October 3, 2007
Grayson Robinson, Sheriff
Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
13101 East Broncos Parkway
Centennial, CO 80112
RE: Investigation of the shooting death of Carlos Jesus
Becerra, dob 11/21/81, DPD#0530961, FBI#769408 by
Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida, 98062, on
July 26, 2007, in the 1000 block of Federal Boulevard,
Denver, Colorado.
Dear Sheriff Robinson:
The investigation and legal analysis of the shooting death of Carlos Jesus Becerra have
been completed, and I conclude that, under applicable Colorado law, no criminal charges are
fileable against Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida. The release of this decision letter
has, of necessity, been delayed in order to complete a variety of crime laboratory testing on
evidence recovered during the crime scene investigation. While this testing was not necessary in
order to make the determination that Deputy Guida’s actions were justified, it was necessary in
order to assess ancillary issues.
Carlos Becerra is deceased. Therefore, no criminal charges are necessary related to his
criminal conduct in this incident. This shooting involved a law enforcement officer from your
agency which is an agency outside the 2
nd
Judicial District. Therefore, the administrative aspect
of the shooting will be addressed by your agency—the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department.
When we have been advised by you that your agency has concluded the administrative
investigation and review, we will open our Officer-Involved Shooting file in this case for in-
person review at our office. As is always the case, the physical evidence will be in the
possession of the Denver Police Department. The Denver Police Department is the official
custodian of records related to this case.
SYNOPSIS OF SHOOTING
On July 26, 2007, the Denver Police Department, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s
Department, Wheat Ridge Police Department, and the Colorado State Patrol were involved in a
multi-agency DUI Task Force action conducting traffic enforcement in Denver. Colorado State
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
1
Patrol Trooper Dennis Wilder initiated a stop of Julius Poorman in the vicinity of 6
th
Avenue and
Federal Boulevard. Poorman continued down Federal Boulevard until he pulled into the parking
lot of the 7-Eleven store at 10
th
Avenue and Federal Boulevard. He was driving his white, 1997,
four-door Suzuki Side-Kick. When he parked in a space to the left of the front door, Trooper
Wilder positioned his marked
CSP vehicle behind him. In
addition to determining
whether he was driving under
the influence, a record check
revealed that he had a warrant
for his arrest.
1
Pursuant to the DUI
Task Force policy, Denver
Police Officer Ryan
Kobernick, 01-54, was called
to the scene to conduct the
arrest on the outstanding arrest
warrant. Officer Kobernick
did so and then went to have
the passenger, Carlos Jesus Becerra, exit the front passenger door. Becerra came out while
reaching down quickly to the right behind the passenger seat and grabbing a Smith & Wesson
chrome .357 revolver with his right hand. Officer Kobernick grasped Becerra by the right arm
and was quickly joined by Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida and Lieutenant Steve
Curti. Colorado State Trooper Dennis Wilder also ran quickly to the location of the
confrontation. Becerra was firing shots as the officers attempted to wrestle him to the ground
and control the firearm. Becerra fired three shots during the incident, but pulled the trigger
multiple times attempting to fire more shots—the weapon contained only 3-live rounds because
the other 3 chambers of the 6-shot revolver were empty. As he ran toward the melee, Trooper
Wilder was struck by one of Becerra’s shots.
Lieutenant Steve Curti was shot in the lower arm/wrist area during the struggle to control
the gun-wielding Becerra. As the shots were being fired by Becerra, Officer Kobernick was
struck in the face by the firearm causing injury to his face and breaking his nose. He was
bleeding profusely. During the struggle Becerra was bending his right arm at the elbow in an
effort to aim the barrel back at Lieutenant Curti who was on top of him attempting to control the
.357 revolver. Police and citizen witnesses perceived Becerra was attempting to kill the officers
by his actions. As Officer Kobernick and Lieutenant Curti grappled with him, Becerra was still
pulling the trigger of the firearm. With Officer Kobernick and Lieutenant Curti still in direct
contact with Becerra, Deputy Guida fired four shots from close range, two of which struck
Becerra in the head—killing him and ending the deadly threat.
1 Julius Poorman has an extensive criminal record including multiple felony and misdemeanor arrests. He has multiple felony
possession of controlled substance arrests, as well as arrests for felony assault and menacing, domestic violence and harassment,
and DUI. He has served sentences in the Department of Corrections and has violated parole in the past.
Carlos Jesus Becerra also has an extensive criminal history as described later in this letter.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
2
STATEMENT OF INVESTIGATION
The attached document entitled Officer-Involved Shooting Protocol 2007 is incorporated
by this reference.
2
It describes the manner in which these cases are investigated in Denver,
Colorado. Immediately after the shooting, numerous witnesses were identified and taken to
Denver Police headquarters for interviews. All witnesses provided written statements and a
number were further interviewed on videotape. All directly involved law enforcement officers
gave voluntary sworn videotaped statements to investigators. The two officers who were shot
were unable to provide statements at that time because of their wounds, surgery, hospitalization,
and medications associated with the medical treatment. They responded to Denver Police
headquarters on July 31, 2007, and gave voluntary statements to investigators. The crime scene
was thoroughly processed by the Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory and all evidence
was collected.
3
The suspect vehicle was secured and later searched pursuant to a search warrant.
All evidence was processed and reviewed. The Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory has
conducted testing and analysis on a variety of evidence, including firearms, ballistics, DNA,
fiber, and other items.
We received full cooperation throughout the investigation from all citizen witnesses; all
officers; the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department; Wheat Ridge Police Department; the
Colorado State Patrol; and the Colorado Department of Public Safety.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
First we will briefly describe the events that led to the contact with Carlos Jesus Becerra.
Then we will focus on the contact with Becerra that resulted in his death.
On July 26, 2007, the Denver Police Department, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s
Department, Wheat Ridge Police Department, and the Colorado State Patrol were involved in a
multi-agency DUI Task Force action conducting traffic enforcement in the area. Lieutenant
Steve Curti and Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida of the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department had
stopped at the 7-Eleven in the 1000 block of Federal Boulevard. While at that location they
observed members of the D.U.I. Task Force follow a white, 1997, four-door Suzuki Side-Kick
into the parking lot.
4
The vehicle was driven by Julius Poorman (dob-3/15/77). Poorman was
being stopped for investigation of driving under the influence. Colorado State Patrol Trooper
Dennis Wilder had his over-head lights activated as he followed Poorman into the parking lot.
He parked his police car directly behind Poorman who had pulled into a parking spot to the left
of the entrance door to the 7-Eleven. In addition to determining whether Poorman was driving
under the influence, a criminal record check was done. Lieutenant Curti and Deputy Guida
moved from where they were standing on the south side of the store by their police car to the
area of Poorman’s vehicle to provide back-up cover for the officers.
After standard testing procedures were conducted on Poorman by Trooper Wilder, it was
determined he would not be arrested for driving under the influence. However, the criminal
2 See Attachment.
3 See Attachments.
4 See attached photo of the location. This photo shows the location of the pertinent vehicles and witnesses to this incident.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
3
record check revealed an active outstanding arrest warrant. Pursuant to the D.U.I. Task Force
procedures, Denver Police Officer Ryan Kobernick was called to the scene to place Poorman in
custody for the outstanding arrest warrant. While waiting for Officer Kobernick to arrive,
Poorman called his father on his cell phone to come to pick up his vehicle. After arresting
Poorman and placing him in the backseat of his police car, Officer Kobernick returned to
Poorman’s vehicle to have the passenger, Carlos Jesus Becerra, exit. Officer Kobernick intended
to advise Becerra he would have to find another means of transportation because of the arrest of
Poorman.
