
The male eventually walked away and stood in the middle of Indian Canyon
Drive, causing vehicles to have to stop. M hen drove to Rite -Aid.
Shortly after arriving at Rite -Aid, she returned to warn her co-workers about the
male acting erratically. Upon returning, maw the white male near the
Gentlemen's Barbershop (520 S. Indian Canyon) and several other males from
the barbershop running towards the male. When they came out, the male began
approaching the group of males that had exited the barbershop. The group of
males appeared to be telling the white male to leave, when he turned and came
back towards the group with an unknown object in his hand. The group of males
then went back into the barbershop, and the white male ran southbound behind
the Bank of America (588 S. Palm Canyon Drive). _did not see the white
male again and only heard the police responding.
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSPD
Detective Escallada on 08/08/2019 (section B, #2 of the RSO OIS book):
On 08/08/2019, _was driving north on Palm Canyon Drive when she saw
a group of males who she believed was about to get into a fight.
returned to the location to record the incident. Upon returning, saw a
white male adult, approximately 5'9" tall, wearing dark clothing and wearing a
backpack, arguing with a group of males from the barbershop. During the
argument, the white male held a pocketknife in his right hand and yelled, "I'll stab
you!" When the group of males began to return to the barber shop, the male
yelled, "I'll stab you in your back!" The group of males then ran into the barber
shop and the white male walked away.
"hen drove out of the area and saw several police officers responding to
escRne.- returned to the scene and added she did not see the
altercation between officers and the white male.
provided Detective Escallada with copies of her videos.
9
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSPD Officer
Etchason on 08/08/2019 (section B, #3 of the RS❑ OIS book):
arrived at the Gentlemen's Barbershop (520 S. Indian Canyon Drive) at
approximately 1615 hours and parked his car along the east curb line. Upon
parking, he saw a male, later identified as Kevyn Weintraub, arguing with several
employees from the barbershop, challenging them to fight.
Weintraub walked across S. Indian Canyon Drive and then began walking back
towards the barbershop. When he approached the barbershop, Weintraub held
a pocketknife with a six-inch blade down at his side in his right hand. As
Weintraub crossed the street, he yelled to the group of males, "I'll stab you in the
back!" The males then began to call police, and Weintraub began walking back
towards the bank (588 S. Palm Canyon Drive).
Officers arrived on scene and Weintraub attempted to flee from the officers.
Weintraub was tackled to the ground by officers and_walked into the
barbershop. -did not witness the officer involved shooting.
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSP❑ Officer
Gilbert on 08/08/2019 (section B, #4 of the RS❑ OIS book):
was driving southbound on S. Palm Canyon ❑rive when a white male ran
past the front of his vehicle while being chased by a male and female officer.
-continued southbound when he saw the male and both officers on the
ground. - said it appeared the male was "resisting arrest" and that it
appeared the male was reaching for the male officer's firearm. When _
crossed Camino Parocela, he heard what he believed to be a single gunshot.
He then parked his vehicle and awaited PSP❑ response. -estimated he
witnessed the incident from approximately 40 feet away. He had no further
information to provide.
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of - by PSPD Officer Jones
on 08/08/2019 (section B, #7 of the RSO OIS book):
was sitting on a block wall on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive when
he heard yelling coming from the area of Cigar Imports (530 S. Indian Canyon
Drive). looked and 4-5 males involved in an argument with a white male,
later identified as Weintraub, and it appeared they were going to fight.
9
Madded that during this incident, as Weintraub was engaged in an ar ument
with the group of males, he saw Weintraub carrying a knife in his hand.
described the knife as being a fixed blade and approximately 10 inches in length.
_did not see what occurred when the police contacted Weintraub and was
unable to provide any further information.
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSPD
Officer Jones on 08/08/2019 (section B, #7 of the RSO OIS book):
-stated he arrived at the Gentlemen's Barbershop (520 S. Indian
Canyon Drive) for a haircut and parked his vehicle along the west side of S.
Indian Canyon Drive. As he approached the barbershop, he saw several males
from the business engaged in an argument with another male, later identified as
Weintraub. -added he next saw Weintraub with a knife in his hand
holding it with the blade down as if it were to be used in a downward stabbing
motion. -described the knife as being a folding knife that was
approximately 6 inches in length. -then called 911.
Officers arrived on scene and Weintraub ran west, then east away from the
officers. -stated one of the officers tackled Weintraub in the dirt south
of the Bank of America, and then several mare officers arrived on scene.
described Weintraub's demeanor as being very disrespectful and
antagonistic, adding that during the incident, Weintraub was standing in the
middle of the street forcing passing motorists to have to drive around him.
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSP❑ Detective
Kasal on 08/08/2019 (section B, #8 of the RSO OIS book):
was driving northbound on S. Palm Canyon passing Camino Parocela
when he saw a male in the roadway, who �escribed as being a white
male wearing a hat and possibly wearing a backpack.
aid the male was trying to fight with nine to ten other people. _
said the male was holding a knife similar to how "they do in the horror movies
when they stab people.'° -added the male would then run at the group of
people and then back away.
- said he did not see a fight occur and he left the area. He later returned
when he saw several police responding to the area.
10
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSPD Detective
Moss on 08/08/2019 (section B, #9 of the RSO OIS book):
said he was inside the Hair of the Dog bar (555 S. Palm Canyon Drive)
when he witnessed the incident. M said he was standing at the bar when he
saw a male officer approach a white male subject, in his mid -twenties, wearing a
grey shirt, dark colored backpack, and a baseball hat, standing at the northwest
corner of S. Palm Canyon Drive and Camino Parocela.
As the male officer approached the subject, he quickly began to walk away. The
male officer told the subject to "stop", but the subject continued to walk away.
The male officer then grabbed the male's backpack and the subject attempted to
shrug off the officer's hold and run away. At this time,=was no longer able to
see the officer and the subject causing him to re -position himself in the bar to
allow him to see what was occurring.
Once re -positioned,- saw the male officer and the subject in a small dirt area
at the connecting point of S. Palm Canyon Drive and S. Indian Canyon Drive,
adding the male officer was on top in a "mount" position. A female officer then
ran to their location to assist. While in this position, the subject punched the
male officer in the face at least two times. madded it appeared the female
officer deployed her Taser, but that it did not appear to be effective because the
subject continued to fight both officers. The female officer then drew her firearm
and fired one shot, which believed to be a warning shot into the dirt.
