The 5th Circuit Says a Houston Cop Reasonably Killed 2 Innocent People Falsely Accused of Selling Heroin

Former Houston narcotics officer Gerald Goines is serving a 60-year prison sentence for his role in a 2019 drug bust. was killed A middle-aged couple, Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, were falsely accused of selling heroin. But in fact, the police officer who killed Tuttle and Nicholas was Felipe Gallegos, and the justification for the bullets he fired at them was inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

This week, though, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded He said Gallegos “acted like an objectively reasonable officer during a tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving gunfight.” Because the decision focuses on the fault of a police officer, it glosses over a seemingly valid fact: The police initiated the gunfight. The chaos they created later became an excuse to kill Tuttle and Nicholas.

The 5th Circuit reversed U.S. District Court Judge Alfred Bennett’s decision last year. allowed Tuttle and Nicholas’ relatives decided to pursue civil rights claims against Gallegos. Bennett reasoned that these allegations, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, were based on factual disputes that should be resolved at trial.

Not so, the 5th Circuit said: Tuttle / Gallegos. Judge Edith Brown Clement, in an opinion joined by two other members of the panel, said that given the chaotic situation Gallegos faced, courts should not “second guess” his “split decisions” even if his account of what happened that day was inaccurate and neither Tuttle nor Nicholas actually posed a threat when he killed them.

Clement concedes that it is “undisputed” that Gallegos and the eight other officers who invaded the couple’s home should not have been there. “The genesis of this case began on January 8, 2019, when Patricia Garcia, a neighbor of Tuttle and Nicholas, called 911 multiple times, falsely claiming that her daughter was doing drugs at Tuttle and Nicholas’ home,” he notes, adding: “The lies didn’t end with Garcia.”

Goines, who was assigned to follow up on Garcia’s malicious and false report, obtained a no-knock search warrant, describing a heroin sale that never took place. Officer Steven Bryant later admit guilt His falsification of records and obstruction of the federal investigation into the raid supported this false story.

Goines and Bryant were part of the “entry team” that executed the search warrant. Other officers, including Gallegos, likely did not know that the arrest warrant was based on a false pretense. Yet their reckless behavior created the conditions that resulted in the deaths of two innocent people.

Police entered the home without warning and immediately shot the couple’s dog. So they shot first. “Tuttle reacted the way anyone, any normal person would, hearing shots rang out in their house, their door blown out, his wife lying on the couch, the dog dead in the living room,” Harris County Deputy District Attorney Keaton Forcht told the jury during Goines’ murder trial. “He’s holding your hand [revolver] and it comes out like a storm.”

After the raid, police said Tuttle fired four shots, hitting one officer in the shoulder, two in the face and one in the neck; It was an impressive feat for a 59-year-old disabled Navy veteran who was surprised by a sudden home invasion. This story was not true either.

Clement notes that the first officer through the door was Frank Medina, who “was shot in the shoulder and fell onto the couch.” He adds that “bullet fragments consistent with a .223 caliber weapon were later found” in Medina’s wound. Tuttle did not have a “.223 caliber gun.” He had a “.357 caliber pistol.” On the contrary, the police were carrying 0.223 caliber M6 rifles. In other words, Medina was shot by a police officer, which gives you an idea of ​​what a shit show this was from the beginning.

Clement says the second officer to enter the door, Cedell Lovings, “shot at the dog ‘several’ times with his M6 .223 caliber rifle.” “He then saw another muzzle flash from the dining room area, where he saw Tuttle standing with the gun in his hand. Tuttle and Lovings exchanged gunfire. Tuttle shot Lovings in the neck with a .357 caliber handgun, leaving Lovings paralyzed from the neck down.”

Along with Medina and the Lovings, Goines and Sgt. Clemente Reyna was injured by a bullet during the raid. But according to the plaintiffs, Clement states: “The evidence shows that only Lovings was shot by Tuttle.” Rather, the injuries to Medina, Goines, and Reyna were “consistent only with officer-carrying .223-caliber weapons.”

Texas Ranger Jeff Wolf during Goines’ trial testified It was stated that the police fired at least 40 shots within 80 seconds after breaking the door. autopsies He stated that nine of those bullets hit Tuttle, while Nicholas was hit twice. Where did the rest of the bullets go? It is clear that some of them also hit other police officers.

Even though three of the four officers injured were shot by their own colleagues, Clement says Gallegos had no way of knowing. You are right. So why did Gallegos shoot Nicholas, who was unarmed?

Gallegos said he saw Nicholas lying injured and unconscious on the couch “with Officer Medina standing over him.” As the plaintiffs stated in their statements 5th Circuit summaryGallegos initially claimed that Nicholas “pulled at his rifle that he had slung on his vest and said, ‘Son of a bitch, son of a bitch.'” He allegedly “grabbed it with both hands” and “drawn his rifle.” Gallegos later contradicted this statement, stating that Nicholas “did not actually touch the gun.”