The description of the events that led to Becerra assaulting the officers and Officer Guida
in turn killing him will be presented through the following officer and citizen witness accounts of
the incident.
Deputy Guida has worked for the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department for
approximately nine years. He has served as a patrol deputy in District 5. In addition to his
general duties, he is a Field Training Officer, a Firearms Trainer, and teaches Officer Safety
courses at the Training Academy. At the time of this incident, he was in full uniform in a fully
marked Sheriff Department vehicle. He was on special assignment to the multi-agency D.U.I.
Task Force conducting enforcement in Denver.
The following is a paraphrasing of the pertinent portions of Deputy Guida’s video-taped
statement given to investigators at Denver Police headquarters after the shooting.
5
Deputy Guida stated he saw the Colorado State Patrol Trooper (Dennis
Wilder) enter the parking lot from south to north … his emergency overheads
were activated … there was a white Suzuki in front of him … he (Deputy Guida)
and Lieutanant Curti followed the cars on foot as they came to a stop … they took
a position to the back right to cover the officers … he (Deputy Guida) was behind
the Suzuki … the Trooper was by the driver’s door making contact with the driver
… the passenger was looking all around … 360 degrees … suspicious … he was
thinking why is this guy so nervous … looking over left and right shoulder …
making eye contact with him (Deputy Guida) … looking at the Denver officer …
really looking all around … he saw him with his hand way down low … made
movement toward the back of the vehicle to reach for something … he (Deputy
Guida) looked, but didn’t see anything … he asked him if there were any weapons
in the vehicle … the suspect said very quickly “no” … he wrote the time of the
contact on the palm of his right hand—“22:14”
6
… he approached and asked the
passenger for his name … he then dropped back to his cover position … the
Trooper got the driver out and ran roadside tests … heel/toe … one-leg stand …
the Trooper then told him “I’m not going to arrest you … I don’t believe you are
intoxicated.” … the Trooper cleared driver … he had a $950 arrest warrant on a
domestic incident … he then gave the information he obtained from the passenger
5 This paraphrasing of the statement is from typed notes taken while viewing the statement.
6 The Denver Police Department dispatch record shows the “shots fired” call was received at 22:31 hours. If Deputy Guida’s
time is set the same as the Denver Police dispatch time, the total time from Deputy Guida going to assist with this stop until the
call that shots had been fired was 17 minutes.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
4
to the Trooper … the date of birth came back as being incorrect to the name given
… he (Deputy Guida) approached passenger again … he noticed his right hand
was down low … too low to feel safe … he told him to put his hands on the
dashboard so he could see them … he began speaking to him … he told him he
lied to him about his date of birth … the suspect replied, “yes—my license is
under suspension” … he (Deputy Guida) replied that “You aren’t even driving the
car … I can’t site you anyway … in the future don’t lie when asked for this
information.” … he said this was said in a conversational tone.
Deputy Guida said while waiting for a Denver Officer to come for the
driver who had an arrest warrant … he saw the passenger reaching back of the
front seat … he told him to put his hands back on dashboard … he asked to check
a couple of t-shirts in the vehicle … there was nothing in them … the Denver
Officer arrived and placed the driver in custody on the warrant by the drivers side
of car … there were no problems … we were going to get the passenger out to
send him on his way … he was going to move to the passenger door, but then
decided the Denver Officer should do these functions.
The Denver officer came by and said “okay lets get this guy out.” The
Denver officer attempted to open the door … he thinks it was the officer … as
soon as the door started to open … he heard a metal-on-metal sound … the door
flew open … the suspect ran directly at the Denver officer … he saw a large
chrome revolver … thought it was a .357 … he doesn’t recall which hand … the
gun was up high … he ran out of the car … ran right at the Denver officer … ran
right into the officer … (demonstrates on video about head high pointed in a
southwest direction with his body facing south) … he heard shots … this occurred
as he (Deputy Guida) and the Trooper (Wilder) immediately went to join in the
vertical struggle … he lost his watch and has a scratch on his arm in that area …
at some point in time he heard another shot … he thinks it was the suspect
shooting … as he joined the struggle he was “blown off this pile by someone who
came from my back side (this was Lieutenant Curti attempting to tackle the
suspect and control his firearm) … he then looked over to his right and saw the
suspect on his back with his head facing toward the 7-Eleven … he saw the
suspect … he cannot remember which hand the gun was in … (he demonstrates
on the video—shows his arm was in a circular position bent at the elbow over his
head trying to point the gun at an officer who was on top of him … used a huge
sweeping motion to get gun aimed at the head of the officer)… he saw a “chunk”
of the suspects chest … he had on a white/orange/yellowish shirt … he could see
the upper center mass area of his chest … he drew his gun and fired at that center
mass area from waist high in perpendicular direction … the shot did not seem to
have any impact on the suspect or his continuing to struggle with the officers …
the suspect continued to try to get his gun into a position to shoot the officer in the
head … (he shows in the photo that all this was occurring at the location where
the suspect was ultimately shot) … he said it was a “dog pile so to speak” … he
was to the left of the dog pile …the suspect continued to try to shoot the officer
… he stepped up on the sidewalk to the head end of the suspect … he fired two
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
5
shots from fairly close range into his head as he was moving his gun downward
… at that time the officers were still in contact with the suspect trying to control
the firearm … he said someone aired shots fired … he looked to his left and saw
Lieutenant Curti holding his arm … he saw a Trooper to the south with his boot
off … … he saw the suspect’s gun over to the left … he started to touch it but did
not want to do so … instead he kicked it further away from the suspect… (he
shows on photo—says he kicked it to where it is shown in the photo)
7
… he
handcuffed the suspect in front of his body and went to assist Lieutenant Curti by
putting pressure on his left-arm wound.
In answer to follow-up questions by investigators, Deputy Guida said he
told one of the officers to have whoever from the Denver Police Department
would be in charge to come see him as he was the one who shot the suspect … he
stayed with Lieutenant Curti until he was placed in the ambulance and taken to
the hospital for treatment of the gunshot wound.
Deputy Guida stated he thought he fired 3 shots.
8
He said he knew the
suspect fired once while standing … he then heard a second shot … he does not
know if the suspect fired more shots. He is not aware of any other officer firing.
He said his firearm is a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol. He was using
department issue ammunition. He carries the weapon with the 13-round
magazine fully loaded and has an additional round in the chamber. His weapon
and his extra magazines were given to a Denver Police Department Sergeant from
the Crime Laboratory.
He said he shot the suspect because he fired his weapon in the midst of a
scuffle with officers … and when taken to the ground he (Deputy Guida) looked
over and saw him still armed with the gun with another officer (Lieutenant Curti)
on top of him …with his head on his chest and he (Becerra) was actively doing
everything in his power to create an angle to shoot what “I feared to be downward
into the officer’s head who was on him … I fired once into upper center mass … I
felt like nothing happened … except for the fact he was still trying to create the
circle angle to fire his weapon and kill an officer … I took two steps forward and
fired two shots into his head to keep him from killing an officer. I stopped firing
because he was no longer a threat.”
