Three police officers with the San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) were involved in an officer-involved-shooting (OIS) with a forty-six year old female named Melissa Perez on June 23, 2023. Ms. Perez sustained fatal injuries and by days end - all three officers were under arrest and facing murder charges.
The Call
Around 0200 hrs on listed date police officers were dispatched to an apartment complex in reference to a call where it had been reported that a woman (later identified as Ms. Perez) had destroyed property at the complex and more specifically had cut the wires of the fire alarm system at the apartment complex. It was reported that Ms. Perez was experiencing a “mental health crisis” but it is unknown if responding officers possessed that information. But, what police officers did know, is that the female offender had committed a felony offense.
Contact
Upon the arrival of police officers, Ms. Perez was speaking with San Antonio firefighters. As the officers approached, Ms. Perez began to walk away and an officer gave her a command to stop. Ms. Perez ignored the command to comply with police officers and walked to her apartment and entered the unit.
At this point officers did have probable cause to arrest Ms. Perez for the felony level criminal damage offense.
Attempted Arrest
Sergeant Flores and Officers Alejandro and Villalobos followed Ms. Perez and jumped over a short fence and onto the balcony of her apartment. Officers noticed that there was an open window and removed the screen. Officers attempted to speak with Ms. Perez through this open window and she remained uncooperative.
Ms. Perez yelled at police officers and complained that they did not have a “warrant”. She then followed up her brilliant legal opinion by throwing a glass candle at an officer through the open window - causing minor injuries.
Hot Pursuit
Since the crime had been committed in a public place and the police officers attempted to arrest Ms. Perez in that public place - the doctrine of “hot pursuit” would apply1.
In short, it would not be a violation of the 4th amendment for the police officers to enter the private residence during the initial pursuit of Ms. Perez. The fact that Ms. Perez was successful in her illegal evasion of arrest - does not grant her a “get out of jail” pass.
Also, once that “hot pursuit” goes cold and officers choose not to make immediate entry after the suspect - officers would likely not be able to enter the apartment without a warrant.
Best practices would instruct officers to set a perimeter, obtain a warrant, and call for additional resources to assist - that is, if there is no danger in allowing the offender to remain in the residence and no risk of any innocent victims being taken hostage, etc…
Time, Distance, Additional Resources
At that point, after the officer had been struck with the glass candle, on scene officers made the right decision and backed away from the apartment. Officers requested additional resources and utilized time and distance in an effort to de-escalate the situation. This was undoubtedly the correct decision.
Once other officers arrived on scene they spoke with Ms. Perez for approximately thirty minutes in an effort to convince her to comply with arrest and cooperate with police officers. But, Ms. Perez refused and continued her illegal evasion of law enforcement.
Use of Force
At some point a decision was made to re-engage with Ms. Perez and officers again scaled the small fence and made their way onto her balcony. It has been reported by SAPD officials that Ms. Perez then armed herself with a hammer, approached a closed glass door that stood in between herself and police officers, and swung the hammer at the glass.
At this point an officer fired his weapon, however, none of his shots struck Ms. Perez. In response Ms. Perez again approached the door with the hammer and three police officers fired their weapons. Initial reports from SAPD officials are that the officers fired through the open window and also through the glass door. Ms. Perez sustained fatal injuries. (body cam footage)
Charges
In less than twenty-four hours after the OIS the three involved officers had been taken into police custody, arrested, and charged with murder.
SAPD Chief of Police William McManus stated that the involved officers did not follow department training or policy and “used deadly force, which was not reasonable given all the circumstances as we now understand them.”
The Chief also stated that Ms. Perez was experiencing “a mental health crisis” and was armed with a hammer when police shot her through a patio window and door.
(Even if the OIS was riddled with issues - the charge of murder appears extreme and an obvious example of over-charging to appease.)
Issues
After watching the body cam footage, here are my initial thoughts on some of the most important issues in this case. Please comment with other thoughts/ideas.
