It has been just over one year since a Sacramento federal jury acquitted three sheriff’s deputies of the 2009 shooting of Luis Gutierrez, a 26-year-old farm worker who was walking on Gum Avenue in Woodland in the middle of the day, after completing his efforts to get his driver’s license reestablished.
On October 21, 2013, Dale Johnson, who was the commanding officer during that incident, was promoted from lieutenant to captain.
“Dale is extremely dedicated and talented. He will bring a whole new level of commitment and performance to the Sheriff’s Office,” said Sheriff Ed Prieto in a statement. “I look forward to his participation on our management team and the input and ideas I know he will bring to our organization. I congratulate him and look forward to his continued participation and leadership skills he brings to this organization and the County of Yolo.”
Captain Johnson began his career in the Sheriff’s Department in 1992; he was promoted to sergeant in 2000 and lieutenant in 2011.
However, for many in the community, he will be forever linked to that ill-fated day, April 30, 2009.
During the trial, Attorney Paul Caputo, representing the family of Luis Guitierrez, called the shooting a tragedy that occurred due to a baseless hunch by three plain-clothed sheriff’s deputies, Dale Johnson, Herman Oviedo and Hector Bautista, in an unmarked car. The combination of their baseless hunch, unsubstantiated premise, and aggressive police work culminated in the shooting of Mr. Gutierrez on April 30, 2009.
Deputy Dale Johnson got out of the car and asked to speak with Mr. Gutierrez. Deputy Johnson claimed to have identified himself at that time, but neither of the others remember him doing so.
He also said that he pulled up his shirt to reveal his badge and his gun. At this point, Luis Gutierrez saw the gun and ran. The deputies claim Mr. Gutierrez put his hand in his pocket as he ran.
When Deputy Johnson caught up to him, he said he put his hands on Mr. Gutierrez but Mr. Gutierrez slipped the grip. He said Mr. Gutierrez then pulled out a pocket knife from his pocket – blade exposed. Mr. Caputo made the point that somehow Mr. Gutierrez would have had to have run with the knife blade open in his pocket.
He then made either a slash or stab at Deputy Johnson and they opened fire. After being shot in the back of the shoulder, Mr. Gutierrez is said to have tossed the knife.
Mr. Caputo noted that there was no evidence of fingerprints on the knife and that the DNA, partially degraded, did not identify Mr. Gutierrez but rather could not rule him out.
In the end, there was simply not enough evidence for a jury to find the deputies responsible for the death of Luis Gutierrez. However, from our perspective, there are real questions in this case that simply went unanswered.
The chain of events began with a consensual stop, in which the deputies all admit that Mr. Gutierrez was simply walking down the street. Under the law, they have the right to make a consensual stop, but in a consensual stop the individual has the right to leave.
Does flight and flight alone give the sheriff’s deputies a reason to pursue? Paul Caputo argued that flight alone should not have been sufficient. The defense offered that Mr. Gutierrez did not just flee, he put his hands in his pockets and ran into traffic.
Johnson, by then a lieutenant, testified that it’s not normal for someone to turn and run. So, something could be taking place. Some criminal act could be occurring. He could have just committed a crime, or been on active parole, or it could be that he was wanted.
However, Lt. Johnson contradicted his own attorney, arguing under oath that running alone was sufficient basis for pursuit.
Adding to the puzzle is one of the unresolved mysteries of the case – what did Mr. Gutierrez see when approached? Did Mr. Gutierrez see the badge or simply the gun? Did Lt. Johnson properly identify himself?
The plaintiffs brought in an expert, Mr. D’Arcy, who testified that Lt. Johnson did not properly identify himself. The police brought in their own witness that contradicted him.
The problem here is that it is crucial to know if Mr. Gutierrez thought he was fleeing from police or thought that these men were actually gang members themselves.
The next critical question is the knife. The sheriff’s deputies claim that Luis Gutierrez pulled out a knife and slashed. Now, briefly, the plaintiffs argued that if the deputies provoked the confrontation, they are not entitled to self-defense. But it seems that the crucial question is the degree to which we can reasonably believe that Mr. Gutierrez had and used the knife.
If Mr. Gutierrez were on trial with criminal charges for assault on a police officer, I think the evidence here would have been sufficient to acquit him. But, with the federal civil trial putting the burden on the plaintiffs, it is a difficult case to make.