The following is a paraphrasing of the pertinent portions of Arapahoe County Sheriff
Lieutenant Steve Curti’s video-taped statement given to investigators at Denver Police
headquarters after the shooting.
9
Lieutenant Curti is a 27-year veteran of the force and is
currently a Patrol Division Watch Commander supervising Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriffs on
the “grave-yard shift.”
7 See attached photos showing Becerra’s chrome .357 revolver.
8 Deputy Guida, in fact, fired 4 shots. It is not unusual for officers and citizens to be inaccurate in this regard. We know from
the firearms examination that Deputy Guida fired 4 shots and Becerra fired 3 shots.
9 This paraphrasing of the statement is from typed notes taken while viewing the statement.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
6
Lieutenant Curti said he was riding with Deputy Louis Guida while
working with the multi-jurisdictional D.U.I. Task Force. He acts as the
coordinator for his department. Deputy Guida and he were by their marked
vehicle in full uniform when they saw a Colorado State Patrol Trooper coming in
the parking lot at the 7-Eleven. They decided to cover the Trooper on the stop.
There were two subjects in the car … the Trooper contacted the driver … he was
standing over by the curb line on the left side of the suspect’s vehicle … Deputy
Guida was behind the car … the suspect passed the roadside which took five or
ten minutes … then he was checked on the MDT … he had a harassment warrant
out of Littleton … the Denver Police car came to take the guy … if Task Force
members have contact with someone for anything other than a DUI, a Denver
officer was to be called in to handle it … after arresting and placing the suspect in
the police vehicle, the Denver officer came over to the passenger side … he told
the passenger someone was coming for the car … the passenger was animated …
he reached around to the back area of the vehicle … he reached around and got a
t-shirt and put it on over his other shirt … maybe angry is a better description …
the passenger caught his attention because of his body language … that caused
him (Lieutenant Curti) to walk over behind the vehicle … “the next thing I
remember I am on this guy … I was on him trying to push his arm and hand up
over his head … I was on top of him on the ground trying to push on him … I
don’t have a clear picture … I’m trying to push his arm up over his head …
believe the gun was in his right hand … I did not see it … I did not so much hear
the shots … I felt the shots … I felt the pressure from the gun … I thought if I can
bulldog him down and push on his arm to keep the gun up I’m not going to get
shot … I tried to hold his arm over and pointed away … he was fighting and then
he quit fighting …as I stood up I could see I was shot … I think I walked toward
the right (south) area of the store.”
In answer to follow-up questions by investigators, Lieutenant Curti said he
stood up and grabbed his wrist … Deputy Guida came over to help him … the
Trooper was shot and did not look good … they were over to the right of the entry
door to the 7-Eleven … the Trooper was further to the right … he had been
kneeling down and a Denver officer came and helped move him further to the
south.
Lieutenant Curti said his service pistol is a Sig Sauer, 226, 9mm semi-
automatic … he carries his weapon with 15 rounds in the magazine and one round
in the chamber. He did not draw his weapon and did not fire any shots during the
confrontation. He said he knew the suspect was firing shots. He said he never
saw any officers firing any shots because he was in the struggle with the suspect.
He stated that the suspect was one of these guys when you looked at him
you know that he is going to be trouble … the way he looks around … the way he
acts …his body language … all I remember is going to the back right corner of
the car … an officer was standing there (by passenger door) … the door is open
… this guy has his back to the officer with his hands down … he is getting out of
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
7
the car … then something happens … I remember being on the ground … I do not
remember seeing the weapon … cannot recall when he (Lieutenant Curti) heard
the shots … he thinks 3 or 4 shots … not certain when they started … he actually
physically remembers feeling 2 or 3 rounds … the pressure … the shock wave
that comes out of the weapon … he believes the weapon was in suspect’s right
hand … he was trying to move the suspect’s arm up over his head to keep the
weapon away … he thought if he kept the suspect’s arm up in the air he wouldn’t
be able to shoot him … he felt a shot … they were struggling … then the suspect
went limp … other than feeling rounds go off he doesn’t remember hearing them.
The following is a paraphrasing of the observations by two citizen witnesses to the
incident—Edward Jones and Enrique Hernandez-Pineda.
Edward Jones was parked two vacant spaces from Poorman’s vehicle in front of the 7-
Eleven.
10
He had an unobstructed view of the incident. In his videotaped statement to
investigators he stated in following:
He works at Robinson Dairy …he got off work and was taking his
daughter and two of her friends to the 7-Eleven … the officers were talking to the
driver of the car next to him who was handcuffed at the back of the car … he was
watching the passenger … the officers were watching the passenger also … an
officer walked up to passenger to get him out …opened the door … the passenger
reached back to the right and behind the front seat real quick …you could see he
had a gun … he came out … officer grabbed his right arm to hold him from
shooting it … you could see the gun …they were on their feet when they were
first in contact … they spun in a little circle …he (Becerra) kind of got away from
the one officer (Officer Kobernick) and the other officer (Lieutenant Curti) got
him and pulled him down on the ground by the curb … he (Lieutenant Curti) put
his arms all the way around the guy and took him to the ground … the guy was
reaching up shooting like this (on the video he shows right arm up in the air
bowed at the elbow in effort to point the gun back down at the officer) … he was
shooting the officer in the back … I’m thinking the vest is doing its job … he was
reaching over the officer and shooting him in the back … it was quite amazing
really … where they ended up by the curb is where the shots were going into the
officers back …it all went kind of quick.
In response to follow-up questions by investigators, Mr. Jones stated he
thought the passenger seemed nervous because of the way he was taking drinks
out of the water bottle and looking around a lot. When the officer approached the
vehicle he said, “Police—step out of the car.” When he came out he reached back
down behind the right side of the seat and grabbed a chrome revolver. One
officer was holding his right arm and hand area. The officer was on it quick …
they struggled … the guy fired once or twice during the struggle. He got his one
leg out of the car as he reached for the gun … the officer had no time to do
anything but grab his arm … they get him down … he is on his back and the
10 See attached photo of scene.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
8
officer is trying to hold onto him … he is shooting … turning his arm to aim the
gun back down at the officers … I’m thinking I hope his vest protects him … he
was trying to kill them … no doubt in my mind … he is shooting into the officer
… I see the bullets hitting his vest … I was afraid for the officers and for me … 3
or 4 shots fired into the officers. The officer in the brown pants (Trooper Dennis
Wilder) got shot in the leg and was in pain against the wall of the store. The
officer who got him first (Denver Officer Ryan Kobernick) was bleeding from the
face like he got a head butt. The guy wasn’t going down easily.
When asked if he knew why the struggle stopped, Mr. Jones said he didn’t
know for sure. He thought it might have been from his (Becerra) own bullet or
something … could have been the curb … so much so fast … he doesn’t know
how the guy got shot … did not see an officer fire a gun … I didn’t see that …
didn’t know if the officers fired … don’t know if they did. He thinks he heard 8
total shots … he thinks the guy fired 8 shots … definitely 3 to 4 initially … it was
fast … these guys were trying to do what they could.
Mr. Jones said when he saw the gun pulled by the guy he knew the
officers were fighting for their lives … I think the guy was planning this before he
came out of the car … it was clear that the officers wanted him to drop his gun …
it was clear they were going to get assaulted by the gun … He believed the
officers were afraid for their lives.