M said he never saw either officer overstep their boundaries and didn't see
either officer strike the subject. =said he has trained in mixed martial arts
and in his opinion, the subject was fighting the officers in an attempt to escape
adding the subject had no intention of giving up.=said during the incident, he
was concerned for the female officer as she physically struggled to control his
legs due to the violence he displayed.
Interview with
The following is a summary of the interview of by PSP❑
Detective Salgado on 08/08/2019 (section B, #11 of the RSO OIS book):
was working inside the barber shop (520 S. Indian Canyon Drive) when a
white male entered and demanded a haircut. — told the male he would not
give him a haircut and told the male to leave. The male then began calling
—a faggot and directed racial slurs toward him.
— and the male exited the barbershop, and the male pulled out a knife with
a black handle and an approximate 3-inch blade. The male threatened_
11
but he was not concerned. The male then left the area and _ called the
police.
-described the male as a white male adult, approximately 37 years old,
approximately 200 pounds, wearing a hat, and having a tattoo on his right arm.
Interview of
The following is a summary of the interview of by RSO
Investigator Dickey on 08/14/19 at approximately 1140 hours (section B, #15 of
the RSO OIS book):
_was working at the barber shop (520 S. Indian Canyon Drive) on the day of
the incident. While workin , a white male walked into the business and began
yelling. The owner, told the male to leave, and the male became
upset. The male walked out of the shop and began yelling racial slurs such as
"Mexicans", "faggots", "beaners" and the "N" word.
Upon the male seeing that he was being recorded, he pulled out a black colored
knife and held it in an overhand stance. The male then began to quickly walk
towards =while stating, "I'm gonna stab ou" and then later stating, "I'm
gonna stab you in the back." At the time was in fear for his safety, adding
the male was approximately 2-3 feet away from him.
_said when the police arrived, the male ran off. -had no further
information to add.
Interview of Officer Burton
I listened to the audio recordings and read the transcripts of the interview of
Officer Burton. The interview was conducted by RSO Investigator Dickey at the
Palm Springs Police Department on 818119 at approximately 2144 hours. The
following is a summary of Officer Burton's interview (section B, #15 of the RSO
OIS book):
On 81812019, Officer Burton was working uniformed patrol in a marked police
patrol unit for the Palm Springs Police Department. He responded to 588 S.
Palm Canyon Drive (Bank of America) as a cover officer in reference to a fight
between several vagrants and a male. While enroute to the location, he
remembered reading via the text in his MDC that one of the males was in
possession of a knife. Officer Burton recalled hearing via dispatch radio or via
the text on his MDC that one of the involved parties was wearing a black shirt or
tank top and shorts.
Officer Burton said he and Officer Enriquez arrived on scene simultaneously. As
he arrived at the intersection, near the split for S. Indian Canyon Drive and S.
12
Palm Canyon Drive, he recalled seeing a white male adult walking southbound
on S. Indian Canyon Drive wearing a black shirt and shorts. The male, later
identified as Kevyn Weintraub, was looking back as he walked "flipping off
someone."
Officer Enriquez positioned her patrol unit in front of Weintraub in an attempt to
stop and talk to him, while Officer Burton re -positioned his unit. Weintraub then
began walking away from Officer Enriquez's position. Officer Burton then turned
his unit around and activated his emergency lights and siren, as he was now
facing against traffic, so that he could quickly move his unit back towards
Weintraub's location. Weintraub continued walking west across S. Palm Canyon
Drive into the shopping center located on the west side of S. Palm Canyon Drive
at the intersection of Camino Parocela (Sun Center; 611 S. Palm Canyon Drive).
Officer Burton then pulled his patrol unit into the entrance of the shopping center,
stopped in front of Weintraub, and exited his patrol unit. Weintraub then turned
and began walking east across S. Palm Canyon Drive.
Officer Burton began to walk behind Weintraub while stating, "Stop, police
department," in an attempt to detain him. Weintraub then looked back at Officer
Burton and began running. Officer Burton chased Weintraub, who stopped at the
intersection for S. Palm Canyon Drive, S. Indian Canyon Drive and E. Camino
Parocela. After stopping, Weintraub turned toward Officer Burton and
immediately punched him in his nose. Weintraub continued to attempt to punch
Officer Burton, who eventually was able to grab onto Weintraub and pull him to
the ground. Once on the ground, Officer Burton was able to get on top of
Weintraub, who was on his back. Officer Burton was chest to chest with
Weintraub and was towards the left half of Weintraub's body. Weintraub
continued to attempt to punch Officer Burton, who used his right hand to push
against Weintraub's chin and face area in an attempt to "create distance." Officer
Burton then felt pressure on his right pinky finger and right ring finger. Officer
Burton looked at Weintraub and saw he was biting down onto his fingers. Officer
Burton said that prior to Weintraub biting his fingers, he estimated that Weintraub
punched him 4-5 times.
Officer Burton then told Weintraub to stop biting his fingers, which he estimated
telling Weintraub approximately 10 times, but Weintraub continued to bite down
and began to bite harder. Officer Burton stated he could tell that due to the
severity of the bite, he believed that if he tried to pull his fingers from Weintraub's
mouth it would cause more damage.
Officer Enriquez then told Officer Burton she was going to taser Weintraub, and
Officer Burton told her to tase him. Officer Burton then heard the taser fire and
saw Weintraub's body become rigid but added that he did not stop biting his
fingers. Officer Burton continued to tell Weintraub to stop biting his fingers and
that if he did not stop, he would be shot. Officer Burton then yelled to Officer
Enriquez to shoot Weintraub, adding that he was still biting his fingers and that
13
he was trying to bite them off. Officer Burton then heard a gunshot and
immediately Weintraub stopped biting Officer Burton's fingers.
Weintraub then began screaming in pain while still resisting. Officer Burton then
rested his arm across Weintraub's neck in an attempt to pin him down, adding
that he did not know where the knife was, did not know if he had a firearm, and
that Weintraub had not yet been searched.
Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez then held Weintraub down until assisting
officers arrived. After the assisting officers arrived and Weintraub was detained
in handcuffs, Officer Burton was escorted away.
