Nueces county district attorneys office report gc shooting - 1 july 2019

Nueces County District Attorney’s Office
Report on the Officer-Involved Shooting of Richard Salazar by
Corpus Christi Police Department Senior Officer Gilbert Cantu
District Attorney Mark A. Gonzalez
Prepared By:
First Assistant District Attorney Matt Manning
Appellate Chief Douglas K. Norman
Felony Chief Geordie Schimmel
Assistant District Attorney Hailey Gonzalez
Legal Intern Dana Dinkens
Legal Intern Michelle Godines
Legal Intern Dulce Morales
Nueces County, Texas
July 2019

Table of Contents
Contents
I. Introduction ..................................................................................... 3
II. Factual Summary of Incident .......................................................... 4
III. Analysis of the Applicable Law ...................................................... 4
a. Reasonable Suspicion................................................................. 4
b. Exigent Circumstances............................................................... 5
c. Reasonable Time Frame and Acting Upon Physical Description
d. Curtilage and Warrantless Arrest............................................... 6
e. Deadly Force .............................................................................. 7
f. Self-Defense and Defense of a Third Person ............................. 9
g. Application of Self-Defense and Defense of Another to Officer
Shooting...................................................................................... 9
IV. Preparation for Grand Jury Presentation ....................................... 10
V. Our Commitment........................................................................... 11
x-1. Assorted Photos from Case File/Police Presentation.................... 13
x-2. Dr. Philip M. Stinson’s Analysis of Cases Where a Police Officer Was
Charged with a Crime Resulting from a Nonfatal On-Duty Shooting in Years
2005-2014 ................................................................................................ 17
x-3. Corpus Christi Police Department Policy and Procedure, Policy #200,
Subject: Use of Force............................................................................... 27
x-4. Corpus Christi Police Department Policy and Procedure, Policy #303,
Subject: Mobile Digital Video Recording Systems and Body Worn Cameras
.................................................................................................................. 36

3
I. Introduction: Why was this report written?
Trust is sacred. It is anchored by truth and candor, no matter the relationship whence it
originates or continues to abide. In the relationship between the public and those tasked with public
service, it flourishes where servants and offices are forthright, direct, and unquestionably
committed to giving and doing their all to and for the people. It dies where there is uncertainty in
intention and action.
It dies violently and routinely where there is an appearance, warranted or unwarranted, that
outcomes in the criminal justice system are all station-determined, favorable only to the rich,
powerful, and connected; and that certain folks are impervious to responsibility.
No situation exemplifies this reality more demonstrably than in the scores of unfortunate
instances where citizens have been injured by peace officers using force, whether fatal or non-
fatal.
Social media, the twenty-four hour news cycle, the tragic, unconscionable abuses of civil
rights by some sworn to protect and serve — and apparent lack of consequential legal action in
jurisdictions across the nation — have created in some citizens a default belief of impropriety and
“untouchability” for law enforcement in these instances.
Notwithstanding this belief, there are innumerable instances where officers’ uses of force
have been found to be justified and permissible under the law.
As lawyers, we are tasked with reviewing each case brought to us objectively and solely
upon its facts. As prosecutors, we conduct this analysis more incisively, in the respect that we seek
to determine whether criminal conduct may have occurred; and if it has, the appropriate charge to
levy.
As prosecutors, we represent the State and all those existing within her borders. One duty
inherent in our representation, as we see it, is to inform the public whom we serve not only as to
our activities and decisions, but also as to the law, which governs those activities and decisions.
In fulfillment of that representation, we have prepared a report distilling and discussing the
law applicable to this most unfortunate incident.
This report provides a synopsis of the criminal law applicable to the case. This distinction is
important, because we neither practice nor opine on civil law issues in our analyses of cases. Where
there is a companion civil case, it is not dispositive of any of our decisions or activities whatsoever.
However, where discussion of attendant civil issues is necessary to our analysis, it has been
included.
Some of the precedent discussed in this report is extra-jurisdictional, i.e. from outside of
Texas, and presented solely for the purpose of a broader analysis of the issues. Where Texas courts
have decided on the issues in question, we have included such information. The cases cited and
their controlling principles are referenced by footnote, available at the bottom of the respective
page.
This report is not intended to constitute an expert opinion rendered by our office collectively
or any of the co-authors independently. It is merely intended as a guide for citizens to understand
the law applicable in a case of this nature.
The practicalities of our office caseloads and manpower constraints render us unable to
produce a like report in every major case, irrespective of whether an officer is involved; however,