We really have to believe that the deputies planted the weapon on the scene. While there are troubling problems with their account and a lack of physical evidence – in terms of blood on the weapon, the inconclusiveness of the DNA, and the lack of fingerprints – the plaintiffs did not come close to proving that the weapon was planted.
But the story by the deputies is not credible. The idea that he would be running down the street with an open knife, hand in his pocket, defies a lot of logic. When did he open the knife? Clearly, he did not open the knife before the attack, because then he couldn’t have pulled his hand out of his pocket and make the slashing motion.
But try running at any speed with an exposed knife blade in your pocket. You also have the problem of his allegedly throwing the knife after being hit by bullets – the analysis seems unlikely.
That his family never knew him to carry a knife is not a convincing argument to me. While it was inscribed with “fire fighter,” it seemed common enough that non-safety personnel might have a pocket knife.
The witnesses never saw the knife, but one of the witnesses admitted to not having been looking for one, while, with the other, it is not clear how good a look she got or how accurate her account would be.
In short, we are still troubled by the knife in this case, but do not see enough to believe that the plaintiffs proved, even circumstantially, that the deputies planted it on the scene.
The bottom line in this case is that this was a tragic situation involving the sheriffs and Mr. Gutierrez. While we can accept the idea that there was insufficient evidence to prove wrongdoing on the part of the deputies, we also believe that their explanation does not add up.
I have no doubt that Sheriff Prieto believes that Captain Johnson is an excellent deputy and he has defended the actions of the deputies that day.
At the same time, some in this community will never get over this shooting. For them, the promotion of Dale Johnson to captain will serve as a catalyst for another round of anger and remorse and will be a reminder of the injustice that they see as underlying the shooting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I cannot help but see this as yet another example of our dysfunctional way of looking at these kinds of cases harms individuals and our community as a whole. The emphasis here was clearly everyone involved, from the police at the initial interaction, to the plaintiffs in the law suit seeing the situation as “What law had been broken ? Who is responsible ?” Would it not have been more constructive from the very beginning to consider that perhaps no law has been broken thus preventing the entire tragedy. In the case of the trial, might the more constructive view have been that there has been great harm done. What can be done to restore trust and to compensate to the very limited amount possible for the taking of an innocent life ?
Well said, Medwoman. Every time I read this story it makes me sad. As the daughter of a cop, it is especially disturbing. After many dealings with law enforcement in the past few years, my trust in them has been severely damaged. Today I can say, if I was walking on a road, alone, and 3 plainclothes men approached me, I would also probably fight for my life.
I just don’t trust law enforcement any longer. Once the trust is gone, it is so hard to regain. I am afraid of law enforcement. The suggestion I have for Davis is to make your officers more visible. Like the bicycle cop downtown. Make them walk around more. Give them a face, a personality. Many will say Davis can’t afford to have cops walk a beat. I don’t think Davis can afford to hide their cops away in black and whites any longer. Also, when the cops volunteer for events in the community, they seem more human and more trustworthy.
Lastly, I believe the minimum age for an officer should be 25.
this is a community tragedy and there is a huge insensitivity on the part of the sheriff who continues to conduct business as usual as though there were never any question about the conduct of the deputies under him.
It’s all about liability:
Promotion is standard procedure in law enforcement when officers make up a good story, or stick to the agency’s cover up story, to avoid agency liability.
This promotion is the officer’s reward for keeping his mouth shut about what really happened; no matter how far fetched the cover story was, he didn’t fold locally or in federal court.
In a related example, Pheng Ly in Davis was made Officer of the Year after he got the city into a law suit.
Rewarding the worst behavior is certainly unfair to good officers, but law enforcement is a brotherhood.
Rewarding the worst and most deceitful officers with promotions generally takes them off the streets, which is a good thing for the rest of us, even though we’re the ones paying the salary.
Of all the people we’d like to trust, it would be law enforcement,
but they are required to be the most dishonest. If they don’t go along, they’ll never get promoted, and they’ll pay a price in other ways as well.
I love my Davis Police officers. I think they do a wonderful job.
since this article is about sheriff’s, i wonder if mr. growth izzue made an error or was actually making a comment about davis police officers being better than sheriff’s deputies. since i can’t remember an officer involved shooting involving dpd, i might agree with gi.
D.P….read the thread. There are a few comments about the Davis Police Dept.