Enrique Hernandez-Pineda was parked to the right of Edward Jones’ vehicle in front of
the 7-Eleven.
11
He is Spanish speaking only. He gave a videotaped statement to investigators in
Spanish. The following is the pertinent portion of his written statement—written in English by a
bilingual investigator. He stated in following:
“The officer then opened the door and asked the passenger to step out of
the vehicle. As soon as the door was opened by the officer the passenger pointed
a gun at the officer’s direction and began shooting. He (suspect) seemed to reach
toward the rear where the officer was standing and shot once. Before the suspect
could shoot another round officers at the scene (I recall three police vehicles)
grabbed the suspect and tried to keep him from shooting again. Officers took the
suspect to the ground and suspect continued to struggle trying to point the gun at
the officers and shot two other shots hitting two of the officers. Another officer
came over and tried to assist the other two officers struggling with the suspect
who was still trying to point the gun and shoot the officers again, when the
suspect was shot by the third officer. I believe the suspect was shot twice. The
suspect was shooting with his right hand with a silver and gray gun.”
The following is a paraphrasing of the videotaped statement taken by investigators from
Julius Poorman.
11 See attached photo of scene.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
9
Prior to starting the interview he indicated he had consumed some alcohol
and smoked some marijuana the night before but was now okay to make the
statement. In pertinent part he stated Carlos Becerra came over about 9:30 p.m.
… he wanted him (Poorman) to take him over to a friend’s house … he has
known Carlos for about 4 months but does not know his last name … he met him
at the parole office … he said Carlos showed up with a bottle of vodka … Carlos
had a few shots at the house … then they called his friend to let him know they
were coming … Carlos sat in the back and his (Poorman) girlfriend was in the
front … he dropped her off at her house … he went in and got a couple of beers
… Carlos moved into the front seat … officer got behind them as they pulled off
6
th
Avenue going eastbound at Federal Boulevard … Carlos told him to “pull off”
… beer cans were in the console area … one beer open and one not open …
Carlos told me to get away from the cop … Carlos “wasn’t freaking out or
anything.” … when we were getting off the cop turned on his lights … Carlos told
him (Poorman) to pull over … Carlos said he was cool … he did not see Carlos
reach anywhere or do anything … he continued to drive to the 7-Eleven and park
by the pay phone … Carlos wanted him to go down the street … but when he
pulled into the 7-Eleven Carlos said “oh no!” … Carlos wanted him to go straight
… Carlos was directing him … he (Poorman) said “I’m already here.” … Carlos
wanted him to go down the street so he (Becerra) could get out and run … the
officer came and said he pulled him over because of the cracked windshield …
the officer checked him out … asked for his driver’s license and registration …
officer asked Carlos for his name and he said “Kevin” … he lied to the officer …
when cop went back to the cop car, the discussion they had was that he
(Poorman) was going to jail because he had a warrant out … he would need to
contact his dad to get his car … Carlos didn’t say anything … the cop came back
and said he smelled alcohol on his breath … he showed the officer the beer in the
car … the cop had him do roadside tests … he (Trooper Wilder) told him he
passed them … told him to sit back in his (Poorman) car …
Poorman said there was an officer by Carlos’ passenger door … they sit in
the car … an officer (Officer Kobernick) then comes and removes him (Poorman)
from the car … the cop took him from the car and handcuffed him …he said he
was treated fine by the police … then the cop put him in the backseat of one of
the cruisers … there was a car between the police car and his car … he could not
see them … he thought they would probably just let Carlos go … he heard what
sounded like one or two backfires … there was a cop car in front of him … he
saw someone get taken out of a car (Edward Jones) … then cops come from
everywhere … he heard on the police radio that shots had been fired.
In answer to investigator questions, Poorman said he did not know that
Carlos had a gun …he maintained he didn’t know he had a gun … he said he had
never seen him with a gun … he said he had no idea how Carlos got in his car
with a gun and he doesn’t know it … he claimed he had no idea … he sticks with
this claim … [he just continues to repeatedly deny having any knowledge of the
gun in response to every question asked by the investigator concerning that issue]
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
10
… after continued questioning he admitted that about 8:30 or 9:00 p.m., he and
Carlos smoked some “meth” … Carlos brought it to his house … smoked it in a
pipe in the back of his mom’s house
12
… they smoked a “bowl” … Carlos had
pulled it out of his pocket … [The investigator goes back to the gun-knowledge
issue—asking if he is sure his fingerprints will not be on the gun. Poorman sticks
with his claim he didn’t know about the gun.]
Apparently after reflecting on whether his fingerprints might be found on
Becerra’s gun, he decided to tell the truth … “I just wanted to drop him off and go
home dude” … “ I just wanted to drop him off” … “I don’t want to get in trouble
over this” … “I don’t want nothing to do with this” … “I don’t want to catch no
case over this” … “I first saw him with the gun days ago … he said look what I
got … it was at Harvey Park … look what I got … he had it in a bag … a revolver
… black and silver … top was silver … the handle was black … saw him with it
on Monday or Tuesday … I did touch it … he gave it to me and I gave it back …
I did not shoot it … I held the handle … held it just real quick and gave it back to
him … I swear to God I did not see it in the car … I saw it earlier in the day at my
house … he had it in his pocket … he didn’t pull it out … he had it in his pocket
… it was in his right pocket … saw the butt of it … I didn’t say anything … I
didn’t know he was going to do anything [he is now crying] … he maintained, “I
didn’t know he was going to do what he was going to do.” He stated he
(Poorman) did about 4 or 5 years in prison for a felony menacing with a knife.
The following is a paraphrasing of the pertinent portions of Denver Police Officer Ryan
Kobernick’s video-taped statement given to investigators at Denver Police headquarters after the
shooting. Officer Ryan Kobernick is a Patrolman assigned to the Traffic Operations Bureau. He
was dressed in full Denver Police uniform and driving a Denver Police Department marked
vehicle.