4
in those cases with the greatest potential for misunderstanding or mischaracterization, we think it
imperative to dispel myth and make plain the law.
II. Factual Summary of the Incident
Two armed robberies occurred at convenience stores on 26 March 2019 in the early morning
and late afternoon, with the second robbery occurring at the Hi-Ho convenience store on Baldwin
Ave. As the latter robbery was occurring, a gentleman (Citizen 1) who resides in the area attempted
to enter the store and was scared off by one of the robbers. Citizen 1 immediately left the store, on
foot, and traveled down Torreon St. en route back to his home on another street in the
neighborhood.
The description of the robbery suspect(s) in the Hi-Ho robbery was of 2 Hispanic men, at
least one of whom was wearing a white t-shirt and jeans. Citizen 1, while completely uninvolved
in the commission of the robbery, was wearing attire matching the description of the robbers.
Senior Officer Gilbert Cantu and Officer Jacqueline Deleon encountered an elderly man
(Citizen 2) on Torreon St. while searching for the suspects. The officers asked Citizen 2 whether
he had seen anyone in the area matching the description of the robbers. Citizen 2 informed them
(in Spanish) that he had seen a man matching that description go down Torreon St. (presumably
Citizen 1).
Following the tip provided by Citizen 2, the officers crept down Torreon St. until reaching
2xx Torreon, where they discovered Richard Salazar, asleep on a couch in his carport, having just
finished smoking synthetic marijuana and waiting for his mother to bring him food. Officers
approached the subject while he was sitting on a couch under his carport. The carport is attached
to his residence, on a route the officers might have naturally taken to approach his front door, as it
opens up into the driveway of the home. With guns drawn, the police officers asked Salazar to
show them his hands. Mr. Salazar was said to be non-compliant (or perhaps, merely non-
responsive) but ultimately raised his hands. Officer Cantu and Officer Deleon both observed Mr.
Salazar raise his hands, indicating in their statements that he raised them between shoulder and
chest height. Officer Cantu indicated in his statement that he observed Mr. Salazar pulling his left
hand across his body. Officer Deleon indicated in her statement that she saw his hands raised but
that they were level rather than one in front of the other. Officer Cantu, observing Mr. Salazar to
have an object in his hands, mistook the object — a lighter — for a weapon and immediately shot
6 times, hitting him with 4 bullets. The shots were fired 8 minutes after the robbery occurred at the
Hi-Ho Convenience Store. Officer Deleon also observed the object in Mr. Salazar’s hands. Officer
Cantu expressed that his actions were a result of the belief that the lighter was a firearm and that
he feared his partner would be hurt. Officer Jacqueline Deleon, his partner, was newly graduated
from the police academy and did not use force save for drawing her weapon.
III. Analysis of the Applicable Law
Reasonable Suspicion
A police officer may detain a person absent a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion based
on specific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead
them to reasonably conclude that the person detained is, has been, or will soon be engaged in

