Daily Archives: September 24, 2021

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that an officer from the Tampa Police Department was justified when he employed deadly force against a 17-year-old male juvenile (“Juvenile 1”) on August 19, 2021. Our review determined that the officer was operating in plain clothes in a covert vehicle and conducting surveillance on Juvenile 1, who matched the description of a wanted suspect. After circling Juvenile 1 multiple times, the officer saw Juvenile 1 watching him and holding a handgun. As other police units moved in to make contact with Juvenile 1, the officer drove toward Juvenile 1. As he did, Juvenile 1 again pulled out a gun, this time raising it in the officer’s direction. The officer fired his service weapon rapidly eight times through his front windshield. Juvenile 1 was not hit and fled on his bicycle. Other police units located Juvenile 1 nearby and as they moved in to arrest him, he spontaneously stated, “I dumped the gun.” A loaded 9mm pistol was found along the path Juvenile 1 had taken while fleeing on his bike. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• Responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• reviewing interviews of the detained suspect
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. Investigators determined that on August 19, 2021, the officer was operating in a plain clothes capacity in an unmarked covert vehicle. The officer observed Juvenile 1 on a bicycle in the area of North Nebraska and East Linebaugh Avenues. He further observed that Juvenile 1 generally matched the description of a wanted suspect, although it was later determined that Juvenile 1 was not that subject. The officer conducted surveillance on Juvenile 1 by circling back in his vehicle multiple times and observed Juvenile 1 to be watching him and holding a handgun.

The officer maintained radio contact with other units of his squad while waiting for them to converge on the area. As the other units arrived, the officer drove toward Juvenile 1. As he did so, Juvenile 1 again produced the firearm and raised it in the officer’s direction. In response, the officer fired his service weapon eight times through the front windshield of his covert vehicle at Juvenile 1. Juvenile 1 was not struck. Although he raised his gun in the officer’s direction, Juvenile 1 did not fire his weapon. Juvenile 1 fled on his bicycle and was apprehended a short distance away by other members of the officer’s squad. An EAA Witness 9mm handgun was located, discarded along Juvenile 1’s path of flight. There was one round in the chamber and six in the magazine.

The officer’s account is corroborated by another member the officer’s unit who was in a position to observe Juvenile 1 raise his arm toward the officer immediately before the officer discharged his weapon.

A portion of this incident was recorded by the officer’s body-worn camera. Because the officer was seated in his vehicle, the video is largely obstructed by the dashboard; it shows momentary glimpses of Juvenile 1, but no specific actions by Juvenile 1 are visible. The apprehension of Juvenile 1 was captured by other officers’ body-worn cameras. Prosecutors were also able to review surveillance video from nearby commercial properties which did not capture the actual shooting.

Juvenile 1 was unharmed and has been charged as a juvenile with carrying a concealed firearm (Florida Statute 790.01(2)) and minor in possession of a firearm (Florida Statutes 790.22(3) and (5)(a)).

The officer was armed with a SIG Sauer P320 9mm handgun. Based on an examination of that firearm and video evidence, investigators determined that eight rounds were fired during this incident.

The name of the law enforcement officer involved is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence support the conclusion that the officer was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he employed deadly force against Juvenile 1. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012 and 776.05 and the use of deadly force by the officer was justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the officer.

Our office typically includes an initial release of materials when publishing a use of deadly force review; that is not possible in this case because the materials are all evidence in an active criminal investigation and ongoing juvenile criminal case. Under Fla. Statute 985.04, evidence in pending juvenile cases is exempt from release. Documents related to the case may be available in the future once all cases are resolved. Under Florida’s Public Records Law, any member of the public can make a request. Find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that an officer from the Tampa Police Department was justified when he employed deadly force against 22-year-old Samario Lee Austin on August 16, 2021. The officer was responding to an active shooter in a Downtown Tampa apartment complex and located Austin, who was armed with both a handgun and AR-style rifle. Austin had already fired multiple gunshots and members of the public were clearly in danger. The officer fired seven shots at Austin with his handgun. Austin was not hit and retreated; he was taken into custody soon afterward. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• reviewing interviews of witnesses
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 calls and relevant audio
• applying the applicable laws

The Tampa Police Department conducted the investigation. Investigators found that on August 16, 2021, Tampa Police Communications received a large volume of 911 calls about shots fired at Metro 510 Apartments in Downtown Tampa. Callers described the shooter as a shirtless African-American man armed with some type of rifle.