Officer Kobernick stated that he responded to the 7-Eleven store because a Colorado
State Trooper had a car stopped and the driver had a warrant out of Littleton … the Trooper
requested a Denver officer to respond … he responded … he talked to the State Trooper who
said the driver was wanted … driver was on cell phone to his father to pick up the car … the
suspect hung up the cell phone … the suspect came out of the car and he handcuffed him … he
searched him … there was nothing on him … he put him in his police car … he went to the State
Trooper and asked about the passenger … he had no warrants, but his license was revoked …
therefore he could not drive … he was not subject to arrest … he determined he could not drive
the vehicle … he was going to have him step out to be patted down and then let him walk from
the scene … he walked up to the passenger side and spoke through the window to the passenger
… told him to come on out … passenger opened the door … reached down in between the seat
with his right hand and came up with a silver colored semi-automatic … as soon as he saw him
(Becerra) bring the gun up he (Officer Kobernick) lunged with his right hand for his (Becerra’s)
right hand … gun was straight up in the air at first … he fired one or two shots … Officer
12 See attachment of “Diagram Legend” and photos of evidentiary items recovered by the Denver Police Department Crime
Laboratory. Item (Marker) #19 is described as a “suspected methamphetamine pipe.” It was recovered next to Poorman’s body
position.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
11
Kobernick continued to try to keep the gun up in the air … other officers came in … he thinks
the Trooper and two more officers came in … he was attempting to keep the gun up in the air
and wrestle it out of his hand … he has never had this happen before … he said he was surprised
… he thought he was going to be shot by him and other people were going to be shot … he felt
fear … anger … he knew he needed to get the gun out of his hand … he (Becerra) fired once or
twice and then they were on him … the State Trooper was in the Colorado State Patrol standard
uniform … he did not know where the third officer was from … all of the officers were in
uniforms …
The suspect never said a word to him … he (Becerra) was able to bring the gun down and
fire one or two more times … the officers were able to spin him around and throw him into the
side of the car … he (Officer Kobernick) still had a hold on his right wrist … his main concern
was to get the gun out of his hand … they pushed him into the car … he was still able to hold the
gun …they pulled him away from the vehicle … he thinks he (Becerra) shot another round …
Officer Kobernick said that some how he ends up lying on the ground … they fall to the ground
… he still has a hold of him … when he hits the ground … at some point he hears one or two
more shots … he then sees he (Becerra) has been shot in the head …
Officer Kobernick said he then walked to the right of front doors to 7-Eleven … then out
into the parking lot back by his car … he radioed and then saw blood on his face … he didn’t
know if he had been shot … he was bleeding from the nose … he looked over and there was an
Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff (Lieutenant Curti) holding his wrist … he figure he had been
shot … he told dispatch that there was another officer who had been shot … he sat on the
bumper of his police car … officers came and started checking him for wounds … he didn’t
know if had been shot … he didn’t think so, but he felt a sharp pain in his hip area … the officers
checked and told him to lie down on the ground … then the ambulance came and took him to the
hospital. He described his injuries as a broken nose … lump on the back of his head … his
knees were scraped up ... a scrape across the bridge of his nose.
In answer to follow-up questions by investigator Officer Kobernick said he yelled, as
soon as he saw the gun, “I yelled gun.” He (Becerra) never said a word. He didn’t remember
what anyone else said … he guessed he (Becerra) shot 5 or 6 times. Officer Kobernick stated
that he never drew his weapon. He said the reason was that when he saw him bring the gun up
… he just saw the gun … he didn’t think he had time to get his gun drawn … he just went for the
suspect’s gun to prevent him (Officer Kobernick) from getting shot or anyone else … he said
there were people in the store … people pumping gas … at least 3 or 4 officers around … he was
concerned for their safety. Officer Kobernick said that from the time he asked him (Becerra) to
open the door until he was on the ground was about 10 or 15 seconds. He said all he was using
during the struggle was his hands. He concluded by saying that he was just thankful that no
officers were killed and stated the other guys (officers) did a great job.
The statements of Colorado State Patrol Trooper Dennis Wilder, Wheat Ridge Police
Officers Barry Malloy and Keith Priest, and other citizen witnesses are consistent in pertinent
part with the above account of the incident. As is generally the case, there are expected to be
differences among the witnesses in their perception of what they saw and heard. The witnesses
made their observations from different vantage points and with varying levels of attentiveness.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
12
When all of the statements are considered in concert with the totality of the evidence gather in
the investigation, a clear picture emerges that is consistent with Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida’s
statement.
Dr. Coby Frank pronounced Becerra dead on July 27, 2007, at 1:43 a.m. On July 27,
2007, at 9:45 a.m. an autopsy was performed on the body of Carlos Jesus Becerra by Dr. Amy
Martin. Dr. Martin’s Autopsy Report states “death is due to complications of gunshot wounds
(two) to the head. The manner of death is homicide.” Becerra suffered two gunshot wounds to
the head. Wound number one was a “perforating gunshot wound, top of the head, with apparent
reentry back into the exit wound.” Wound number two was a “penetrating gunshot wound, back
of head, with a small retained fragment consistent with partial exit wound.” A “deformed, large
caliber lead slug, flattened on one side, was recovered in relation to wound number one, and
“two fragments of a large-caliber slug, the deformed jacket and a markedly deformed slug, were
recovered in relation to wound number two by Dr. Martin for testing by the Denver Police
Department Crime Laboratory. The Toxicology section of the Autopsy Report indicates that
Becerra tested positive for Ethanol, Benzoylecgonine, Delta-9 THC, Delta-9 carboxy THC,
Methamphetamine, and Amphetamine.
13
Detective Brian Cotter recovered a “crack or
methamphetamine pipe” in Becerra’s right front pants pocket at the scene.
14
Becerra’s firearm was recovered by members of the Denver Police Department Crime
Laboratory who processed the scene. The firearm is a Smith and Wesson, model 586, 6-shot,
chrome .357 magnum revolver. When the weapon was unloaded, cylinder positions 1, 2, and 6
contained fired empty cartridge cases and cylinder positions 3, 4, and 5 were empty—no live
rounds or fired empty cartridge cases. The cylinder has a counter-clockwise rotation. Cylinder
position 1 is under the hammer with position 2 to its right and position 6 to its left.
Unless the
cylinder was manipulated in a manner other than by pulling the trigger, the cylinder position of
the three fired empty cartridge cases (1, 2, and 6) vis a vis the empty cylinder positions (3, 4, and
5) supports the conclusion that Becerra pulled the trigger a minimum of six times and an
unlimited maximum number of trigger pulls. This is consistent with officer statements that
Becerra continued to pull the trigger during the struggle. Additionally, four live .357 bullets
were recovered “on the passenger side floor board and under the passenger seat” during the
search of Poorman’s vehicle pursuant to a search warrant.
15
The three (3) fired empty cartridge cases were recovered in and were matched to
Becerra’s firearm. The fired bullet recovered from Trooper Dennis Wilder’s boot, which
traveled through his foot before lodging in the sole, was examined by DPD Crime Laboratory
Firearm Examiner Ted Ritter who identified the bullet as having been fired from Becerra’s .357
magnum revolver.
At the time of shooting, Deputy Guida was armed with his service weapon—a .45 caliber
Glock, model 21, semi-automatic pistol. Sergeant Kevin Frazer, Denver Police Department
13 This is consistent with the statement of Julius Poorman concerning Becerra’s use of alcohol and controlled substances.
14 Also, see attachment of “Diagram Legend” and photos of evidentiary items recovered by the Denver Police Department Crime
Laboratory. Item (Marker) #19 is described as a “suspected methamphetamine pipe.” It was recovered next to Becerra’s body
position.
15 This is the general area into which Becerra reached to get the .357 revolver as he was coming out of the vehicle—according to
witness statements.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
13
Crime Laboratory, indicated on the “firearms unloading work sheet” that his firearm had one live
round in the chamber and nine (9) live rounds in the magazine. The magazine has a capacity of
thirteen (13) rounds. He was carrying the weapon with thirteen (13) rounds in magazine and one
(1) round in the chamber. This indicates Deputy Guida fired four rounds during the
confrontation. The four (4) fired cartridges recovered at the scene were matched to his service
pistol. Two of his shots struck Becerra in the head. Mr. Ted Ritter examined the fired bullet and
bullet jacket fragments recovered at autopsy by Dr. Amy Martin. He determined they were
“microscopically identified as having been fired” from Deputy Guida’s service pistol.