5
criminal activity.1
Irrespective of the subjective intent of the officer, the standard asks only whether
there is an objectively justifiable basis for the detention. Because a detention is far less intrusive
than an arrest, less specificity in the articulable facts known to police that a crime has been
committed is required. The court will look to the cumulative information known to the cooperating
officers at the time of the stop to determine reasonable suspicion, not merely the information
personally known to the detaining officer.
When a citizen is the informant, the only question is whether the information that the known
citizen-informant (here, Citizen 2) provides—viewed through the prism of the detaining officer’s
particular level of knowledge and experience—objectively supports a reasonable suspicion to
believe that criminal activity is happening.
Exigent Circumstances
Should a theoretical court find the police did not have justification to detain Salazar because
he was technically in his curtilage (considered to be part of the home for 4th
amendment purposes)
it may look to case law concerning probable cause to search or arrest rather than reasonable
suspicion to detain.2
In U.S. v. Dodds, the court held the police could go into the home they believed a suspect
entered while investigating a robbery of a convenience store that happened minutes earlier.3
In
State v. Dunbar, police officers were justified in entering an apartment after they observed a man
jump to his feet and get into his apartment when they passed by him while investigating a robbery
that happened 30-45 minutes before.4
In People v. Wetzel, the court said the police were justified
in entering a home while in hot pursuit of burglars after a witness said he saw one of the suspects
go into it.5
In State v. Lomak, police were justified in entering a home after a burglary was reported
and they saw a possible suspect retreat into his home. The court said the suspect was in a public
place, his porch, and retreated into his home, a private place, which gave the officers the
opportunity to also enter into the home.6
Reasonable Time Frame and Acting Upon Physical Description
The determination of whether probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists is reviewed
under the light of the “totality of the circumstances.”7
Temporal and geographic proximity
accompanied by a “description by witnesses of a suspect may provide a sufficient basis for
arresting an individual who closely resembles the description.”8
Limited physical description of a
suspect, without context, can provide insufficient justification for a search. 9
However, reasonable
1
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
2
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013).
3
United States v. Dodds, 946 F.2d 726 (10th Cir. 1991).
4
State v. Dunbar, 356 So. 2d 956 (La. 1978).
5
People v. Wetzel, 11 Cal. 3d 104, 113 Cal. Rptr. 32, 520 P.2d 416 (1974).
6
State v. Lomak, 1999 WL 138603 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999).
7
Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
8
Shriner, 715 F.2d at 1454. (Police encountered suspect one day after the crimes were committed in the same
county based on a description by a witness).
9
Martinez v. City of Chi., 900 F.3d 838, 847 (7th Cir. 2018).

6
suspicion may be supported when paired with temporal and geographic proximity, as consideration
of the circumstances.10
Curtilage and Warrantless Arrest
The concept of curtilage is the extension of the dwelling and intimate activity associated
with the privacies and sanctity of a man’s home to the area immediately surrounding a home,
affording that area the same protection a dwelling house would have under the law.11
The question
of whether an area falls within the extent of a home’s curtilage is determined by four factors on a
case by case determination: (1) “the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home; (2)
whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature of the uses
to which the area is put; and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation
by people passing by.”12
Assuming an area is determined to be curtilage and afforded Fourth Amendment
protection, protection of the home has never been extended to require a police officer who is
passing by a home to shield their eyes.13
A warrantless observation of a home’s curtilage, within
open and plain view and a lawful vantage point, does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment
rights.14
If an area is determined to be curtilage, a carport or parking area “into which an officer
can see from the street is no less entitled to protection from trespass and a warrantless search than
a fully enclosed garage.”15
A lawful investigative detention may be founded upon a reasonable
suspicion that the person detained is connected with criminal activity. 16
A lawful arrest must be
supported by probable cause that a person has or is committing an offense.17
In order to lawfully
enter a residence and make a warrantless arrest, “police officers need probable cause to arrest plus
exigent circumstances that makes procuring a warrant impracticable.”18
In determining whether
probable cause exists for a warrantless arrest or search, an application and review of the “totality
of the circumstances” is used.19
Probable cause is present to make an arrest when within the
officer’s knowledge the facts and circumstances are reasonably trustworthy and are enough to
warrant reasonable caution that a person has committed or is committing an offense.20
An officer
may enter a residence to make an arrest lawfully without a warrant and an officer is justified in
adopting all the measures which they might adopt in cases of arrest under warrant if “exigent
circumstances require that the officer making the arrest enter the residence without the consent of
a resident or without a warrant.”21
“Exigent circumstances embrace situations in which real,
immediate, and serious consequences will certainly occur if a police officer postpones action to
10
Id.
11
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 212 (1986).
12
Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301.
13
Ciraolo, 476 U.S., at 213-214.
14
Dunn, 480 U.S. at 304.
15
Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 1675 (2018).
16
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968).
17
Id. at 26.
18
Randolph v. State, 152 S.W. 3d 764, 770 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2006).
19
Amores, 816 S.W.2d at 413.
20
Id.
21
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 14.05.

