Report: Cops shouldn’t have fired back
Officers in Taylor case lacked ‘target isolation’
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Police officers at Breonna Taylor’s apartment shouldn’t have returned any gunfire because it wasn’t safe to do so, a department investigator determined in a review of the fatal shooting.
The officers had an “obligation” to use deadly force against only the person who presented a deadly threat, Sgt. Andrew Meyer of the Louisville Metro Police Department’s Professional Standards Unit found in a preliminary report dated Dec. 4.
They could not safely do that, given the layout of the hallway at Taylor’s apartment, the poor lighting, the rapid gunfire and the lack of “target isolation,” Meyer said.
None of the seven officers who went to Taylor’s apartment to serve a search warrant shortly before 1 a.m. March 13, 2020, should have fired their weapons, he said.
Three did, and Taylor, 26, an ER technician who was unarmed, died.
“They took a total of thirty-two shots, when the provided circumstances made it unsafe to take a single shot,” Meyer wrote. “This is how the wrong person was shot and killed.”
Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly was wounded when Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired one shot from his legally owned handgun. Walker said later that he thought an intruder was breaking in.
Mattingly “should not have taken the shot” because Walker wasn’t isolated and there was a risk of hitting someone who didn’t pose a threat, Meyer wrote. Taylor died in her hallway after police shot her six times, at least one round fired by Mattingly.
Meyer recommended Mattingly be found in violation of LMPD’s polices on using deadly force. His immediate superior, Lt. Jeff Artman, agreed.
“Ms. Taylor’s safety should have been considered before he (Mattingly) returned fire,” Meyer wrote.
Using open records requests, The Louisville Courier Journal, part of the USA TODAY Network, obtained Meyer’s report and the entire Professional Standards Unit investigation into the narcotics case that led police to Taylor’s apartment.
The police department turned over the investigative file in April but withheld large portions because they were “preliminary.”
The department released the file in full after Mayor Greg Fischer announced the city would comply with a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that completed investigations into employee discipline are public record.
The records show that despite Meyer’s recommendation, Mattingly was cleared of wrongdoing by higher-ranking police officials in the department probe into potential policy violations during the Taylor shooting.
Three officers fired their guns. Mattingly was the only officer of the three to keep his job. Detectives Myles Cosgrove and Brett Hankison were fired for their actions.
Hankison was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment for firing into an occupied apartment next to Taylor’s unit.
Mattingly submitted his retirement papers, effective June 1. After more than 20 years with the department, he is eligible for his full pension. Kent Wicker, an attorney for Mattingly, declined to comment.
Sam Aguiar, an attorney for Taylor’s family, questioned why Mattingly was exonerated.
“It’s problematic when you’ve got the assigned investigators that take the lead and do all the legwork on the case (and) conclude that there’s a violation of policies – and the chief comes in and doesn’t accept the recommendations,” Aguiar said.
Yvette Gentry, who briefly returned to the Police Department last year to serve as interim chief after retiring in 2014, declined to comment because of the fired officers’ upcoming Police Merit Board appeal hearing.
Joshua Jaynes, a third officer fired in the case for false information in the search warrant obtained to search Taylor’s apartment, appealed his termination, as did Hankison and Cosgrove, who fired the fatal shot.
In a letter in December to officers outlining her findings in the investigation, Gentry wrote Mattingly’s actions needed to be “examined through the lens at the time he discharged his weapon at an identified threat, at the end of a dimly lit hallway, after being shot himself.”
‘The threat was not shot’
By firing his handgun, Walker posed a threat to the officers in the doorway, Meyer said, and his action provided justification for the use of deadly force.
The problem: “The person who presented the wrote.
Taylor, who stood next to Walker in her apartment hallway, “was not once identified as being perceived to have posed a threat to anyone throughout the interviews or in examining all the evidence,” Meyer said.
He noted Mattingly told investigators he clearly saw a man holding the gun.
Attorney General Daniel Cameron, whose office acted as a special prosecutor for the case, said Sept. 23 that Cosgrove and Mattingly “were justified in their use of force after having been fired upon,” therefore couldn’t be charged.
Meyer noted an omission from Cameron’s remarks.
“This statement does not address the fact that the recipient of the deadline fire was Ms. Taylor, not Mr. Walker,” he wrote. threat was not shot,” he
A disagreement over policy
LMPD policy allows deadly use of force when the “person against whom the force is used poses an immediate threat of death or serious injury,” Meyer wrote.
Meyer’s interpretation of the policy: “The force must be used on the specific person described as posing an immediate threat of death or serious injury to the officer or another person.
“The words of this policy do not allow deviation or excuse regardless of reasoning or circumstance,” he said.
Artman, Meyer’s superior, also recommended Mattingly be found in violation of LMPD’s policy on using deadly force, records show.
Artman wrote in a memo to his boss, Maj. Jamey Schwab, the commander of the special investigations division, that Mattingly had no “reasonable belief ” that Taylor posed an immediate threat of death or serious injury.
Schwab disagreed with Meyer and Artman, finding LMPD’s policy did allow for the consideration of whom Mattingly intended to shoot.
“The conscious effort to use force against Walker (who was the intended target) makes him the person ‘against whom force is used’ for the purposes of ” standard operating procedure, Schwab wrote.
He wrote in a memo there was not enough evidence to find Mattingly in violation of use of deadly force policies, saying “micro-seconds can significantly change outcomes between when a trigger is squeezed at a target and a bullet reaches its final position.”
Interim Chief Gentry agreed with Schwab, writing to officers Dec. 27 that Mattingly’s actions should be viewed based on his understanding “after being shot himself.”
She noted Mattingly identified an armed man and a woman at the end of the hall, and the sergeant fired “at the aggressor he identified.”
Therefore, Mattingly’s actions included identification of a threat and use of force against that target, she wrote.
If Mattingly’s intended target was Walker, who was armed, then the policy ought to be applied to that, Gentry concluded.
Gentry’s letter to officers, laying out her “preliminary findings,” was not initially included in the investigative file the department released. It was turned over to The Courier Journal after reporters asked why it was not included.
Lt. Shawn Hoover, the ranking officer at Taylor’s apartment, also was exonerated of wrongdoing by Gentry.
As on Mattingly, Meyer made a different recommendation.
Meyer found that after Taylor was shot, Hoover had a responsibility to maintain the crime scene, gather information from the officers, start a preliminary investigation and assign the detectives involved “escort” or “peer support” officers.
Instead, Hankison and Cosgrove stayed at the scene performing law enforcement activities, and Hankison entered the apartment crime scene to ask questions about evidence, then left the scene to visit the hospital where Mattingly was treated.
Hoover told investigators he didn’t realize Hankison and Cosgrove had returned fire because he was so involved in getting Mattingly to safety and getting him medical attention.
Meyer found Hoover could have known that information “if he fulfilled the responsibility of gathering basic information from the officers involved and started a preliminary investigation.”
Failing to gather that information and assigning escort officers to Hankison and Cosgrove “created a circumstance which could have compromised the integrity of the crime scene and the processing of evidence from the involved officers,” Meyer wrote.
Artman, Schwab and Gentry disagreed and recommended clearing Hoover because he was focused on caring for Mattingly, who was bleeding from his femoral artery.
Schwab and Gentry reasoned, “It was likely not practical for him to switch from life-saving measures to immediately taking charge of the scene.”