During the incident, Officer Burton believed Weintraub was going to bite his
fingers off. Officer Burton said he would have shot Weintraub himself, but he
was unable to access his own firearm. Officer Burton added that if Officer
Enriquez had not shot Weintraub, his fingers would had been bitten off. Officer
Burton believed that when he removed his hand from Weintraub's mouth after he
had been shot, his fingers would be gone.
Interview of Officer Enricuez
I listened to the audio recordings and read the transcripts of the interview of
Officer Enriquez. The interview was conducted by RSO Investigator Dickey at
the Palm Springs Police Department on 8/10/19 at approximately 1005 hours.
The following is a summary of Officer Enriquez's interview (section B, #17 of the
RSO OIS book):
On 81812019, Officer Enriquez was working uniform patrol in a marked police unit
for the Palm Springs Police Department. She was dispatched to 588 S. Palm
Canyon Drive (Bank of America) in reference to four people fighting. While
enroute to the location, she heard dispatch advise one of the males was wearing
camouflage pants, a black tank top and was armed with a knife. The knife was
described by one reporting party as being Y-3'/2" in length and black in color.
Officer Enriquez arrived at the intersection of S. Palm Canyon Drive and E.
Camino Parocela when she saw a male, later identified as Kevyn Weintraub, who
matched the description of the male in the black tank top. Weintraub was
walking south on S. Palm Canyon Drive in an area that was under construction,
where S. Palm Canyon and S. Indian Canyon connect. Upon seeing Weintraub,
she activated her patrol unit's emergency lighting and drove toward his location.
Officer Enriquez stopped her vehicle along the west side of S. Indian Canyon
Drive and attempted to contact him to detain him. Upon seeing Officer Enriquez
and her unit, Weintraub looked at her and walked away from her westbound.
When Officer Enriquez initially exited her patrol unit to contact Weintraub, she
ordered him to stop but he continued walking away.
14
Officer Enriquez said Officer Burton then drove his patrol unit to the location
where Weintraub was walking, which caused Weintraub to turn back and walk
away eastbound. Simultaneously, Officer Enriquez repositioned her patrol unit to
S. Palm Canyon in an attempt to assist with contacting Weintraub. As she exited
her patrol unit, she saw Weintraub and Officer Burton were already on the
ground fighting. She then advised dispatch via the radio Officer Burton was in a
fight, and she responded to assist.
Upon arriving at Officer Burton's location, Weintraub was on his back on the
ground with Officer Burton on top of him with his (Officer Burton) legs off to the
left side of Weintraub. Officer Enriquez saw blood but did not know who the blood
was coming from, adding she did not know where the knife was located. Officer
Enriquez said during this time, Weintraub was flailing his arms with closed fists
trying to hit Officer Burton.
Officer Enriquez then attempted to grab Weintraub's right arm as he was still
resisting. Officer Enriquez said due to a backpack Weintraub was wearing,
which had slid to the right side of Weintraub, it prevented her from being able to
place his right hand behind his back into a control hold. As Officer Enriquez
attempted this, Weintraub grabbed onto her right hand which caused her to be
concerned because she could feel how strong he was, adding she could tell it
would be a "fight for my life." Officer Enriquez then attempted to free her hand to
allow her to grab onto Weintraub's wrist.
At this time, Officer Enriquez was on both of her knees lying on her left side using
her bodyweight to keep Weintraub's right arm pinned down. Officer Enriquez
said she didn't know where the knife was located and because she had seen
blood, she did not know if Officer Burton had been stabbed or injured with the
knife. Based on this information, Officer Enriquez chose to utilize her taser.
Officer Enriquez then grabbed her taser and advised Officer Burton she was
going to tase Weintraub. Officer Enriquez said she did not want to let go of
Weintraub's hand because she did not know where the knife was located, she
wanted to prevent him from hitting Officer Burton or herself, and to prevent him
from accessing any of the equipment on her load bearing vest. Officer Enriquez
then removed her taser, activated it, and tased Weintraub in his side from an
"arm's length" away. Officer Enriquez said the taser probes had a narrow spread
due to the body positioning of all three.
Officer Enriquez believed she tased Weintraub two or three times, noting the
taser did not appear to have a "desired effect" as it appeared it further
aggravated Weintraub. Officer Enriquez said when she initially tased Weintraub,
he paused momentarily but then continued to resist and not let go of Officer
Burton, adding the use of the taser did not cause him to stop resisting or allow
them to overcome his resistance. Officer Enriquez said because Weintraub
15
continued to resist, she attempted to tase him again, but it also did not appear to
be effective as he continued to resist.
At this time, Officer Enriquez realized Officer Burton was injured and bleeding
from his nose. She also saw one of Officer Burton's hands was in Weintraub's
mouth and Officer Burton was yelling, "He's biting me, he's biting me!" Seeing
and hearing this caused Officer Enriquez to fear that Weintraub was going to bite
Officer Burton's fingers off.
After tasing Weintraub, Officer Enriquez chose to attempt to "drive stun" him.
However, during this time, Officer Enriquez was still holding down Weintraub's
right arm which prevented her from being able to remove her taser cartridge.
Because Officer Enriquez was unable to "drive stun" and not knowing here the
knife was located, she dropped her taser and drew her firearm. During this time,
she could hear Officer Burton saying, "He's biting me. Shoot him, shoot him."
With her firearm drawn, Officer Enriquez began to search for a location to shoot
Weintraub without injuring Officer Burton. She initially believed she would shoot
Weintraub in the stomach, but due to their positioning and that they were still
moving, she chose to target a different area. Officer Enriquez then targeted
Weintraub's right leg and shot him once in the leg from approximately two to
three feet away. After shooting Weintraub, she re -assessed the situation and he
seemed as if he was going to comply. Officer Enriquez told Weintraub to release
his bite and he did, allowing Officer Burton to remove his fingers from
Weintraub's mouth. Officer Enriquez then holstered her firearm, advised
dispatch that shots had been fired, and requested medical assistance respond to
the location.
Weintraub continued to yell at the officers. Officer Enriquez told him that medical
assistance was en route and to stop resisting. Assisting officers then arrived on
scene and placed Weintraub into custody.
Officer Enriquez said during this incident she believed Weintraub was going to
bite Officer Burton's fingers off. She said because Weintraub was biting Officer
Burton's fingers, he was not able to defend himself causing her to believe Officer
Burton's life was in danger. Officer Enriquez said due to the fact she was using
her entire body weight to hold one of his arms down she believed Weintraub was
incredibly strong, causing her to fear that if Weintraub got on top of her he would
kill her.