A Tampa Police officer, who was off duty and nearby at the time, heard what he initially believed may have been fireworks. The officer equipped himself with a handgun and went to investigate. Based on his training and experience, he soon identified the noises as gunfire. He then donned his ballistic vest and full duty belt with service pistol. He attempted to call 911 but the call did not go through, so he used his portable police radio to contact Tampa Police Department dispatch.

From a third-floor courtyard area of the complex, the officer heard two additional shots accompanied by some yelling. He then spotted Samario Lee Austin in black shorts with no shirt holding both a rifle and a handgun. Austin was walking backwards along a fifth-floor walkway that looked down into the courtyard. Austin was across the courtyard and two stories above the officer. Believing Austin had both a tactical and firepower advantage, the officer fired seven rounds at Austin without announcing himself. Austin, who was not struck, retreated out of the officer’s view.

The officer maintained cover and contact with Tampa Police and soon joined arriving units’ efforts to locate Austin. Ultimately, Austin was located and taken into custody without incident.

Witness statements and 911 calls are consistent with the officer’s account of events.

A portion of this incident was captured via cell phone video from a civilian in a nearby building. The apprehension of Austin was captured by officers’ body worn cameras.

Officers recovered a Glock 26 9mm handgun and a .22 caliber AR-style weapon discarded in a stairwell between the fifth and sixth floors. Investigators later located seventeen spent .22 caliber shell casings and nine spent 9mm shell casings from the fifth and sixth floors. Several projectiles were also located. Shell casings from a test fire of the .22 and 9mm weapons are a presumptive match for the recovered casings.

Austin was unharmed and has been charged by prosecutors with two counts of shooting at, within, or into a building (Florida Statute 790.19), one count of aggravated assault (Florida Statute 784.021(1)(a)), and one count of culpable negligence by exposure to injury (Florida Statute 784.05(1)).

The officer was armed with a SIG Sauer P320 9mm handgun. A total of seven spent shell casings were recovered from the location where the officer fired at Austin. Investigators observed seven apparent bullet strikes on the wall toward which the officer was shooting. This is also consistent with the amount of remaining ammunition in the officer’s gun after the incident.

The name of the law enforcement officer is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence support the conclusion that the officer was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or others when he employed deadly force against Samario Lee Austin. These findings satisfy Florida Statute 776.012 and 776.05 and the use of deadly force by the officer was justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the officer.

Our office typically includes an initial release of materials when publishing a use of deadly force review; that is not possible in this case because the materials are all evidence in an active criminal investigation. Under Fla. Statute 119.071(2)(c), evidence in active criminal investigations is exempt from release. Documents related to the case may be available in the future once all cases are resolved. Under Florida’s Public Records Law, any member of the public can make a request. Find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.

Following an extensive review, our office has concluded that an officer of the Tampa Police Department was justified in his use of deadly force against 40-year-old John Reuben Turbe, Jr. on July 4, 2021. Our review determined that when the officer made contact with Turbe, Turbe turned toward the officer and pulled a firearm from his waist area. The officer shouted several commands to put the gun down. After a short foot pursuit, Turbe turned toward the officer and took several steps toward him. Turbe then raised his arm and pointed his gun at the officer. The officer fired his weapon four times, striking Turbe, who died as a result of the gunshot wounds. In reaching this conclusion, our office conducted an exhaustive review of all available evidence and applicable legal standards. These steps included but were not limited to:

• responding to the scene following the shooting
• reviewing interviews of civilian witnesses
• reviewing interviews of the involved law enforcement officers
• reviewing interviews of involved medical personnel
• examining physical evidence
• reviewing video evidence, including officer body worn cameras and surveillance camera footage
• reviewing photographic evidence
• reviewing 911 audio and TPD radio transmissions
• analyzing autopsy results
• applying the applicable laws

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted the investigation, and a representative from the State Attorney’s Office responded to the scene. FDLE investigators found Turbe entered the Texaco Nas Mart at 10 p.m. on July 4, 2021. An employee observed Turbe approach the register and remove a black pistol from his left waist area and move it to his right waist area. Turbe exited the store and walked northwest toward three people. Turbe fired one round from the pistol, walked back toward store, and fired two additional shots into the air. The store employee called 911.