Both versions of this story are inconsistent with the physical evidence. Plaintiffs’ forensic expert Mike Maloney noted that Gallegos shot Nicholas in the right side. But if Nicholas had been standing over Medina, only Gallegos’ left side would have been exposed. Maloney concluded that Nicholas was at least six feet away from Medina when he was shot when he “began to stand up from where he was sitting on the couch.”

Even if that were true, Clement says, Gallegos could reasonably have perceived Nicholas as a threat. “An objectively reasonable officer would have been justified in momentarily using lethal force against Nicholas, given his actions under these tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances,” he writes. “Even though Nicholas was standing over Medina and not reaching for his gun, he was at least six feet away from her on the same couch and was starting to stand up from where he was sitting.”

Clement explains: “Under these dangerous circumstances, a reasonable police officer uncertain About Nicholas’ role in the shooting: Was he the shooter who injured Medina or Lovings, did he help the person who injured them, or was he an innocent bystander? “A reasonable police officer would have perceived that the proximity of Nicholas, who lay injured on the couch, to Medina increased the danger of harm due to his proximity to Medina’s weapons.”

Unlike Nicholas, Tuttle was initially armed. But when Gallegos killed him, he was so badly injured that he could not hold a gun, according to the plaintiffs. “Tuttle suffered seven gunshot wounds before the final two shots,” he says in his briefings. “He received a grazing wound to both his shoulder and right arm. Mr Tuttle then ‘received gunfire from both his arms and hands.'”

One of these bullets “shattered bones, tendons, ligaments and muscles” [Tuttle’s]
dominant, right wrist” brief notes. “However, Tuttle’s left arm and hand suffered horrific, catastrophic injuries. It is unthinkable that anyone would do this
Injuries like Tuttle’s can involve grasping, holding, lifting, lifting, aiming, and/or shooting a weapon. [handgun] to anyone.”

In light of these facts, Gallegos’ account of the moments before killing Tuttle disproves the beggars’ belief. Clement summarizes this account: “Tuttle was sitting on the ground, holding a gun in his right hand, resting on his thigh. Tuttle yelled at Gallegos, asking him what he wanted and stating that ‘it wasn’t drugs.’ When Gallegos told Tuttle to stop moving, Tuttle ‘looked directly at Gallegos’ and ‘began to raise the gun.’ Gallegos raised his own gun and Tuttle ‘startled.’ Gallegos thus shot Tuttle once again, fatally striking him in the upper back and neck area.”

Tuttle’s incompetence at that point isn’t the only problem in this story. As the plaintiffs’ brief notes, “the bullet trajectory indicates that Tuttle was shot in the back of the head, rather than facing Gallegos.”

Clement was unimpressed by the apparent contradiction between Gallegos’ story and the medical evidence. “Even if Tuttle’s hands and arms were incapacitated to use a weapon, there is no evidence that Gallegos knew this fact,” he says. “An objectively reasonable officer in Gallegos’ position would not have done this known He said Tuttle lacked the capacity to use the weapon because it was not facing him, so a reasonable officer could not reasonably have done so. perceived “Tuttle is no longer a danger to officers.”

Note that Clement’s alibi for Gallegos hinges on his rejection of his own explanation for what happened. If Tuttle was not “against” Gallegos, how could it be true that Tuttle “looked directly at” him or that Gallegos saw him raise his gun just before the final fatal shot?

In short, Gallegos’ apparent motives for killing Nicholas and Tuttle were contradicted by the physical evidence. But according to Clement, this doesn’t matter.

“The events underlying the raid of 7815 Harding Street are distressing,” Clement writes.
“Lies were told. People were shot. Lives were taken. But while these events were tragic, they do not create liability under the Constitution. Gallegos acted as an objectively reasonable officer during the tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving armed conflict on January 28, 2019. We do not second-guess his training and judgment, which required split-second decisions during that conflict.”

Mike Doyle, an attorney representing the Nicholas family, said he plans to appeal the 5th Circuit’s decision. “Felipe Gallegos deliberately murdered an unarmed woman on her own couch and then continued to change his story to justify something that could never be justified,” Doyle said. said the Houston Chronicle. “We believe Judge Bennett was entirely correct in affirming that the jury must make up its own mind and judgment on the facts.”

Gallegos’ attorney, Rusty Hardin, welcomed the decision. “What Officer Gallegos did was reasonable and completely legal,” he said in question. “We’ve always maintained that he was a great hero in this situation.”

Post 5th Circuit Says Houston Police Reasonably Killed 2 Innocents Falsely Accused of Selling Heroin appeared for the first time reason.com.