Review of RSO investigation
I reviewed RSO Investigator D. Sandoval's report, documented that on Thursday,
August 8, 2619, the collection of evidence, photographs, measurements and
sketches of the crime scene located near 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive (section ❑,
#1). Items of evidence that were photographed and collected include:
16
Item #DS001-One black latex glove -located and collected from the dirt shoulder
north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0140 hours.
Item #DS002-Two black latex gloves -located and collected from the dirt shoulder
north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive northwest of item #DS001at 0140 hours.
Item #DS003-Taser cartridge -one black empty Taser cartridge, serial
Exp. 3/2021, 21 ft, located and collected on top of a black backpack
(Backpack item DS004), from the dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon
Drive at 0142 hours.
Item #DS004-Backpack-dark colored backpack located and collected from the
dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0148 hours.
Item #DS004A-Notepads-yellow and white notepad located inside the backpack
(Item #DS004) collected at 048 hours. The notepads contained miscellaneous
writings such as "Thank God it's today!", "Live in Peace, Prepare for war".
Item #DS005-Clothing-Black "Adidas XL" T-shirt located and collected from the
dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0209 hours.
Item #DS005A-One Taser probe -Located and attached to the black T-shirt (Item#
DS005) with a portion of wire attached to the probe, collected from the dirt
shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0209 hours.
Item #DS006-Sandal-One left sandal, brand: jGeorge, located and collected from
the dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0218 hours.
Item #DS007-Two black latex gloves -located and collected from the dirt shoulder
north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0220 hours.
Item #DS008-Sandal-One right sandal, brand: jGeorge, located and collected
from the dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0221 hours.
Item #DS009-Earpiece-One clear plastic earpiece without the ear insert. The
plastic ear insert was not located. The earpiece was located and collected from
the dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0222 hours.
Item #DS010-Hat-Camoflauge baseball cap labeled "Salty Crew" located and
collected from the dirt shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive at 0223
hours.
After reviewing this evidence report as well as the overall photographs
associated with the report, it appears that the area they refer to as "the dirt
shoulder north of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive" should be referred to as being the
17
area south of 588 S. Palm Canyon, as there is a parking lot north of the location
and a dirt area south of the location.
I reviewed RSO Investigator A. Munoz's report which documented that on
Thursday, August 8, 2919, the taking of photographs and collection of evidence
from Weintraub (section ❑, #2). The items of evidence from Weintraub were
initially collected by PSPD Officer Reynosa and provided to Investigator A.
Munoz for booking. Items of evidence that were photographed and collected
include:
Item #AM-91 a -Clothing -OP (size 36) cut camouflage cargo shorts with a green
belt.
Item #AM-91 b-Clothing-Black Adidas tank top with gray trim, gray letters/logo on
front, along with grayish color along entire shirt.
Item #AM-41 c-Clothing-Black cut GD Fellow underwear (large).
Item #AM-91 d-Miscellaneous-Unknown make black backpack strap (cut) with
white I -Phone headphones.
Item #AM-91 e-Cellphone-Black I -Phone with brown (wooden) case with black
trim.
Item #AM-91f-Documents/ID-North Carolina DL and insurance card.
Item #AM-91 g-Miscellaneous-Key attached to metal (silver) keychain with black
strap, thumb drive within black cover with white lettering, chap stick, clear eyes
eye drops, cloth Oakley sunglasses case, several unknown type pills. All items
were within the cargo shorts pockets.
Item #AM-91 h-Miscellaneous- Four -hundred dollars of US currency in twenty -
dollar denominations within a black money clip with tan stitching, a USAA Visa
debit card, and a business card (Need A Ride).
Item #AM-92-Taser Cartridge-Taser X 26P Taser Cartridge.
I then reviewed RSO Investigator J. Dickey's report which documented that on
Sunday, August 11, 2019, the collection of a projectile from Weintraub's right leg
(section D, #5). The item of evidence collected includes:
Item #JD01-Projectile recovered from Kevyn Weintraub's right leg by hospital
staff at Desert Regional on 8/11/19.
The above items corroborate the statements collected by the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department.
m
Blood Sample Results
According to RSO's investigation, a sample of Weintraub's blood was taken by
Desert Regional Medical Center staff on 08/08/2019 at 1700 hours and sent to
Bio-Tox Laboratories. Bio-Tox received the blood sample on 08/19/2019. At the
request of Investigator Dickey, a comprehensive drug panel was conducted with
the following results:
Cannabinoids detected
Review of Evidence Photographs and Video
In review of the photographs, I reviewed photographs that were taken by PSPD
officers as well as RSO Investigators (Thumb drive in the Rya OIS book). The
photographs taken and submitted as evidence were consistent with the reports
written to document the photographs taken and evidence collection.
In review of the photographs taken by Officer Calleros, which were taken of
Officer Burton and the scene shortly after the shooting, they show Officer Burton
and the injuries he sustained while attempting to arrest Weintraub.
In the photographs of Officer Burton you can see the following:
■ The front side of his uniform is extremely dirty, consistent with the
statement regarding his body positioning during the incident.
■ Officer Burton is bleeding from his nose.
■ Officer Burton is bleeding from his right hand, specifically from his fourth
and fifth fingers, which appear to have been lacerated.
In the photographs of the scene, you can see the following:
■ Officers Steed, Clift and Etchason are providing medical aid to Weintraub,
specifically by applying a tourniquet to his right leg.
In review of the two cellphone videos that were submitted into evidence, the
following can be observed:
"Cell Phone Video 1"
The video begins with the video taker standing along the east sidewalk in the 500
block of S. Indian Canyon, with the video recording to the south.
19
As the video begins, a male, later identified as Kevyn Weintraub, is standing with
his feet spread and his arms out to his side while facing in a northeastern
direction between the #3 and #4 northbound lanes of S. Indian Canyon (At the
time of the incident this portion of road was one-way), forcing a vehicle to move
into another lane to avoid striking him. At this point in the video you can hear
male voices yelling, but it is not clear if it is Weintraub, the other males, or
combination of the males who are yelling.