The officer was dispatched to the Texaco Nas Mart and arrived at 10:13 p.m. His response to the scene is captured clearly on his body-worn camera. He spoke with the store employee, who told the officer the suspect was close by and directed the officer toward the suspect. The officer walked out of the store and saw Turbe walking near the southeast corner of the gas station. Turbe turned toward the officer and pulled a pistol from this waist area. The officer immediately ordered Turbe to put down the gun. Turbe did not comply.

Instead, Turbe ran away from the officer and into a nearby neighborhood. Turbe ran south along the edge of Temple Street, still holding the same gun that he had fired into the air a few minutes earlier. The officer pursued Turbe, continuing to warn him to drop the gun, shouting, “Put the gun down! Put it down now! You’re gonna get shot!” and other similar warnings. After running for 20 seconds, Turbe stopped and turned around to face the officer. Turbe took five steps toward the officer, raised his arm, and pointed the gun at the officer. The officer fired his service weapon four times in quick succession from 15 feet away. Turbe fell to the ground.

The officer secured Turbe’s handgun. Another officer arrived immediately after the shooting and attempted life saving measures. An examination of Turbe’s gun showed that a live round was wedged in the top of the pistol’s slide (a position called “stove-piped”), which would have kept the gun from firing until that round was cleared.

FDLE was able to obtain surveillance video from the Texaco Nas Mart. The video depicts Turbe firing a firearm into the air on the property. FDLE agents located residential surveillance videos that captured a portion of the foot pursuit before the shooting. All involved officers, including the officer who fired at Turbe, were wearing a body-worn cameras. The entire shooting incident was recorded and is consistent with witness statements.

Several civilian witnesses gave statements to FDLE agents describing what they saw leading up to the shooting. Four of the witnesses saw Turbe with a black pistol and three of them observed him fire the weapon in the air two or three times. Several witnesses heard the officer yelling at Turbe to put down the gun. They did not see the officer-involved shooting itself, but two witnesses did hear three to four shots fired after the officer yelled. This is consistent with the video surveillance and body-worn camera recording.

The officer was carrying a Tampa Police Department-owned SIG Sauer Model P320 9mm handgun. When FDLE agents took custody of the officer’s firearm, it had thirteen rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Body-worn camera video shows the officer firing four rounds. Four 9mm caliber cartridge casings were recovered in the area where the officer fired his service weapon. Three .40 caliber cartridge casings were recovered in the parking lot of the Texaco Nas Mart, matching the caliber of Turbe’s handgun. The firearm evidence at the scene is consistent with the store surveillance video, body-worn camera footage, and witness statements.

The decedent’s autopsy was performed by the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office. Gunshot wounds were identified on the decedent’s left leg above the knee, chest above the right nipple, face to the left of the nose, and right earlobe. In addition, one of the rounds, or a piece of a round, struck the tip of Turbe’s right index finger—likely before that round then entered his body in one of the four areas listed above. The projectile that entered the chest travelled through the lungs and lodged in the back near the spine. The medical examiner was able to recover the projectile that entered through the face and lodged in the back of the skull. The cause of death was determined to be gunshot wounds to the head and torso penetrating the brain and skull and perforating the lung. Additionally, the Medical Examiner’s Office performed toxicology testing and detected ethanol and THC in the decedent’s peripheral blood.

The name of the law enforcement officer involved is being withheld due to Marsy’s Law.

After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident prove that the law enforcement officer reasonably believed he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he used deadly force. He also did not have a duty to retreat. These findings satisfy Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.05 and, therefore, under Florida law, the use of deadly force is justified. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for criminal charges against the officer.

An initial release of materials related to this case is available at this link. These items illustrate the crime scene and key details of the case. Further documents related to the case, including additional photos, reports, and interview transcripts, are available to any member of the public subject to Florida’s Public Records Law; find details on making a request on the State Attorney’s Office Public Records page.