Learn up !
you mean don’t just react to the last comment? lol! that said, if not a comparison to the sheriff’s department, i tend to agree with the other posters. i don’t know in what sense you think they do a wonderful job, there are tons of problems with their cases and that leads to cases getting acquittals and overturned that shouldn’t be.
Why is it that liberals hate it when cops get commended for good work?
To all law enforcement….Some of us actually appreciate what you do for us on a daily basis.
“Why is it that liberals hate it when cops get commended for good work?”
no problem at all when they deserve it. but when you overlook huge problems, we start having issues.
[quote]no problem at all when they deserve it. but when you overlook huge problems, we start having issues. [/quote]
And 99.9% of the time they deserve praise. Some people choose to only look at the “issues” and are blind to all their good work.
GI
I believe that there are probably many ways in which the good work of the police is acknowledged.
The get raises, commendations, advancements, and awards for superior work. These should not be ignored, but neither should it be ignored when a police officer abuses his power. I don’t know where you derived your 99.9%, however, it seems to me that that kind of statistic of superior work is rarely met by any group.
back to captain johnson. i can’ t help but think that the sheriff is exacting his form of retribution.
[quote]I don’t know where you derived your 99.9%, however, it seems to me that that kind of statistic of superior work is rarely met by any group. [/quote]
You’re right Medwoman. Like any group there are bad actors. How many bad doctors do you work with? Would you like it if just the bad doctors were focused on when people talked about your profession? That’s what seems to be happen a lot on this blog with regard to law enforcement.
you’re right every group has bad actors, but when that was pointed out without the general judgment, your response was to defend all.
no, just 99.9%
Learn up !
GI
[quote]Would you like it if just the bad doctors were focused on when people talked about your profession? That’s what seems to be happen a lot on this blog with regard to law enforcement.[/quote]
I would not like it. But what I would or would not like is beside the point. In order to effect change, if a group will not monitor itself effectively, it is necessary to focus attention on the “bad actors”. This negative attention is not necessary if the group is willing to take corrective action itself proactively.
Since you asked about doctors, I will use an example from my profession. When I first started in medicine
30 years ago we were advised not to apologize or admit mistakes when they inevitably occur since we are human. The fear was that if we admitted regret and apologized for a bad outcome, we made ourselves vulnerable to law suits. In reality, docs who state clearly what went wrong when there is a complication, apologize for the harm done to the patient, and state clearly what steps will be taken to prevent this from happening again are much less likely to be sued. Now the expectation is that bad outcomes will not be covered up but will be explored from a systems approach not to punish the individual who made an error, but rather to design safequards to stop the error before it occurs in the future.
In the case of the police, where entire communities either feel protected or feel threatened by the power given to this group, I think that this self monitoring role is especially important. Obviously, this particular case yielded a tragic and preventable outcome. I cannot help but feel if the official focus from the beginning had been, “this action was flawed, let’s work together to see what steps we can take to ensure that this never occurs again within our community” there would be a possibility for a more positive response from the community.
Very good point Medwoman. So in Davis, when we implemented the system of review with the Ombudsman now Auditor and hired a new police chief in 2006 and 2007, our lawsuits dropped to next to nothing. We do sustain more complaints than we did, but the result is a much better system.
“In reality, docs who state clearly what went wrong when there is a complication, apologize for the harm done to the patient, and state clearly what steps will be taken to prevent this from happening again are much less likely to be sued. Now the expectation is that bad outcomes will not be covered up but will be explored from a systems approach not to punish the individual who made an error, but rather to design safequards to stop the error before it occurs in the future.”
This subject of sincere apologies fascinates me. For several years I’ve watched people apologize. It seems that women have a much easier time apologizing than men. It also seems like people who are comfortable with themselves don’t mind apologizing. And I agree, when someone makes a heartfelt apology, most of the time people do not sue or cause other problems. Usually, people are very forgiving. I worked on a computer help desk for several years. Some people would never, ever admit when they made an error. “It was a glitsch.” No, someone made an error. Computers usually don’t make “glitsches”. I have to mention, I worked with an ex-Sheriff. He would never, ever admit he made an error. Ever. I think that certain personalities are afraid to admit they made a mistake. They see it as a sign of weakness. And my personal observation is that women have a much easier time of apologizing, to move on and fix things, than men do.