7
obtain a warrant.”22
Exigent circumstances include the following: “(1) a risk of danger to the police
or the victim; (2) an increased likelihood of apprehending a suspect; (3) possible destruction of
evidence or contraband; (4) hot or continuous pursuit; and (5) rendering aid or assistance to persons
who the officer reasonably believes are in need of assistance.”23
If the area is determined to be
curtilage, then it is necessary for the officer to be acting upon probable cause to have completed a
warrantless arrest or search of the suspect.24
However, if the area is determined not to be curtilage
then all that is necessary is for the officer to be acting upon reasonable suspicion.25
Deadly Force
The Fourth Amendment provides “The right of the people to be secure… against
unreasonable searches and seizures.”26
Implied through this protection is the right to be free from
an officer’s use of excessive force during an arrest or search. This right is fundamental and shall
not be violated. The courts have ruled that not all police interactions with individuals are
considered seizures.27
For example, voluntary police encounters are not seizures.28
However, the
Supreme Court has ruled that apprehension using deadly force is a seizure subject to
reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.29
A seizure occurs when an officer restrains a person’s liberty of movement through, for
example, physical force that is intentionally applied.30
“In making an arrest, all reasonable means
are permitted to be used to effect it. No greater force, however, shall be resorted to than is necessary
to secure the arrest and detention of the accused.”31
The Court held that a balancing test must be
used to determine if a seizure is reasonable.32
The test balances the nature and quality of the
intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the
governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.33
In addition, the Court stated that “it is
plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried
out.”34
For example, a police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting
him dead.35
In addition, an officer can only use deadly force if the officer has probable cause to believe
that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others.36
Courts
have not defined a serious threat. Instead, the courts have stated that “whether a sufficiently serious
threat exists is a matter of objective reasonableness, not a subjective belief, which nonetheless
22
Welsh v. Wis. 466 U.S. 740, 751 (1984); Randolph, 152 S.W.3d at 771.
23
Randolph, 152 S.W.3d at 771.
24
Chambers, 399 U.S. at 51.
25
Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 328.
26
U.S. Const. amend. IV.
27
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985.)
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007).
31
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 15.24.
32
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985.)
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.

8
takes into account the facts and circumstances.”37
Essentially, the courts will look at each case
and determine if a reasonable officer, not the specific officer at the scene, would have believed
there was a serious threat.38
The Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer may
not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.39
However, there is no bright-
line rule to evaluate each specific case. The courts simply state that the facts and circumstances
for each case must be examined to determine if a reasonable officer would have felt that there was
a serious threat.40
Force is justified if the actor reasonably believes there is substantial risk that the person to
be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.”41
Edwards provides a persuasive look into what another county in Texas held when
confronted with facts similar to our case. Here a police officer testified that he saw the defendant
making a movement that he anticipated was him pulling a gun from its hiding place and turning
towards his partner. 42
As a result, the officer shot the defendant in defense of this partner.43
The
defendant was found to be guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer;
and while not expressly stated, this implies that the officer was reasonable in his force defending
his partner.44
Therefore, to determine if an officer’s use of force is reasonable, we must weigh the risk
of bodily harm caused by the officer during an arrest or investigatory stop against the threat the
officer is trying to eliminate.45
A key question is “whether the totality of the circumstances justified
a particular sort of search or seizure.”46
Where there are claims of excessive force by an officer, a
subjective perception about whether the amount of force was excessive is not the legal test. Rather,
the legal test is whether the police officers’ use of force under the circumstances was objectively
reasonable judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the
benefit of 20/20 hindsight.47
The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise mechanical
application; therefore, proper application requires a case by case examination of the facts.48
The
officer’s actions must be analyzed given the exact situation confronting the officer at the time they
decided to use force reviewing factors such as: (1) the severity of the crime involved; (2) the threat
that the suspect poses to the officer or others; (3) the severity of the injuries caused by the use of
force; (4) the need for the application of force; or (5) whether the officer’s actions leading up to
the force were reasonable.49
The calculus of whether a use of force is reasonable must allow for
the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments about the amount of
force that is necessary in the often tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation referred to as
the superseding moment.50
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Tex. Penal Code Ann. §9.51.
42
Edwards v. State, 57 S.W.3d 677, 681 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2001).
43
Id.
44
Id. at 678.
45
Scott, 550 U.S. at 383.
46
Garner, 471 U.S. at 8-9.
47
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 398 (1989).
48
Id. at 396.
49
County of L.A., Cal. v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539, 1549 (2017); Scott, 550 U.S. at 382; Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.
50
Scott, 550 U.S. at 383.

