Legal Investigation and Final Conclusion - Officer-Involved Shooting of Matthew Wong

• 
  

  • Official Review and Formal Notification of Findings

    • Incident Subject: Matthew Wong, age $33$.

    • Date of Incident: May $29$, $2021$.

    • Location: City of Placentia, California.

    • On-Duty Personnel Involved:

      • Sergeant Frank Garza (Placentia Police Department).

      • Officer Austin Martinez (Placentia Police Department).

      • Officer Mac Navarro (Placentia Police Department).

    • Agency Investigation Identifiers:

      • OCDA Investigations Case: #$SA 21-001941$.

      • Placentia Police Department Case: #$21-02049$.

      • Orange County Crime Laboratory Case: #$21-46815$.

      • Orange County Coroner's Office Case: #$21-03356-AA$.

    • Letter Maturity: Dated November $30$, $2022$, addressed to Chief Brad Butts.

    Investigative Methodology and Scope

    • The OCDA Special Assignments Unit (OCDASAU): Responsibility includes investigating officer-involved shootings (OIS) within Orange County where injuries result from police gunfire. The unit consists of $6$ full-time investigators, supplemented by others from additional units.

    • Response Response Time: An average of $8$ investigators respond to an incident within $1$ hour of being notified.

    • Process Steps:

      • Witness interviews (thirteen ($13$) total conducted).

      • Scene processing and evidence collection.

      • Audio recording of all interviews.

      • Physical evidence processing by the Orange County Crime Laboratory (OCCL).

      • Legal review by deputy district attorneys (DDAs) from Homicide, TARGET/Gangs, and Special Prosecutions Units.

  • Final approval of legal conclusions by the Assistant District Attorney and personal review by the District Attorney.

• Reviewed Materials:

  • Placentia Police Department reports.

  • Audio dispatch and radio traffic recordings.

  • OCCL reports (toxicology, forensic alcohol, latent prints, officer processing, and firearms examination).

  • Crime scene photographs and neighborhood canvass audio recordings.

  • Medical records and injury photographs for Matthew Wong.

  • Criminal history and prior incident reports for Matthew Wong.

Factual Summary: Initial Contact and Standoff

• Arrival and Detection: At approximately $1:01:07 a.m.$, Matthew Wong drove his $2002$ Honda Civic (CA License #$5AMS437$) through the parking lot behind Ralph's Grocery and parked behind the Total Woman Gym and Day Spa at Village Center at Rose Shopping Center ($860$ North Rose Drive).

• Officer Presence: At approximately $1:09:02 a.m.$, Officer Eriksen, in a marked Ford SUV (Unit #$15$), observed the vehicle. He considered the presence of the car suspicious as no businesses were open and his prior experience in that lot at that hour only yielded occupants "engaging in criminal activity."

• Engagement: Officer Eriksen parked behind the Honda and used spotlights and a handheld flashlight to illuminate the interior. He saw Wong in the driver's seat.

  • Initial communication attempt: At $1:10:37 a.m.$, Eriksen radioed a vehicle check. He spent several minutes imploring Wong to lower the window or open the door.

  • Wong's Resistance: Wong refused to comply. At $1:11:45 a.m.$, Eriksen commanded, "Don't reach for anything and open the fucking door right now." Wong replied, "Why?"

  • Start of Engine: At $1:12:44 a.m.$, Wong started the engine. Eriksen requested "Code 1" (non-emergency) assistance. At $1:13:13 a.m.$, Wong lowered the window $2-3 inches$ then turned off the engine.

• Escalation: At $1:14:47 a.m.$, Wong rolled the window all the way down, but immediately rolled it back up despite Eriksen's orders to "Leave it."

• Box-In Maneuver: At $1:16:13 a.m.$, Wong re-started the engine and put the car in reverse. Eriksen broadcasted, "Vehicle is trying to leave," and "Boxed in." Officer Navarro arrived in Unit #$13$ and parked perpendicular to the Honda's driver side. Officers moved patrol vehicles closer to prevent escape.

Tactical Operations and Deployment of Less Lethal Force

• Officers on Scene: Officers Larissa Perez, Austin Martinez, Fabian Valdez, Nathan Iniguez, Sergeant Frank Garza, and Acting Sergeant Joseph Gillis arrived.

• Suspect Activity: Officers reported Wong made furtive movements and reached for unknown objects below the window frame out of sight. Eriksen described himself as on "high alert," fearing Wong was arming himself.

• Communication Attempts: Officer Iniguez used a Public Address System to order: "Driver put both hands above your head, touching the vehicle's ceiling."

• Less Lethal Intervention:

  • Phase 1: At $1:25:27 a.m.$, Wong leaned toward the passenger floorboard. Officer Martinez directed Valdez to "Forty the window." At $1:25:30 a.m.$, Valdez fired a $40 mm$ Less Lethal projectile into the driver's window. The glass shattered but stayed in place due to tint.

  • Intelligence Update: At $1:27:32 a.m.$, dispatch advised multiple firearms were registered to Wong.

  • Phase 2: At $1:27:42 a.m.$, Valdez fired a second $40 mm$ projectile, making visibility into the car more difficult.

  • Phase 3: At $1:32:19 a.m.$, Valdez fired a third $40 mm$ projectile into the top of the driver door window near the A-pillar.