The video then pans between a group of six males and Weintraub, as the group
has turned northbound and begins walking back towards the Gentlemen's
Barbershop, while Weintraub follows. Five of the six males stop on the sidewalk
and appear to continue arguing with Weintraub, who is now standing near the
east curb line of the roadway. Weintraub then steps onto the sidewalk, and
begins moving his right arm up, by bending it at the elbow, and the words "I will
stab you" can be heard. Then as Weintraub begins to walk north towards the
group of males, they began to disperse away from Weintraub, who can be seen
holding a dark colored item in his right hand. Weintraub continues walking
towards members of the group, still with his right arm up and bent at the elbow,
while stating "I'm gonna stab you in the back."
Weintraub then walks away from the group, turns back towards the group, and
the video then stops.
In this video, Weintraub is identifiable by his clothing and tattoo on his upper right
arm.
"Cell Phone Video 2"
The video appears to be a continuation of Video 1. In this video, Weintraub can
be seen walking away southbound on the east sidewalk of S. Indian Canyon
Drive. This video then stops after he is several businesses away from the
barbershop.
After reviewing the witness statements, reading the PSP❑ call log, and listening
to the 911 recorded calls, these videos are consistent with the initial calls for
service that were made by the initial reporting parties.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Based on the audio recording of the call for service, the crime reports, dispatch
log, statements by Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez and the witness
statements, I determined that Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez responded to
the area of 588 S. Palm Canyon in reference to a possible fight where one of the
males was believed to be armed with a knife. Both officers arrived on scene and
located Weintraub near the area of 588 S. Palm Canyon Drive. The officers had
reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him based on the call for service and the
20
fact that Weintraub matched the description one of the males involved in the fight
and as being the male armed with a knife.
Upon attempting to contact and detain Weintraub, he ran from officers in an
attempt to escape. As both officers chased Weintraub, he turned and punched
Officer Burton in the nose. Officer Burton then pulled Weintraub to the ground
where he continued to resist Officer Burton's attempt to detain and arrest him.
During this time, Weintraub continued to attempt to strike Officer Burton and was
able to get two of Officer Burton's fingers into his mouth and bite down onto
them, causing serious injury.
Officer Enriquez then arrived at Officer Burton and Weintraub's location. Officer
Enriquez attempted gain control of Weintraub's right arm but was unable to due
to his strength. She tased Weintraub two times, however each time the taser
was utilized it was ineffective and he continued to resist and bite down on Officer
Burton's fingers.
Seeing that Officer Burton was injured, not knowing where the knife was located,
not knowing if Officer Burton had been injured with the knife, hearing Officer
Burton state Weintraub was trying to bite his fingers off, fearing that Weintraub
would bite Officer Burton's fingers off, and fearing for her own safety based on
Weintraub's strength and level of resistance, Officer Enriquez drew her firearm
and fired a single round into Weintraub's right upper leg.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
In conducting my investigation, I reviewed the applicable laws and PSP❑ Policies
from the initial detention of Weintraub to the use of deadly force upon him at the
conclusion of the incident. The following is a summary of the legal considerations
and PSPD Policy considerations:
nFTFNTIC)NI
In evaluating the legal aspects of this incident, I began with whether a detention
occurred and when a detention occurred. I reviewed the definition of a detention,
how it applies to persons, and what the purpose of a detention is. The following
are definitions and court rulings that I considered in developing my findings:
DETENTIONS DEFINED:
A temporary "detention" or "stop" is an exertion of authority that is something less
than a full-blown arrest but more substantial than a simple "contact" or
"consensual encounter." A "detention" occurs whenever a reasonable person
would believe he is not free to leave or otherwise disregard the police and go
about his business. (Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 627-628; Bostick (1991)
501 U.S. 429, 434; Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 974.)
21
Such a belief may result from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands.
or words or conduct by the officer that clearly relate to the investigation of
specific criminal acts. (Brueckner (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1500, 1505.)
The purpose of a detention is to resolve whether suspicious behavior is
"innocent" or relates to crime. Therefore, " ftjhe possibility of an innocent
explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity." (Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 894; Iliavarette
(2014) 134 U.S. 1683; Letner (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 146.)
Reasonable Suspicion:
For an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have "reasonable
suspicion" that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are
about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000)
528 U.S. 119, Ornelas (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 695-696, Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S.
1, 7-8, Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 981.)
To establish "reasonable suspicion, " both the quality and quantity of the
information you need is considerably less than the "probable cause" you need to
arrest or search. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th
373, 387.) "'[Reeasonable suspicion' is a less demanding standard than probable
cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the
evidence...." (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266,
274.)
"Reasonable suspicion" is evaluated based on objective facts. Your subjective
thinking, i.e., the purpose behind your search or seizure (detention or arrest).
should have no bearing on a court's determination of the legality of your action.
Your "subjective intentions" are irrelevant in determining whether a detention or
an arrest was justified. (See Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 772, Whren (1996)
517 U.S. 806, 813; see also Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38; Scott (1978) 436
U.S. 128, 138, Letner (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 145.)
Information from Others
An officer can properly base a detention on information received from an
eyewitness, victim, police officer, dispatcher, or --if accurate --other "official
channels" because the law generally considers such persons or sources to be
automatically reliable. (Hensley (1985) 469 U.S. 221, 232; Brown (2015) 61
Cal.4th 968, 983; Brueckner (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1500, 15a4, Mueller (1985)
163 Cal.App.3d 681, 685; Waters (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 354.)
I believe Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez both were justified in lawfully
detaining Weintraub. Both officers were wearing a PSP❑ uniform, driving marked
black and white PSP❑ police units, were dispatched to the area of 588 S. Palm
Canyon in reference to a possible fight where one of the males was believed to
be armed with a knife. The male was described as a white male adult wearing a
22
black tank top, camouflage pattern shorts, and armed with a knife that had
possibly been brandished. Based on the information provided by dispatch via the
MDC and radio, the officers were dispatched to the location to investigate a fight
involving several males where one male was armed with a knife, possibly in
violation of PC 417-Brandishing a weapon, and PC 415(1)-Unlawful Fight in a
Public Place. When Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez arrived in the area of
588 S. Palm Canyon Drive arrived, they saw Weintraub who matched the
description of the male armed with a knife, walking southbound near 588 S. Palm
Canyon Drive.
Based on the initial call for service and the officers locating Weintraub, who
matched the description of the male with a knife, Officer Burton and Officer
Enriquez had enough reasonable suspicion to detain him.