9
Reviewing the superseding moment in the eyes of the officer, the concept of reasonableness
requires one to put themselves into the very moment that the officer was in and consider the
situation from their own eyes. You must ask if the officer reasonably felt threatened in that instance
so as to employ deadly force.51
Similar to our facts, the Court held in Mendez that officers
reasonably believed a BB gun to be an actual weapon threatening their lives and discharged fifteen
rounds, severely injuring the suspect. The court found the use of force to be reasonable under
Graham; however, the officers remained liable under other provisions.52
Self-Defense and Defense of A Third Person
The Texas Penal Code recognizes the use of self-defense and states that a person is justified
in using deadly force against another person when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes
the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force.53
The Texas Penal Code § 9.32 Defense of a Person states that a person is justified
in using force if the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect
the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.
Application of Self Defense and Defense of Another to Officer Shooting
A police officer, like any other person, may use deadly force to defend himself or his
partner against another person’s perceived unlawful use of deadly force against the officer or
officers. The Texas Penal Code sets out the elements of this right of defense, as follows:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he
reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the
other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.54
Similarly, a person is justified in using
deadly force against another to protect someone else if he reasonably believes that deadly force is
immediately necessary to protect that third person against the other’s use or attempted use of
unlawful deadly force.55
Moreover, whether or not the police officer was lawfully on the property of that other
person at the time, he does not forfeit the right to defend himself. It has long been the law in Texas,
and elsewhere, that “A mere trespass on the property of another is not such an act of aggression or
provocation as will preclude the trespasser from killing in self-defense.”56
Accordingly, whether or not a police officer was mistaken in his authority to approach or
detain a person on that person’s own property, this would not deprive the officer of the right to
defend himself and his partner against a perceived attack by that person.
The determining factor is whether the officer reasonably believed that deadly force was
51
Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97.
52
Mendez, 137 S. Ct. at 1547; Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97.
53
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.32.
54
See Tex. Penal Code § 9.32.
55
See Tex. Penal Code § 9.32.
56 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 201; see also 21 Tex. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Defenses § 139 Self-defense by trespasser
(“One does not forfeit the right of self-defense by going on another’s premises in a peaceable manner and for a
lawful purpose”).

10
immediately necessary to protect himself or his partner against the other’s use or attempted use of
unlawful deadly force.
IV. Preparation for Grand Jury Presentation
Preparation
Our paramount concern when working this case up and preparing it for presentation to the
grand jury was ensuring that our appraisal of the case was completely objective, completely
comprehensive, and completely unaffected by politics, public opinion, or pressure from interested
parties. Once our office received the file, we immediately began researching the legal issues we
identified and supplementing the file with our own investigation.
We considered and analyzed two potential offenses based on the evidence in this case:
aggravated assault and deadly conduct. An aggravated assault occurs where a person
“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly commits an assault” and causes serious bodily injury to
another or uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.57
Both manners
of commission of an aggravated assault are second-degree felonies.58
A firearm is, naturally,
considered a deadly weapon.59
Deadly conduct occurs where a person “recklessly engages in
conduct that places another in imminent danger of seriously bodily injury” or “knowingly
discharges a firearm at or in the direction of one or more individuals.”60
Recklessly engaging in
said conduct is a Class A misdemeanor, while shooting in the direction of one or more individuals
is a third-degree felony.61
Because this case involved an officer using force, we wanted to make sure that we not only
appreciated the uniqueness of this type of case, but also that we were as well-informed as possible
on case precedent in our evaluation of the case.
Accordingly, we thought it imperative to incorporate and consider the scholarship that has
been done and the metrics that have been kept with respect to police officers’ uses of force. In
searching to that end, we discovered the work of an ex-police officer and lawyer, Dr. Philip M.
Stinson, a professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and a nationally-renowned
researcher in the area of police misconduct and allegations of crimes committed by police
officers.62
We discussed with Dr. Stinson the basic contours of the case at hand and employed him to
conduct an analysis for us of all of the non-fatal uses of deadly force by police officers in his
database. (Dr. Stinson’s analysis is included as an attachment at the conclusion of this report.)
We also reviewed the Corpus Christi Police Department’s Use of Force and Body Camera
policies. (Both policies are included as attachments at the conclusion of this report.)
As with any case, we reviewed every shred of evidence, parsing them again and again to
ensure we left no stone unturned in our review. We reviewed the cadre of police reports, videos,
57
Tex. Penal Code §22.02(a)(1), (2) (1973).
58
Id., at §(b).
59
Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(17)(A)(1) (1973).
60
Tex. Penal Code §22.05(a),(b)(1)-(2) (1973).
61
Id., at §(e).
62
See Carl Bialik, An Ex-Cop Keeps The Country’s Best Data Set on Police Misconduct, fivethirtyeight.com, Apr.
22, 2015, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/an-ex-cop-keeps-the-countrys-best-data-set-on-police-misconduct/

