News

Hoopa Valley Tribal Chair Joe Davis has asked that the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services be involved in the ongoing investigation into a California Highway Patrol officer’s fatal shooting of a tribal member last month.

“Our federal partners are still gathering information,” Davis wrote in an email to the Journal. “They have assured me that they will call a meeting with us when they have all the information we need.”

Meanwhile, details released in the investigation so far have brought differences in foot pursuit policies of the CHP and local agencies into focus.

According to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, CHP officer Neil Johnson fatally shot William “Willie” Burrell Nelson, 43, who was unarmed, in downtown Hoopa after a reported struggle following a traffic stop. Johnson sustained “serious head injuries and a bite wound as a result of the confrontation,” a sheriff’s office press release stated, while Nelson was shot multiple times and died at the scene.

The shooting is being investigated by a multi-agency team led by the California Department of Justice.

The incident began around 7:30 a.m. on Sept. 17 when Johnson reportedly saw a silver Jetta driving on State Route 96 with a broken windshield, south of Legion Way, not far from the Hoopa Tribal Police Department. The CHP officer reportedly tried to initiate a traffic stop but Nelson, driving the Jetta, reportedly failed to yield and continued driving down State Route 96 a short distance before making a left on Mesket Lane, near the Hoopa Mini-Mart and Gas Station, before stopping at a turnout. Nelson then was reported to have fled the vehicle on foot, down a trail into a nearby residential and wooded area, leaving two female passengers in the Jetta.

At this point, Johnson apparently made the decision to pursue Nelson on foot, leaving a Humboldt County sheriff’s deputy that was trailing the vehicle pursuit from “a distance” to detain the passengers. When Johnson caught up to Nelson near Alameda Lane, a street that runs parallel to Mesket Lane and to its north, what police have described as a “violent confrontation” ensued.

“The specific details of this confrontation remain under investigation; however, initial evidence indicates the officer deployed a taser during this altercation, striking the man,” a sheriff’s office press release states, after which the altercation reportedly continued and escalated, with Johnson shooting Nelson multiple times.

Foot pursuits are so inherently dangerous that most local police departments have policies governing them that explicitly state no officer will be disciplined for deciding not to engage in one. The CHP’s policy, however, does not include that disclaimer and doesn’t have a chapter solely dedicated to foot pursuits, instead including them in a section on “high-risk apprehensions.”

The CHP policy notes that officers should notify the communications center when engaging in a pursuit, radioing the direction of travel, number of suspects, reason for the enforcement stop and any information about weapons. It specifically states officers should ensure no additional suspects are “hidden” in the suspect vehicle and secure the car’s keys prior to engaging in a foot pursuit following a traffic stop, and that officers should turn down their radios and “remove noisy objects” from their duty belts. When it comes to the safety of the officer or the public, the policy only states that officers should “discontinue the foot pursuit if the suspect is identified to the point where later apprehension could be accomplished or officer safety is in jeopardy.”

In contrast, local agencies’ foot pursuit policies are all in excess of four pages long with detailed guidelines for officers, starting with the decision to pursue a suspect in the first place.

“The safety of department members and the public should be the primary consideration when determining whether a foot pursuit should be initiated or continued,” the local policies all state under the “decision to pursue” section. “[Deputies/officers] must be mindful that immediate apprehension of a suspect is rarely more important than the safety of the public and department members.”

All the local policies note that, when circumstances permit, surveillance and containment are “generally the safest tactics.” All the other local policies also state officers should “consider alternatives” to pursuing a suspect on foot when they are alone or the identity of the suspect is established or other information exists that would allow for their apprehension at a later time and it “reasonably appears there is no immediate threat to department members or the public if the suspect is not immediately apprehended.”

All the policies close with the same sentence: “It is the policy of this department that [deputies/officers], when deciding to initiate or continue a foot pursuit, continuously balance the objective of apprehending the suspect with the risk and potential for injury to department members, the public or the suspect.”