Crime Laboratory testing confirmed that Becerra fired three (3) shots—one caused the
wound to Trooper Wilder’s foot. It cannot be determined conclusively if either of the other two
(2) shots he fired caused the through-and-through wound to Lieutenant Curti. Crime Laboratory
testing confirmed that Deputy Guida fired four (4) shots—two (2) caused the wounds to
Becerra’s head. Testing determined that one (1) of the other two (2) shots fired by Deputy Guida
did not cause the wound to Lieutenant Curti. The spent bullet was recovered at the scene by
marker “13.”
16
Mr. Ted Ritter examined the bullet and determined it was “consistent in class
rifling characteristics” with Deputy Guida’s .45-caliber pistol and that it could not have been
fired from Becerra’s .357 magnum revolver. Mool S. Verma, Forensic Anthropologist,
examined a 2.5 by 2.0 cm piece of fabric that was recovered wrapped around the nose of the
spent bullet. Mr. Verma identified the fabric material as consistent in microscopic characteristics
with the fabric contained in the yellow/white shirt with red stripes recovered from Becerra’s
body after the shooting. The small piece of fabric was soaked with human blood. A saliva swab
sample was taken from Lieutenant Curti. DNA analysis determined that the blood on the fabric
was not Lieutenant Curti’s blood.
17
Sergeant Kevin Frazer, Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory, took possession of
Lieutenant Steve Curti’s 9mm Sig Sauer, model P226, semi-automatic pistol. The “firearms
unloading work sheet” indicates the firearm had one live round in the chamber and 15 live
rounds in the magazine after the shooting. Lieutenant Curti did not fire his service pistol during
the confrontation.
Sergeant Kevin Frazer indicated on the “firearms unloading work sheet” that Colorado
State Trooper Dennis Wilder’s .40 caliber Smith and Wesson, model 4006, semi-automatic pistol
had eleven (11) live rounds in the magazine and one live round in the chamber.
18
The magazine
has a capacity of eleven (11) rounds. Trooper Wilder did not fire his service pistol during the
confrontation.
Detective Kevin Herbert, Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory, indicated on the
“firearms unloading work sheet” that Denver Police Officer Ryan Kobernick’s .45 caliber
Beretta, model 8045F, semi-automatic pistol had one live round in the chamber and eight (8) live
rounds in the magazine. The magazine has a capacity of eight (8) rounds. Officer Kobernick did
not fire his service pistol during the confrontation.
16 See attached photo of scene.
17 See attached DPD Crime Laboratory photos of the evidence.
18 Sergeant Frazer provided a written statement clarifying his inadvertent failure to indicate a live round was in the chamber of
the weapon.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
14
In 2001, Becerra was sentenced to three (3) years in the Colorado Department of
Corrections on a conviction for First Degree Criminal Trespass. At the time of that offense he
was on probation for other crimes. His criminal history dates back to 1995 and since that time he
has had arrests for possession of burglary tools, motor vehicle theft (four times), second degree
burglary (twice), contempt of court, felony assault, escape (2000 & 2004), felony theft, first
degree criminal trespass (twice), disorderly conduct, false reporting, and parole violation (2006
twice).
Colorado State Patrol Trooper Dennis Wilder suffered a serious gunshot wound to his left
foot. The bullet entered between the toes on a slightly downward and front-to-back path
destroying bones before exiting through the bottom of his foot. The gunshot wound resulted in
the loss of an inch and one half of bone; bullet fragments lodged throughout his foot; and nerve
damage. Lieutenant Steve Curti suffered a serious penetrating gunshot wound to the lower left
arm/wrist area. Both officers received medical intervention for their wounds, were hospitalized,
and continue in their recovery from these injuries.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Criminal liability is established in Colorado only if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that someone has committed all of the elements of an offense defined by Colorado statute, and it is
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed without any statutorily-recognized
justification or excuse. While knowingly or intentionally shooting another human being and causing
their death is generally prohibited as homicide in Colorado, the Criminal Code specifies certain
circumstances in which the use of deadly physical force by a peace officer is justified. As the
evidence establishes that Becerra was shot by Deputy Guida the determination of whether his conduct
was criminal is primarily a question of legal justification.
Section 18-1-707(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes defines the circumstances under
which a peace officer can use deadly physical force in Colorado. In pertinent part, the statute
reads as follows: (2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another
person … only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary: (a) To defend himself or a
third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force.
Section 18-1-707(2) also provides that a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical
force upon another person . . . when he reasonably believes that it is necessary to effect an
arrest . . . of a person whom he reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a
felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or is attempting to escape by
the use of a deadly weapon; or otherwise indicates, except through motor-vehicle violation, that
he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless
apprehended without delay.
Section 18-1-901(3)(d) and (e) of the Colorado Revised Statutes define the terms “Deadly
Physical Force” and “Deadly weapon” respectively, as follows:
(3)(d) “Deadly Physical Force” means force, the intended, natural, and probable
consequence of which is to produce death, and which does, in fact, produces death.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
15
(3)(e) “Deadly Weapon” means any of the following which in the manner it is used or
intended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury: (I) A firearm,
whether loaded or unloaded; (II) A knife; (III) A bludgeon; or (IV) Any other weapon,
device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate.
Therefore, the question presented in this case is whether, at the instant Deputy Guida
fired the shots that caused the death of Becerra, he reasonably believed that Becerra was
directing or was about to direct deadly physical force against him or a third person, or had
committed a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, or was likely to
endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without
delay. In order to establish criminal responsibility for an officer knowingly or intentionally
causing the death of another, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer
doing the shooting either did not really believe in the existence of these requisite circumstances,
or, if he did hold such belief, that belief was, in light of all available facts, unreasonable. We
could not disprove any of these sections of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt as required by
law.
CONCLUSION
Becerra exited the vehicle wielding a loaded .357 magnum revolver. As the officers
attempted to subdue him, he fired three shots. While firing the shots he was attempting to get the
firearm in position to shoot the officers who were attempting to subdue him. Lieutenant Curti
and Trooper Wilder were wounded during the struggle for control of Becerra’s firearm. While
Becerra was engaged in these life-threatening actions, Deputy Guida shot and killed him. It
would be difficult to find a more clear-cut need to use deadly force to protect life. It is fortunate
that Deputy Guida was in a position to take this action. It was reasonable for Deputy Guida to
fear for his life and the lives of the other officers and citizens in the area. His deadly force
response was reasonable, necessary and legally justified under the specific facts of this case.
We commend Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida for his actions in
eliminating the deadly threat as quickly as possible, under these rapidly evolving and extremely
dangerous circumstances, thereby protecting all present from further harm at the hands of
Becerra. We also commend Denver Police Officer Ryan Kobernick for his initial quick reaction
in grabbing Becerra’s arm before he could shoot an officer or other citizens in the area.
Additionally, we commend Colorado State Patrol Trooper Dennis Wilder for his immediate
response to assist the other officers—suffering a serious gunshot wound in so doing. Finally, we
commend Arapahoe County Sheriff Lieutenant Steve Curti for his selfless action in tackling
Becerra, in “bear-hug” fashion, while attempting to wrestle the .357 magnum revolver from him,
as Becerra was firing shots. He placed himself at great personal risk of serious injury or death
and in so doing suffered a serious gunshot wound. It is reasonable to conclude if these officers
had not acted so effectively in concert with one another to eliminate the deadly threat, Becerra
would have caused more serious injury or death to others. We thank each of these officers for
their professional response to this life-threatening encounter and for their service to our
community.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
16
As in every case we handle, any interested party may seek judicial review of our decision
under C.R.S. 16-5-209.