The Use of Deadly Force

• The Catalyst: Exactly $1 second$ after the third less-lethal deployment, Matthew Wong fired $2$ rounds in quick succession through his driver door window.

• Impact of Suspect Fire: The first round struck the driver-side windshield of Unit #$13$, penetrated the compartment, and hit the prisoner divider behind the front seats, passing near multiple officers.

• Police Response: Officers Navarro and Martinez, and Sergeant Garza, returned fire within $3 seconds$.

  • Sergeant Garza: Fired $9$ rounds from a Glock .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

  • Officer Navarro: Fired $3$ rounds from a Glock .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

  • Officer Martinez: Fired $7$ rounds from a SIG Sauer rifle.

• Officer Statements:

  • Sergeant Gillis: Thought, "That guy was trying to kill us." He saw Valdez fall and feared he had been shot.

  • Officer Perez: Stated it was "clear as day" it was a firearm and there was "no second-guessing the sound."

Post-Incident Medical Care and Autopsy

• Recovery of Firearm: Officer Martinez recovered a Polymer80, $9 mm$ semi-automatic ghost handgun from Wong's lap. Officer Eriksen rendered it safe (removing magazine and ejecting $1$ live cartridge).

• Immediate Aid: Patrol officers administered chest compressions, applied an occlusive dressing to a chest wound, and a tourniquet to Wong's left arm.

• Paramedic Intervention: At $1:36:52 a.m.$, Lynch Ambulance paramedics arrived. Wong's Pulseless Electrical Activity was in the $50$’s. They performed needle thoracotomies and attached an automatic compression device.

• Pronouncement: Wong arrived at UCIMC trauma team at $2:06:05 a.m.$ and was pronounced deceased at $2:17 a.m.$.

• Autopsy Result (Dr. Sigmund Menchel): Total of $8$ gunshot wounds identified:

  • Left anterior chest.

  • Left upper arm and shoulder ($2$).

  • Left side of face ($2$).

  • Left lateral thorax ($3$).

  • Internal injuries included damage to the pulmonary artery, aortic arch, right lung, extensive brain injury, and skull fractures.

Evidence Collection List

• EM 1: One ($1$) $9 mm$ ghost handgun (PF940C frame kit), one ($1$) P-Mag magazine, and one ($1$) cartridge headstamp "FC 9MM LUGER."

• EM 2: One ($1$) Less Lethal rubber projectile.

• EM 7: One ($1$) cartridge case headstamp "FC 9MM LUGER."

• EM 9, 10, 13, 16, 30: Multiple $5.56 \times 45 mm$ rifle cartridge cases headstamp "WCC 14+."

• EM 11, 12: Two ($2$) Less Lethal $40 mm$ cartridge cases.

• EM 17 through 28: Twelve ($12$) cartridge cases headstamp "WIN 40 S&W."

• Fragments: Numerous apparent bullet fragments (EM 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 29, 31, 32) tested positive for lead.

Toxicology and Criminal History

• Toxicology Results:

  • Acetaldehyde: Detected.

  • Amphetamine: 0.194  0.015 mg L^{-1}.

  • Methamphetamine: 3.88  0.28 mg L^{-1}.

• Prior Criminal History: Arrests dating back to $2014$ for charges including:

  • Possession of a Controlled Substance.

  • Possession of Controlled Substance Paraphernalia.

  • Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed with a Firearm.

  • Carrying a Switchblade Knife on his Person.

Legal Principles Applied

• Justification for Deadly Force: Evaluated under California Penal Code Sections $196$, $197$, and $835a$.

• PC 835a Standards: Force must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of circumstances known at the time. Deadly force is justified to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

• Retreat Doctrine: Peace officers need not retreat or desist due to resistance and are not deemed aggressors by using objectively reasonable force.

• Seminal Case Law:

  • Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Officers must have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

  • Graham v. Connor (1989): Established the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, acknowledging that officers make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain situations.

  • Brown v. Ransweiler (2009): Confirmed officers act under color of law to protect public interest and may reasonably use deadly force if they confront an armed suspect in close proximity showing intent to attack.

Legal Conclusion

• The Issue: Was the conduct of Sergeant Garza, Officer Martinez, and Officer Navarro on May $29$, $2021$, criminally culpable?

• Determination: The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that no legal justification existed.

• Findings:

  • Wong posed an imminent threat by discharging a firearm directly at officers.

  • Officers reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to defend themselves and one another.

  • Less lethal force was attempted prior to the escalation but was ineffective in securing compliance.

• Verdict: There is insufficient evidence to prove criminal culpability. There is substantial evidence that the officers' actions were reasonable and justified. The inquiry is officially closed.

Questions & Discussion

• Why did Officer Eriksen find the vehicle suspicious initially? He notes that he patrols the rear parking lot approximately $3$ times per week and previously found only occupants engaging in criminal activity at that hour when no businesses are open.

• What was the status of Wong's firearm? Forensic testing confirmed the ghost gun (Polymer80) successfully fired the cartridge case found at the scene (EM 7), although it experienced one ($1$) fail-to-feed during test-firing.

• What was the distance of the less-lethal deployment? Officer Valdez was positioned approximately $10-15 feet$ south of the Honda Civic behind the open driver door of Unit #$13$.