City ‘Hiscovers’ eviHence HestroyeH
Calls on FBI to help in Monterrosa case
The embattled Vallejo Police Department, already facing scrutiny by the District Attorney’s office and Department of Justice, took another right hook to the jaw when the city “discovered” that evidence in the June 2 shooting death of Sean Monterrosa was destroyed.
The black, unmarked SUV windshield was replaced by a repair company and the vehicle was put back into service without consent by either Police Chief Shawny Williams or the city attorney’s office, according to a news release issued by the city.
An unnamed Vallejo Police Dept. employee has been put on administrative leave, Christina Lee, the city’s communications and public information officer said Thursday. Lee said that all leave is paid until the investigation is complete.
Lee added that it “was unknown to me at this time” if a colleague of the suspected individual, a non-VPD employee, or the accused individual came forward or if the city discovered the destroyed evidence by accident.
The destruction of evidence and FBI involvement has been
added to the investigation into the Monterrosa shooting that occurred during a looting at Walgreen’s on Redwood Street.
The VPD released a video July 8 of the shooting that indicated an officer fired five times from the back seat through his vehicle’s windshield. The video included Williams describing the scene, saying that the officer believed the hammer Monterrosa was apparently reaching for was a gun.
Vallejo Mayor Bob Sampayan said it’s “premature to say” who was put on administrative leave. Whoever it is, “it’s another incident that is causing the distrust of the police department and the difficultly we’re having.”
Police Chief Shawny Williams did not issue a state regarding the evidence destruction and messages left Thursday for VPD public information officer Brittany Jackson weren’t returned to the Times-Herald.
“It’s safe to say the chief was angered” when notified of the windshield tampering, Sampayan said.
Sampayan said the “evidential value of the windshield, that is unknown. Should the windshield have been retained? As a former police officer and investigator, absolutely,” Sampayan said.
A law enforcement source outside of Solano County with 40 years of investigation experience said the windshield plays minimal, if any, role since the shooting can be seen in the video and doesn’t need to be recreated.
“They’re looking to have somebody to blame. If they don’t like you politically, they have to eliminate you because you’ve become an obstruction to their agenda,” the source said. “Science will tell you the answers. Politics will create chaos.”
The evidence destruction was apparently unknown by city officials until Melissa Nold, legal representative for the Monterrosa family, inquired about the vehicle in a “preservation of evidence” letter to the city’s attorney. Nold said she received an email response that “the truck was put back in service and the windshield was removed by the company that replaced it.”
“I was surprised to find that out,” Nold said Thursday by phone, calling the window’s destruction “egregious tampering.”
Nold believed the evidence destruction “was either a sign of corruption or somebody was completely inept,” and that someone in a supervisory role had to sign off of replacing a vehicle windshield since the entire vehicle “should have been put in evidence (storage) immediately.”
An FBI investigation is appropriate “and shows aggressive action” being taken, Nold said. Sampayan agrees that an outside agency needs to be involved for any credibility.
Nold added that she had planned on using an expert in court to recreate the June 2 shooting, with the destroyed windshield part of the evidence.
“I don’t know how important it (the windshield) would have been with the attorney general or the district attorney, but we have to show what they (the police) are saying is not true,” Nold said.
Sampayan said he “doesn’t know” if there’s evidence linking the person on administrative leave to the destroyed evidence, though, he added, “when we put someone on administrative leave, it’s not taken lightly. The facts of the incident are not taken lightly.”
It’s unknown if more than one person was involved in the windshield destruction.
“I’m curious about that myself,” Sampayan said.