Very truly yours,
Mitchell R. Morrissey
Denver District Attorney
cc: Arapahoe County Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida; Mike Lowe, Attorney at Law; Arapahoe County Sheriff
Lieutenant Steve Curti; Denver Police Officer Ryan Kobernick; Colorado State Trooper Dennis Wilder;
Sergeant Bruce Peterson, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department; Peter Weir, Executive Director, CDPS;
Kathy Sasak, Deputy Director, CDPS; Mark Trostel, Colonel, CSP; Lt. Col. Anthony Padilla, CSP; Lt. Col.
Richard Salas, CSP; Captain Mark Savage, CSP; Captain James Colley, CSP; John W. Hickenlooper, Mayor;
All City Council Members; Alvin J. LaCabe, Jr., Manager of Safety; Arlene Dykstra, Acting Denver City
Attorney; Marco Vasquez, Deputy Chief; Michael Battista, Deputy Chief; Dan O’Hayre, Division Chief; Dave
Fisher, Division Chief; David Quinones, Division Chief; Mary Beth Klee, Division Chief; Greggory LaBerge,
Crime Lab Commander; John Burbach, Captain; Jon Priest, Lieutenant, Homicide; Jim Haney, Lieutenant;
Detective Joe Delmonico, Homicide; Detective Randy Stegman, Homicide; John Lamb, Commander, Civil
Liability Bureau; Chuck Lepley, First Assistant District Attorney; Lamar Sims, Chief Deputy District Attorney;
Doug Jackson, Chief Deputy District Attorney; Henry R. Reeve, General Counsel, Deputy District Attorney;
Justice William Erickson, Chair, The Erickson Commission.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
17
Colorado State Patrol
Trooper Dennis Wilder
Enrique
Hernandez-Pineda
Edward
Jones
Passenger in Suzuki
Carlos Jesus Becerra
Driver of Suzuki
Julius Poorman
Arapahoe County Sheriff Dept.
Lt. Steve Curti &
De
p
ut
y
Sheriff Louis Guida
Wheat Ridge P.D.
Officer Keith Priest
Officer Barr
y
Mallo
y
Denver Police
Officer Ryan Kobernick
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
18
See attached legend of description
of items associated with the yellow
evidence markers in this series of
photos.
Area in which the
struggle to control
Becerra occurred
Marker #22: Carlos Jesus Becerra’s
Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
19
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
20
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sh
21
Sheriff Louis Guida
eriff’s Department
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sh
22
Sheriff Louis Guida
eriff’s Department
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
23
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
24
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
25
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
25
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
26
Fabric
The spent bullet fired from Deputy Guida’s service pistol with fabric wrapped around
the nose. The fabric was matched to Becerra’s outer shirt. The blood soaked into the
fabric and on the bullet was not Lieutenant Curti’s. Therefore, based on all the facts
developed in the investigation, it is reasonable to conclude this shot fired by Deputy
Guida did not cause the throu
g
h-and-throu
g
h wound to Lieutenant Curti’s arm.
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
The fabric wrapped around
the nose of the bullet matched
the fabric taken from
Becerra’s outer shirt.
Fabric from
Becerra’s out shirt.
Fabric from the nose
of the bullet.
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
27
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
28
Officer-Involved Shooting Deputy Sheriff Louis Guida
July 26, 2007 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department
28
he Denver District Attorney is a State official and the
Denver District Attorney’s Office is a State agency.
As such, although the funding for the operations of
the Denver District Attorney’s Office is provided by the City
and County of Denver, the Office is independent of City
government. The District Attorney is the chief law
enforcement official of the Second Judicial District, the
boundaries of which are the same as the City and County of
Denver. By Colorado statutory mandate, the District
Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of violations of
Colorado criminal laws. Hence, the District Attorney has
the authority and responsibility to make criminal charging
decisions in peace officer involved shootings.
The Denver Police Department was created by the Charter
of the City and County of Denver. Under the Charter, the
police department is overseen by the Office of the Denver
Manager of Safety. The Manager of Safety and the Chief of
Police are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the
Mayor of Denver. The District Attorney has no
administrative authority or control over the personnel of the
Denver Police Department. That authority and control
resides with City government.
When a peace officer shoots and wounds or kills a person
in Denver, Colorado, a very specific protocol is followed to
investigate and review the case. Officer-involved shootings
are not just another case. Confrontations between the police
and citizens where physical force or deadly physical force is
used are among the most important events with which we
deal. They deserve special attention and handling at all
levels. They have potential criminal, administrative, and
civil consequences. They can also have a significant impact
on the relationship between law enforcement officers and the
community they serve. It is important that a formal protocol
be in place in advance for handling these cases. The
following will assist you in understanding the Denver
protocol, the law, and other issues related to the
investigation and review of officer-involved shootings.
For more than a quarter century, Denver has had the most
open officer-involved shooting protocol in the country. The
protocol is designed to insure that a professional, thorough,
impartial, and verifiable investigation is conducted and that
it can be independently confirmed by later review. The fact
that the investigative file is open to the public for in-person
review at the conclusion of the investigation and review
process, permits not only formal legal reviews to occur, but
also allows for any citizen to review the case. This, perhaps
more than any other single factor, helps to insure that the
best possible investigation is conducted by all involved
parties.
When an officer-involved shooting occurs, it is
immediately reported to the Denver police dispatcher, who
then notifies all persons on the call-out list. This includes
the Division Chief of Investigations, First Assistant District
Attorney and Chief Deputy District Attorney, Division Chief
of Patrol, Captain of Crimes Against Persons Bureau,
Homicide Unit personnel, Director of the Crime Lab, Crime
Lab Technicians, and others. These individuals respond first
to the scene and then to DPD headquarters to take statements
and conduct other follow-up investigation. The Denver
District Attorney, Manager of Safety, and Chief of Police are
notified of the shooting and may respond.
The criminal investigation is conducted under a specific
investigative protocol with direct participation of Denver
Police Department and Denver District Attorney personnel.
The primary investigative personnel are assigned to the
T
Mitchell R. Morrissey
Denver District Attorney
Homicide Unit where the best resources reside for this type
of investigation. The scope of the investigation is broad and
the focus is on all involved parties. This includes the
conduct of the involved officer(s) and the conduct of the
person who is shot. Standard investigative procedures are
used at all stages of the investigation, and there are
additional specific procedures in the Denver Police
Department’s Operations Manual for officer-involved
shootings to further insure the integrity of the investigation.
For example, the protocol requires the immediate separation
and sequestration of all key witnesses and all involved
officers. Involved officers are separated at the scene,
transported separately by a supervisor to police
headquarters, and sequestered with restricted visitation until
a formal voluntary statement is taken. Generally the officers
speak with their attorney prior to making their voluntary
statement. A log is kept to document who has contact with
the officer. This is done to insure totally independent
statements and to avoid even the appearance of collusion.