1_1 V V =I
In evaluating if Officer Enriquez and Officer Burton had probable cause to arrest
Weintraub, I reviewed the definition of arrest, how it applies to persons, and what
the purpose of an arrest is. The following are definitions and court rulings that I
considered in developing my findings:
Probable Cause
'An arrest is valid only if supported by probable cause." (Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th
978, 1037.) As has been stated, you may arrest someone without a warrant only
if you have "probable cause" to believe he or she committed an offense. The
classification of the offense --felony, misdemeanor, infraction --does not control.
An arrest is "constitutionally reasonable" when an officer has probable cause to
believe a person committed a crime. (Moore (2008) 553 U.S. 164, 171.)
"Probable cause" to arrest (1) requires more than the "reasonable suspicion"
necessary for a detention and (2) is essentially the same as the "probable cause"
required to obtain an arrest warrant or a search warrant. (Camps (1984) 36
Cal.3d 870, 879; Gorrostieta (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 71, 84.)
Note: There is no difference between the meaning of "reasonable cause," which
is the term that appears in the California statutes (Pen. Code, § 836), and the
term "probable cause" as used in federal Fourth Amendment law. The two terms
are identical. (Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 843, Puryear (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th
1188, 1195.)
Whether "probable cause" exists depends upon the reasonable conclusions that
can be "drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the
arrest. " (Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 543 U. S. 146, 152; Pringle (2003) 540 U. S.
366, 371.) "Probable cause" exists when the totality of the circumstances would
lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong
suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime. (Scott (2011) 52
23
Cal.4th 452, Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 41 a; Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1037.)
" jSJufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under
the Fourth Amendment." (Garrison (1987) 480 U.S. 79, 87.)
An officer's training and experience are relevant to a determination of probable
cause. (Guajardo (1994) 23 Ca1.App.4th 1738, 1742; Gonzales (1989) 216
Cal.App.3d 1185, Rosales (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 759.) However, "an arresting
officer's state of mind (except for the facts he knows) is irrelevant to the existence
of probable cause." (Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 543 U. S. 146, 153, added
emphasis.)
Based on the investigation, I determined that both Officer Burton and Officer
Enriquez has reasonable suspicion to detain Weintraub, which progressed into a
violation of PC 148(a)(1) when Weintraub refused to obey a lawful order to stop
that was given by Officer Burton. Based on these findings, Officer Burton had
probable cause to believe Weintraub committed the crime of PC 148(a)(1).
Although this crime is a misdemeanor, Weintraub committed this crime in the
presence of Officer Burton, making the arrest lawful.
PC 835. Method of Arrest
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the
custody of an officer. The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as
is reasonable for his arrest and detention.
PC 835a. Peace Officer Use of Force to Arrest
Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the
arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or
desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the
person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his
right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to
prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
Duty to Stop/Use of Force to Stop Suspect
Whether you are detaining someone (1) to investigate your reasonable suspicion
or (2) to issue a "cite and release" citation, the suspect has an obligation to stop.
A suspect has "no right to resist" a lawful detention. (Lloyd (1989) 216
Cal.App.3d 1425, 1429.) If the suspect does not stop, he has violated Penal
Code section 148 by obstructing or delaying you in the performance of your
duties (Andre P. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1164, 1169) and you may use whatever
physical force is necessary to make him stop (Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1,
12-13, Gregory S. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 764, 778).
24
Officer Burton attempted to lawfully detained Weintraub, but he ran in an attempt
to escape, providing Officer Burton with probable cause to arrest Weintraub.
When Officer Burton was able to physically grab Weintraub, he punched Officer
Burton in the nose and continued to resist.
During my investigation into this incident, I believe that Weintraub committed
several crimes. The crimes became more and more serious and violent as the
incident progressed. The level of force used by Officer Enriquez upon Weintraub
progressed as well.
I reviewed the following criminal statutes and related them to the actions of
Weintraub during this incident:
PC 148(a)(1) RESIST, DELAY, OR OBSTRUCT OFFICER
Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace
officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5
(commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge
or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no
other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars (S1, 000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one
year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
I believe Weintraub violated PC 148(a)(1), by resisting, delaying, and obstructing
Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez in the performance of their duties. Weintraub
did not comply with Officer Burton's command to stop walking away from him,
nor as the incident and resistance progressed did he comply with Officer Burton's
commands to stop biting his fingers. Additionally, Officer Enriquez attempted to
arrest Weintraub by grabbing his right wrist and attempting to put it behind his
back, but Weintraub resisted by pulling his right arm away from her.
PC 69 RESISTING EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or
prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon such officer
by law, or who knowingly resists, by the use of force or violence, such officer, in
the performance of his duty, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars (S10, 000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
I believe Weintraub violated PC 69 when he punched Officer Burton in the nose
and continued when he forcefully bit onto Officer Burton's right fourth and fifth
fingers.
PC 245(c) ASSAULT W1TH A DEADLY WEAPON OTHER THAN A FIREARM
Any person who commits an assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, other
than a firearm, or by any means likely to produce great bodily injury upon the
person of a peace officer or firefighter, and who knows or reasonably should
25
know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, when the peace officer or firefighter is engaged in the
performance of his or her duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for three, four, or five years.
PC 245(a)(4) ASSA UL T W1TH A DEADL Y WEAPON OTHER THAN A FIREARM
Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another by any means of
force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in
the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding
one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars (S1 a, 000), or by both
the fine and imprisonment.
I believe Weintraub violated PC 245(c) and PC 245(a)(4) when he forcefully bit
dawn on Officer Burton's fourth and fifth fingers on his right hand, which was
likely to produce great bodily injury.
PC 243(c}(2] BATTERY ON A PEACE OFFICER
When the battery specified in paragraph (1) is committed against a peace officer
engaged in the performance of his or her duties, whether on or off duty, including
when the peace officer is in a police uniform and is concurrently performing the
duties required of him or her as a peace officer while also employed in a private
capacity as a part-time or casual private security guard or patrolman and the
person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim
is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, the battery is
punishable by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10, 000), or by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision
(h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
I believe Weintraub violated section PC 243(c)(2) initially when he punched
Officer Burton, who was in full patrol uniform and driving a fully marked patrol
unit, in the face. Weintraub continued to violate this section as he further
attempted to strike Officer Burton.