11
photos, drone footage, witness statements, 911 calls, and other media in our pursuit of justice.
Following this preparation, we presented the case to the grand jury on 27 June 2019.
Grand Jury Presentation
By law, grand jury proceedings are secret, and the unauthorized disclosure of said
proceedings punishable by contempt, which may include a fine, imprisonment, or both.63
Consequently, we cannot discuss what transpired in our presentation before the grand jury.
V. Our Commitment
We gave you our word that we would be “transparent, honest, independent, and fair” in our
analysis of the case in our 27 March press release regarding the incident. Our word is our bond.
We have endeavored to not only fulfill these promises, but to also effectively educate the public
on the law and case precedent that governs the issues in the case and the potential offenses we
analyzed.
We have been transparent both in the creation of this report and the press conference
announcing the report.
We are honest in our analysis of the legal issues and in our recognition that the dispositions
of such incidents, by their very nature, will never fully appease the public and other interested
parties.
We were independent at every stage of our investigation before and after receiving the file
from law enforcement and up to and through the drafting of this report. We understand that there
are some members of the public who will undoubtedly feel that there is an inherent conflict with
the Corpus Christi Police Department investigating a case involving one of its own officers. While
we appreciate that sentiment and understand the resulting skepticism, we would remind the public
that (1) the internal affairs division of CCPD routinely investigates allegations against its own
officers, albeit not delivering those results to the public at large; and (2) that we reviewed the entire
investigation (finding no impropriety whatsoever) and supplemented it. We have the utmost
respect for law enforcement and appreciate the opportunity to work alongside them to serve and
protect you; however, to do our jobs right, we must hold law enforcement accountable — and take
seriously any allegation that an officer has committed a crime — in precisely the same manner we
hold accountable any other citizens. Every aspect of our analysis occurred independently and
solely by the attorneys and investigators employed by our office, with the exception of the analysis
we commissioned by Dr. Stinson.
We were fair in our evaluation of the evidence. We did see elements of the contact that we
found problematic and communicated those concerns to CCPD leadership. Any time a citizen is
harmed by police action is an appropriate time to revisit and reevaluate officers’ training,
procedures, and policies. Amidst that evaluation, we were also fair and objective in assessing the
application of the facts to the legal standards applicable in this instance. Finally, we were fair in
our recognition that Mr. Salazar was not in any way involved in the robberies taking place at the
two stores near his residence and that he did not bring the police contact upon himself in any way.
We also repudiated the argument, express or insinuated, that Mr. Salazar “deserved” what
63
Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. §20.02 (1965).

12
happened or “brought it upon himself” due to his use of synthetic marijuana or perceived lack of
compliance. No action short of affirmatively and purposely attacking or endangering officers (or
a third party) justifies a citizen being injured by an officer. We mention the synthetic marijuana
solely for the purpose of providing factual accuracy as to the events transpiring that day.
We were committed in every part of the process to evaluating the evidence properly;
considering the appropriate potential charges; educating ourselves as fully as possible on the
scholarship around such incidents and legal outcomes; and being as comprehensive as possible in
the report we produced for presentation to you, the public.
We have a simple, single, yet omnipotent guiding principle in our office: “Do the right
thing.” Period. Nothing else suffices nor more powerfully exemplifies our commitment to you. We
endeavor to do the right thing, every time, without fail. On this commitment we stand; and in this
commitment you can rely.
Yours in Truth and Service,
Mark A. Gonzalez
District Attorney

13

14

15

16

Nueces county district attorneys office report gc shooting - 1 july 2019

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Nueces county district attorneys office report gc shooting - 1 july 2019

Similar to Nueces county district attorneys office report gc shooting - 1 july 2019 (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Nueces county district attorneys office report gc shooting - 1 july 2019