Mediaboss Marketing

The Arizona board responsible for certifying police voted to pursue action against former Tucson Police Officer Ryan Remington after he shot and killed a man in a motorized wheelchair during a confrontation over shoplifting in November 2021.

During a hearing on March 15, the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training board voted unanimously to begin proceedings against Remington's certification, potentially making him ineligible to serve as an officer in the state.

Remington's attorney called the move "preliminary" and said he would challenge any decision to revoke his client's ability to work as a cop.

AZPOST governs the training and certification of police, and routinely decertifies, suspends or makes consent agreementswith officers over misconduct or mistakes.

Remington was working on a "special duty assignment" on Nov. 29, 2021as a security guard when he responded to Walmart employees who said61-year-old Richard Lee Richards shoplifted a toolbox and threatened aworker with a knife. Body-worn camera footage, combined withsurveillance footage showed Remington followed Richards for severalminutes as they wound through the parking lot of several stores beforeRichards attempted to ride into a Lowe's store across the street. At onepoint, Remington warned fellow TPD Officer Stephanie Taylor that "he's got aknife in his other hand." Moments later, Remington fired his service pistol, hitting the man eight times in the back.

TPD quickly moved to fire Remington.

Last August, Remington was indicted for manslaughter, however his attorneys successfully challenged the indictment and inJanuary, a second grand jury handed up a "no bill," declining to find probable cause to charge the former officer with a crime.

During a hearing on Jan. 17, prosecutors agreedto dismiss the case, but asked the court to dismiss the case "withoutprejudice," reserving the right to file charges against him in thefuture.

79 days later, the case remains in limbo.

During the March 15 AZPOST hearing, compliance specialist Cathy Hawsepresented the case against Remington, and said the staff of the regulatory board recommended pursuing action against the former TPD officer. Aspart of this, Hawse showed video from Officer Taylor's body-worn camera.

As thevideo began, Taylor ran toward the scene and Remington told her "he'sgot a knife in his other hand."

Taylor responded and Remington told Richards, "You're not going into the store, sir." Taylorechoed this order, telling Richards to stop as she drew her own weapon. AsRichards continued into the store, Remington fired nine shots at closerange. He fired one fusillade, and then fired a single shot as emptyshells clattered to the ground. "Shots fired," Remington said in hisradio. As Taylor watched, Richards slumped over and rolled out of hischair onto the concrete.

Hawse told the board that the Pima CountyAttorney's Office hired John McMahon Associates, LLCa "use-of-force andtactical review consultancy"to produce an independent review andanalysis of the incident.

"The consultant concluded based onquote 'information and evidence submitted for this review establishedthat based on the totality of the circumstances Officer Remington usedunnecessary and unreasonable force in excess of what an officer withsimilar training and experience would have reasonably believed wasnecessary to control and detain Richards,'" Hawse told the board,reading a section of the report.

"'Additionally, the deadlyforce used by Officer Remington was disproportionate to the lack ofphysical resistance or perceived threat Richards offered. Prior to theshooting Remington did not fully deescalate or exhaust all less-lethaloptions that would have likely resulted in compliance or detention ofRichards," Hawse continued. "'Waiting for his resources to arrive anddeploy those resources would have been his best option.'"

Hawse told the board Remington was fired by TPD on last January and then charged with manslaughter.

"Based on the facts of this case, staff recommends that the board initiate proceedings (to remove certification)," she said.

AssistantAttorney General John Johnson, who was representing Arizona AttorneyGeneral Kris Mayes, recused himself from the decision. Mohave CountySheriff Doug Schuster moved to pursue action against Remington, secondedby Col. Jeffrey Glover, the head of Arizona Department Public Safety. The motion passed unanimously.

After the shooting death, Remington was immediately dismissed byformer Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus, who said the four-year TPD veteranviolated "multiple aspects" of the department's use-of-force policy andthat he was "deeply disturbed and troubled" by Remington's actions.Magnus was later tapped to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection, andcurrent TPD Chief Chad Kasmar completed the process of terminatingRemington from the force in January 2021.

After TPD moved to fire Remington, the Pima County Attorney's Office began a "deliberative review" of the case, said PimaCounty Attorney Laura Conover. After nine months, Conover announced her office would seek manslaughter charges for the fatal shooting. "Because thegravity of this case requires handling by a talented, veteran team, ourmost senior prosecutors and legal staff have been assigned to thiscomplex matter," Conover said .

Remington pleaded not guilty during ahearing last September, and weeks later, his attorneys Mike Storie andNatasha Wrae challenged the indictment, arguing prosecutors presented areport to the grand jury that unintentionally included misleadingstatements.

Superior Court Judge Danelle Liwskigranted that request and sent the case back to another grand jury. Aweek later, the jury handed up a "no bill," declining to find probablecause to charge the former police officer with a crime in the fatalshooting.

During January's hearing, prosecutor Christopher Ward said the "state isinclined to move to dismiss the case without prejudice, and we arecontinuing to review the matter," he said. "We would simply move todismiss, without prejudice today, to allow the time for the state toreview the case going forwards."

Superior Court Judge Casey F. McGinley accepted the dismissal, despite an objection from Victoria Richards, the sister of the man who was killed.

"When the chief of police came out and fired him the next day, I justthought 'Hallelujah' this is going to go the way it's supposed to.Justice is going to happen," Richards said after the hearing. "And I feel like a littletechnical glitch in a grand jury presentation has blown everything. And Idon't understand how you could get off from committing a crime becauseof a technicality."