PC 835a. PEACE OFFICER USE OF FORCE TO ARREST:
Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the
arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or
desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the
person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his
right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to
prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
26
Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez had reason to believe Weintraub was in
violation of PC 148(a)(1) when he refused to obey a lawful order and chose to
run from the officers. Officer Burton used reasonable force upon Weintraub in
attempt to make the arrest for this charge.
As Officer Burton chased Weintraub, he stopped, faced Officer Burton, and
punched him in the nose. Weintraub then continued to attempt to strike Officer
Burton, and Officer Burton pulled him to the ground.
On the ground, Officer Burton was chest to chest with Weintraub, who was
continuing to punch him. Officer Burton then used his right hand to push against
Weintraub's face in an attempt to create distance from him. While doing this,
Weintraub forcefully bit down onto Officer Burton's fourth and fifth fingers. Officer
Burton, fearing his fingers would be bitten off, ordered Weintraub multiple times
to stop biting his fingers but Weintraub refused.
Officer Enriquez arrived at Officer Burton's location and attempted to gain control
of Weintraub's right arm. Officer Enriquez grabbed onto Weintraub's right
arm/wrist and attempted to place his right arm into a control hold behind his back.
When she attempted to do this, Weintraub grabbed onto her right hand and
continued to resist. Officer Enriquez stated at this time she could feel how much
stronger Weintraub was, adding she had to use all of her bodyweight to pin his
arm down. Based on Weintraub's resistance and his strength, Officer Enriquez
believed this was a fight for her life causing her to fear that if Weintraub was able
to get on top of her he would kill her.
Officer Enriquez then tased Weintraub. After seeing the taser was ineffective
with assisting her and Officer Burton with overcoming Weintraub's level of
resistance, she tased him a second time. This second application of the taser
was also ineffective to assisting with overcoming his resistance.
I believe that Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez both used reasonable force, per
PC 835a, in attempts to arrest Weintraub. Therefore, I find their actions to be
within Department policy.
Fearing for her own safety due to Weintraub's overall resistance and his strength,
and that Officer Burton had a visible injury (nose), the reported knife
whereabouts were unknown, that Weintraub was still actively biting Officer
Burton's fingers, causing her to believe Weintraub would cause serious bodily
injury to Officer Burton by biting his fingers off, she drew her handgun and shot
Weintraub in the right leg.
I find all of the specific applications of force used by each officer during this
violent encounter necessary per PC 835a. The use of force was also in
compliance with PSPD Policy Manual Section 300. The use of force was
27
documented and investigated in compliance with PSP❑ Policy Manual Sections
300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.2, 300.7 and 300.7.1.
PC 196 JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY PUBLIC OFFICER :
Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by
their command in their aid and assistance, either-
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the
execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons
charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.
HOMICIDE DEFINED: Homicide is the killing of one human being by another,
either lawfully or unlawfully. Homicide includes murder and manslaughter, which
are unlawful, and the acts of excusable and justifiable homicide, which are lawful.
SELF DEFENSE: The shooting of another person in self-defense or in the
defense of others is justifiable and not unlawful.
The law of self-defense and the defense of others was codified in 1872 and has
remained substantially unchanged since then. It is found in Penal Code sections
197 through 199.
It requires that the user of deadly force honestly believe that he or someone else
is in imminent and deadly peril, and that a reasonable person in the same
circumstances would believe the same and would deem it necessary to use
deadly force in order to protect against such peril.
The means of force used, whether lethal or non -lethal, must be reasonable under
the circumstances. If a firearm is pointed at a person in a threatening manner
and under such circumstances as to induce a reasonable belief that it is loaded,
and will be discharged, the person threatened may use all necessary force to
avert the apparent danger. (People v. Anderson (1872) 44 Cal. 65. 68).
The standard California Criminal Jury Instruction on self defense states. -
The killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful when
the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes:
1. That there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill [him]
[or] [her] or cause [him] [or] [her] great bodily injury; and
2. That it is necessary under the circumstances for [him/her] to use in self-
defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for the
purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to [himself] [or] [herself].
r:
A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a homicide. To
justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the circumstances must be such
as would excite the fears of a reasonable person placed in a similar position, and
the party killing must act under the influence of those fears alone. The danger
must be apparent, present, immediate, and instantly dealt with, or must so
appear at the time to the slayer as a reasonable person, and the killing must be
done under a well-founded belief that it is necessary to save one's self from
death or great bodily harm. (CAL,11C 5.12)
Evidence, statement, and my investigation support the conclusion that Officer
Enriquez had an honest belief that her life and Officer Burton's life were in
serious imminent danger. This conclusion was based on the escalating resistant
and violent actions by Weintraub preceding the shooting.
Initially when Weintraub sees the officers, he ran in an attempt to escape. Once
Officer Burton was able to catch up to him, Weintraub turned and attacked him
by punching him in the face. Then on the ground, Weintraub continued to
attempt to strike Officer Burton, who was trying to hold Weintraub down and
protect himself by pushing Weintraub away. During which time, Weintraub bit
down onto Officer Burton's right fourth and fifth fingers with such force that both
Officer Burton and Officer Enriquez feared Weintraub would bite his fingers off.
Rather than trying to escape from officers, Weintraub continued to resist the
officers, continued forcefully biting Officer Burton, and resisted Officer Enriquez's
attempt to control his right arm.
As Weintraub continued to resist both officers, Officer Enriquez deployed her
taser and tased Weintraub, which was ineffective. Weintraub continued to bite
Officer Burton and resist Officer Enriquez's attempt to control his right arm, so
she tased Weintraub a second time, which was also ineffective.
Based on Weintraub's present ability, opportunity, and current actions, Officer
Enriquez believed that Officer Burton was in imminent danger of suffering serious
bodily injury by Weintraub biting Officer Burton's fingers off. Additionally, based
on Weintraub's actions, Officer Enriquez feared that if Weintraub was able to get
on top of her, he would kill her.
Officer Enriquez retrieved her duty weapon and used deadly force against
Weintraub because Weintraub remained a threat and was attempting to cause
serious bodily injury to Officer Burton. Under these circumstances, it was
reasonable to defend Officer Burton with deadly force.
At the conclusion of my investigation, I found Officer Enriquez was justified in his
use of deadly force in accordance with PC 195. Weintraub caused Officer
Enriquez to use deadly force in self-defense of Officer Burton, to prevent great
bodily injury and/or death upon herself and her partner. The deployment of
29
justifiable deadly force by Officer Enriquez to defend herself and her partners
was within PSP❑ Policy Manual Section 300.
