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.