Richards said her brother suffered grievous injuries in 1995 when heworked as a wildland firefighter while serving in the state prisonsystem and fell from a 50-foot cliff, crushing the right side of hisbody. She said she felt Remington "snapped."

"My brother can be very belligerent. I know that. Maybe he said somethingto him that made him angry when they were walking I don't know, but hedidn't have a right to shoot him like that," she said.

Remington's attorney Mike Storie called board's vote a "preliminary move" that would involve multiple steps. While AZPOST could choose to revoke Remington's certification, the board could also choose to suspend him, or the 11-member board could instead return his certification, Storie said.

Matt Giordano, AZPOST's executive director, said officers are entitled to "full due process if the board moves to sanction their certification."

Remington, he said, requested a hearing with an administrative law judge, though said there is "no timeline for when that hearing will take place."

During such a hearing, the judge decides if AZPOST met the burden of proof that the involved peace officer violated AZPOST rules, Giordano said. "The matter is then brought back to the board for them to review the judge's decision and render a final sanction."

Remington was one of several officers who faced some form of sanctionduring the March 15 meeting. The board accepted the voluntaryrelinquishment or denial of certifications for four officers and agreedto suspend three officers and dismiss a fourth. They also opened eightnew cases against Arizona police officers, including Remington.

In a similar process, AZPOST ultimately signed consent agreements with three former TPD officersSamuel Routledge, Ryan Starbuck and Jonathan Jacksonfor their role in the death of Carlos Adrian Ingram-Lopez in June 2020. The officers were fired by Magnus for holding down the 27-year-old as he begged for water and told them he couldn't breathe.

Storie has launched a fierce campaign for Remington, attacking Magnus and Tucson Mayor Regina Romero for their early statements about the case. And, he told reporters not only will he seek to defend Remington against legal jeopardy, he will attempt to return the former officer to TPD through the service commission.

AZPOST's process will take months, Storie said, adding he will appeal any decision to revoke Remington's certification.

Storie also dismissed the report from McMahon, arguing the report was flawed and contained "serious mistakes" of fact. Prosecutors read the report to the first grand jury, and it was these "misstatements of fact" that Storie and fellow attorney Natasha Wrae used to challenge the indictment, arguing prosecutors presented a report to the grand jury that unintentionally included misleading statements.

The Tucson Sentinel requested a copy of the report from PCAO.

Storie also said they're waiting to see if PCAO will again seek to indict Remington for the November slaying.

"Litigation is pending on the matter of a grand jury presentation in this case, and thus we will not comment further at this time," Conover said in a statement.

Following Remington's indictment, Richards' family filed a lawsuit, arguing the former officer's actions were "excessive, unjustifiable, and unnecessary."

The 18-page suit named Remington and the city of Tucson as defendants, and argued Remington violated Richards' right to be "free from unreasonable seizure." It also alleges Richards was discriminated against because of his disability.

"That Remington fired the first eight shots at the back of Richards as he sat there confined in his wheelchair was unconscionable and disturbing," wrote John Bradley, an attorney for the family. "But the pause after the eighth shot, followed by the ninth shot, evidences Remingtons depraved state of mind and ought to shock the conscience of all human beings."

"This lawsuit seeks to achieve a measure of justice for Richard Lee Richards and his survivors by establishing the obvious: An officer cannot shoot in the back and kill a slow-moving shoplifting suspect in a wheelchair, without warning, when no one is in imminent danger," Bradley wrote.

Attorneys for the city moved to dismiss the suit earlier this year, arguing that courts have not agreed that cities may be liable under the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act when a police officer arrests or engages in the use of force. And, they said the plaintiffs did not show the city of Tucson's "failure to make a policy accommodation was the moving force behind the alleged violation."

"The city is also entitled to dismissal because adopting a separate policy regarding the use of force or apprehension of individuals with a disability would fundamentally alter the nature of the task and because a recalcitrant subject with a knife is a direct threat (even if he is not an imminent threat)," they wrote.

However, U.S. District Judge Jennifer K. Zipps rejected their motion, writing their arguments were "not persuasive."

Zipps wrote the lawsuit hinges in part on a statement Remington apparently that he used his firearm rather than his Taser "because of the wheelchair."

The city could be "vicariously responsible" because Remington was required to make an "individualized assessment' and "employ reasonable judgment" and "reasonable modifications" of policies "when determining whether a person is a direct threat," Zipps said, quoting federal law.

"These requirements, however, are not an extra burden on officers facing life-threatening situations," she said, adding the ADA and RA require the same reasonableness from officers as does the Fourth Amendment. "Plaintiffs constitutional claim and ADA and RA claims thus all turn on whether Remingtons conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, which include Richardss disability."

"In sum, Plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to establish facially plausible ADA and RA claims," she wrote.

"Plaintiff alleges that Richards was disabled and confined to a wheelchair; Richards was evasive and non-threatening; and Remington decided to use his gun and kill Richards, rather than deploy a less-lethal use of force, because Richards used a wheelchair. Accepting these allegations as true, Plaintiff states a claim that Remington failed to reasonably accommodate Richards and caused him to suffer a greater injury than other arrestees would have suffered because he was disabled," the judge wrote.

See the article here:
Az state board moves toward pulling certification of ex-cop for ... - TucsonSentinel.com