PSPD POLICY 300 - USE OF FORCE:
300.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines on the reasonable use of force. While there is no
way to specify the exact amount or type of reasonable farce to be applied in any
situation, every member of this department is expected to use these guidelines to
make such decisions in a professional, impartial and reasonable manner.
300.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:
Deadly force - Any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or
serious bodily injury, including but not limited to the discharge of a firearm (Penal
Cade § 835a).
Farce - The application of physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or
weapons to another person. It is not a use of farce when a person allows
himlherself to be searched, escorted, handcuffed, or restrained.
300.2 POLICY
The use of farce by law enforcement personnel is a matter of critical concern,
bath to the public and to the law enforcement community. Officers are involved
on a daily basis in numerous and varied interactions and, when warranted, may
use reasonable force in carrying out their duties.
Officers must have an understanding of, and true appreciation for, their authority
and limitations. This is especially true with respect to overcoming resistance
while engaged in the performance of law enforcement duties.
The Department recognizes and respects the value of all human life and dignity
without prejudice to anyone. Vesting officers with the authority to use reasonable
farce and to protect the public welfare requires monitoring, evaluation and a
careful balancing of all interests.
300.3 USE OF FORCE
Officers shall use only that amount of farce that reasonably appears necessary
given the facts and totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the
officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement
purpose (Penal Code § 835a).
30
The reasonableness of force will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene at the time of the incident. Any evaluation of reasonableness
must allow for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second
decisions about the amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in a
particular situation, with limited information and in circumstances that are tense,
uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
Given that no policy can realistically predict every possible situation an officer
might encounter, officers are entrusted to use well -reasoned discretion in
determining the appropriate use of force in each incident.
It is also recognized that circumstances may arise in which officers reasonably
believe that it would be impractical or ineffective to use any of the tools,
weapons, or methods provided by the Department. Officers may find it more
effective or reasonable to improvise their response to rapidly unfolding conditions
that they are confronting. In such circumstances, the use of any improvised
device or method must nonetheless be objectively reasonable and utilized only to
the degree that reasonably appears necessary to accomplish a legitimate law
enforcement purpose.
While the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter is to avoid or
minimize injury, nothing in this policy requires an officer to retreat or be exposed
to possible physical injury before applying reasonable force.
300.3.1 USE OF FORCE TO EFFECT AN ARREST
Any peace officer may use objectively reasonable force to effect an arrest, to
prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or
attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his/her efforts by
reason of resistance or threatened resistance on the part of the person being
arrested, nor shall an officer be deemed the aggressor or lose his/her right to
self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest, prevent escape,
or to overcome resistance. Retreat does not mean tactical repositioning or other
de-escalation techniques (Penal Code § 835a).
300.3.2 FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF
FORCE
When determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has
used reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration,
as time and circumstances permit. These factors include but are not limited to:
a. The apparent immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others
(Penal Code § 835a).
b. The conduct of the individual being confronted, as reasonably perceived
by the officer at the time.
31
c. Officerlsubject factors (age, size, relative strength, ski!l level, injuries
sustained, level of exhaustion or fatigue, the number of officers available
vs. subjects).
d. The conduct of the involved officer (Pena! Code § 835a).
e. The effects of drugs or alcohol.
f. The individual's apparent mental state or capacity (Pena! Code § 835a).
g. The individual's apparent ability to understand and comply with officer
commands (Penal Code § 835a).
h. Proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised devices.
i. The degree to which the subject has been effectively restrained and
his/her ability to resist despite being restrained.
j. The availability of other reasonable and feasible options and their possible
effectiveness (Pena! Code § 835a).
k. Seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for contact with the
individual.
!. Training and experience of the officer.
m. Potential for injury to officers, suspects, and others.
n. Whether the person appears to be resisting, attempting to evade arrest by
flight, or is attacking the officer.
o. The risk and reasonably foreseeable consequences of escape.
p. The apparent need for immediate control of the subject or a prompt
resolution of the situation.
q. Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no longer
reasonably appears to pose an imminent threat to the officer or others.
r. Prior contacts with the subject or awareness of any propensity for
violence.
s. Any other exigent circumstances.
300.4 DEADLY FORCE APPLICATIONS
If an objectively reasonable officer would consider it safe and feasible to do so
under the totality of the circumstances, officers should evaluate the use of other
reasonably available resources and techniques when determining whether to use
deadly force. The use of deadly force is onlyjustified in the following
circumstances (Penal Code § 835a):
a. An officer may use deadly force to protect himlherself or others from what
he/she reasonably believes is an imminent threat of death or serious
bodily injury to the officer or another person.
b. An officer may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing person for any
felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the
officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious
bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible,
the officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to
identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may
32
be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe
the person is aware of those facts.
An "imminent" threat of death or serious bodily injury exists when, based on the
totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would
believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to
immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
An officer's subjective fear of future harm alone is insufficient as an imminent
threat. An imminent threat is one that from appearances is reasonably believed
to require instant attention (Penal Code § 835a).
Based on my training, my experience, the investigation at the scene, the
statements by Officer Burton, the statements by Officer Enriquez, evidence
collected, the witness statements, I believe the actions of Officer Enriquez in this
incident were within the legal standards of the State of California and within the
standards set forth by Palm Springs Police Department Policy Manual Sections
300.3, 300.3.1, 300.3.2 and 300.4. The incident was reported and investigated
within the standards set forth by Palm Springs Police Department Manual
Sections 300.5, 300.5.1, 300.5.2, 300.7 and 300.7.1. In conclusion, I find Officer
Enriquez exonerated as to violating Palm Springs Police Department Policy
Sections 300.3, 300.3.1, 300.3.2 and 300.4.
In a letter dated November 17, 2020, The Riverside County Sheriff's Department
and the Riverside County District Attorney conducted their investigations into the
officer involved shooting and determined that there was no evidence of criminal
liability on the part of Officer Enriquez or Officer Burton. I attached the letter to
the front of the RSO investigation booklet.
1_1IaIF_[il:l►►►1: 1►1�-i
#1 — Riverside County Sheriff's Department Officer Involved Shooting book
33