Tactical/CIT
Ms. Perez was a felony suspect that had barricaded herself inside of a residence. This set of facts alone would trigger a call to the Tactical (SWAT) supervisor per policy in many jurisdictions. Of course the ultimate decision to initiate a full SWAT2 callout would be up to the discretion of Tactical Unit personnel, but these subject matter experts can often provide guidance and advice to on-scene patrol supervisors if the men in green are not going to take over the critical incident.
As part of the analysis for this case - I would want to know if the on-scene officers/supervisor contacted SWAT and/or the Crisis Intervention Unit? If they did make this call to advise the Tactical section - what advice was given?
Oftentimes, if SWAT does not come out to a “barricaded suspect” and police officers know the identity of the offender - police will disengage, forward the case to a detective, and issue a warrant in lieu of forcing an arrest in the moment.
This clearly did not happen in this case as SWAT did not arrive on scene and patrol officers forced contact in an attempt to effect an arrest. Was this a lack of proper training or established policy or a disregard of training/policy? The answer to this question will be vital in the criminal and civil case against the involved officers.
It must be mentioned that the possibility of future harm and risk to others is also an important factor in making the decision whether to arrest immediately and issuing a warrant. Since police officers do not possess psychic ability - Dishonest Critics will undoubtedly demonize police if they force an arrest or if they do nothing and the offender victimizes additional citizens.
Open Window v. Closed Door
There is a vast difference between Ms. Perez - armed with a hammer - aggressively approaching an open window and a closed door.
If Ms. Perez approached an open window with a hammer and posed a reasonable threat to an officer - it is likely that some level of force would be appropriate for the officer to defend himself. A thrown hammer could cause great bodily injury and officers are able to protect themselves from sustaining such injuries.
However, if Ms. Perez approached a closed door with a hammer - there exists a literal barrier between the officers and the hammer-wielding middle-aged woman. It would be very difficult to make an argument that force should be utilized (let alone deadly force) when there exists a barrier between the officers and the offender.
One caveat is that at least one officer fired his weapon through the open window. Did the officer perceive that she was approaching the window instead of the door? This may open a possible avenue of defense for the officer/officers that fired through the open window and were fearful that she was going to throw the hammer at them. There is likely no reasonable defense for firing at a closed door - essentially helping to break down the barrier that stood in between officers and the hammer.
Do Nothing
What if the officers had done nothing as Ms. Perez entered the apartment?
Officers could have written up a quick report, taken photos of the damage, and forwarded the case to a detective.
This would have been the least amount of work and in the interest of self-preservation and pension protection.
If officers did not attempt to arrest Ms. Perez would that have been satisfactory to her neighbors or the apartment complex staff?
If Ms. Perez harmed herself or someone else would the same anti-police brigade complain that the officers did not “do anything” and allowed her to terrorize the community?
What would happen if that led to a Daniel Penny-type civilian taking matters into his own hands as law enforcement refused to engage and protect the public?
Final Thoughts
With the available information, it is reasonable to suggest that the officers made tactical errors and even possibly violated department policy/law. They did so while enveloped within a dynamic situation involving a felony suspect that was armed with a hammer. We should not be shocked when incidents like this do not always go as planned. We should also not be shocked when more and more police officers choose beta disengagement over active enforcement.
Again, Chief McManus stated that the officers, “used deadly force, which was not reasonable given all the circumstances as we now understand them.”
It is important to remember that use of force from police officers is not to be viewed through the lens of “as we now understand”. 20/20 hindsight is not the applicable legal standard. The correct (yet often not inconvenient) standard can be found in that pesky Graham case3. The inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
Two things can be true at the same time: the Chief misspoke and/or is employing an unreasonable standard and the use of force may be outside of the law.
*This article was written prior to any statements from the involved officers, police union, or defense attorneys. Full body cam footage has also not yet been released. It is possible that additional evidence exists that makes this OIS more or less reasonable. It is important to allow opinions to evolve with the availability of more evidence.
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)
Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
I’m feeling indifferent about this one. I definitely don’t like the message sending that the Chief is engaged in though.
The chief’s words are the reason you and I write. What a betrayal to those officers! Response to threat and attack is not governed by the offender’s status or afflictions. The threat is real and, for survival’s sake, must be judged by the offender’s actions.