In most cases, the bulk of the criminal phase of the
investigation is concluded in the first twelve to twenty-four
hours. Among other investigative activities, this includes a
thorough processing of the crime scene; a neighborhood
canvass to identify all possible witnesses; the taking of
written statements from all witnesses, and video-taped
statements from all key witnesses and the involved
officer(s). The involved officer(s), like any citizen, have a
Constitutional Fifth Amendment right not to make a
statement. In spite of this fact, Denver officers have given
voluntary sworn statements in every case, without exception,
since 1979. Since November of 1983, when the videotape-
interview room was first used, each of these statements has
been recorded on videotape. No other major city police
department in the nation can make this statement.
Officers are trained to properly secure their firearm after
an officer-involved shooting. The protocol provides for the
firearm to be taken from the officer by crime lab personnel
for appropriate testing. The officer is provided a
replacement weapon to use pending the completion of the
testing. The protocol also allows for any officer to
voluntarily submit to intoxicant testing if they chose. The
most common circumstance under which an officer might
elect to do so would be in a shooting while working at an
establishment that serves alcohol beverages. Compelled
intoxicant testing can be conducted if there are indications of
possible intoxication and legal standards are met.
The Denver Chief of Police and Denver District Attorney
commit significant resources to the investigation and review
process in an effort to complete the investigation as quickly
as practicable. There are certain aspects of the investigation
that take more time to complete. For example, the testing of
physical evidence by the crime lab—firearm examination,
gunshot residue or pattern testing, blood analyses, and other
testing commonly associated with these cases. In addition,
where a death occurs, the autopsy and autopsy report take
more time and this can be extended substantially if it is
necessary to send lab work out for very specialized
toxicology or other testing. In addition to conducting the
investigation, the entire investigation must be thoroughly
and accurately documented.
Officer-involved shooting cases are handled by the
District Attorney, First Assistant District Attorney, and
Chief Deputies District Attorney specifically trained for
these cases. At least two of these district attorneys respond
to each officer-involved shooting. They are notified at the
same time as others on the officer-involved shooting call-out
list and respond to the scene of the shooting and then to
police headquarters to participate in taking statements. They
are directly involved in providing legal advice to the
investigators and in taking video-taped statements from
citizens and officer witnesses, and from the involved
officer(s). They continue to be involved throughout the
follow-up investigation.
The Denver District Attorney is immediately informed
when an officer-involved shooting occurs, and if he does not
directly participate, his involved personnel advise him
throughout the investigative process. It is not unusual for
the District Attorney to personally respond and participate in
the investigation. At the conclusion of the criminal
investigation the District Attorney personally makes the
filing decision.
If criminal charges are not filed, a brief decision letter
describing the shooting is sent to the Chief of Police by the
District Attorney, with copies to the involved officer(s), the
Mayor, City Council members, other appropriate persons,
and the media. The letter is intentionally brief to avoid in
any way impacting the integrity and validity of the Denver
Police Department administrative investigation and review,
which follows the criminal investigation and review. This
represents a 2005 change from the very thorough decision
letters that have previously been written by the District
Attorney in these cases.
This change has been made because the Denver Manager
of Safety now writes an exhaustive letter at the conclusion of
the administrative review of the shooting. The Manager of
Safety’s letter can include additional facts, if any, developed
during the administrative investigation. Therefore, the
Manager of Safety’s letter can provide the most
comprehensive account of the shooting. In contrast to the
criminal investigation phase, the administrative process
addresses different issues, is controlled by less stringent
rules and legal levels of proof, and can include the use of
investigative techniques that are not permissible in a
criminal investigation. For example, the department can,
under administrative rules, order officers to make
statements. This is not permissible during the criminal
investigation phase and evidence generated from such a
statement would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution.
Officer-Involved Shooting Protocol - 2007
2
The Manager of Safety has taken a more active role in
officer-involved shooting cases and has put in place a more
thorough administrative process for investigating, reviewing,
and responding to these cases. The critical importance of the
administrative review has been discussed in our decision
letters and enclosures for many years.
1
As a result of the
positive changes the Manager of Safety has now instituted
and his personal involvement in the process, we will not
open the criminal investigative file at the time our brief
decision letter is released. Again, we are doing this to avoid
in any way impacting the integrity and validity of the
Manager of Safety and Denver Police Department ongoing
administrative investigation and review. After the Manager
of Safety has released his letter, we will make our file open
for in-person review at our office by any person, if the City
fails to open its criminal-case file for in-person review. The
District Attorney copy of the criminal-case file will not, of
course, contain any of the information developed during the
administrative process. The City is the Official Custodian of
Records of the original criminal-case file and administrative-
case file, not the Denver District Attorney.
THE DECISION
By operation of law, the Denver District Attorney is
responsible for making the criminal filing decision in all
officer-involved shootings in Denver. In most officer-
involved shootings the filing decision and release of the brief
decision letter will occur within two-to-three weeks of the
incident, unless circumstances of a case require more time.
This more compressed time frame will allow the Denver
Police Department administrative investigation to move
forward more quickly.
The same standard that is used in all criminal cases in
Denver is applied to the review of officer-involved
shootings. The filing decision analysis involves reviewing
the totality of the facts developed in the criminal
investigation and applying the pertinent Colorado law to
those facts. The facts and the law are then analyzed in
relation to the criminal case filing standard. For criminal
charges to be filed, the District Attorney must find that there
is a reasonable likelihood that all of the elements of the
crime charged can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
unanimously, to twelve jurors, at trial, after considering
reasonable defenses. If this standard is met, criminal
charges will be filed.
One exception to the Denver District Attorney making the
filing decision is if it is necessary to use the Denver
Statutory Grand Jury. The District Attorney will consider it
appropriate to refer the investigation to a grand jury when it
is necessary for the successful completion of the
1
See the “Conclusion” statement in the “Decision Letter” in the December
31, 1997, shooting of Antonio Reyes-Rojas, where we first pointed out
issues related to the importance of the Administrative review of officer-
involved shootings. Subsequent letters continued to address this issue.
investigation. It may be necessary in order to acquire access
to essential witnesses or tangible evidence through the grand
jury’s subpoena power, or to take testimony from witnesses
who will not voluntarily cooperate with investigators or who
claim a privilege against self-incrimination, but whom the
district attorney is willing to immunize from prosecution on
the basis of their testimony. The grand jury could also be
used if the investigation produced significant conflicts in the
statements and evidence that could best be resolved by grand
jurors. If the grand jury is used, the grand jury could issue
an indictment charging the officer(s) criminally. To do so,
at least nine of the twelve grand jurors must find probable
cause that the defendant committed the charged crime. In
order to return a “no true bill,” at least nine grand jurors
must vote that the probable cause proof standard has not
been met. In Colorado, the grand jury can now issue a
report of their findings when they return a no true bill or do
not reach a decision—do not have nine votes either way.
The report of the grand jury is a public document.
A second exception to the Denver District Attorney
making the filing decision is when it is necessary to have a
special prosecutor appointed. The most common situation is
where a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety
is present. As an example, if an officer involved in the
shooting is related to an employee of the Denver District
Attorney’s Office, or an employee of the Denver District
Attorney’s Office is involved in the shooting. Under these
circumstances, there would exist at a minimum an
appearance of impropriety if the Denver District Attorney’s
Office handled the case.
THE COLORADO LAW
Criminal liability is established in Colorado only if it is
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has
committed all of the elements of an offense defined by
Colorado statute, and it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the offense was committed without any statutorily-
recognized justification or excuse. While knowingly or
intentionally shooting and causing injury or death to another
human being is generally prohibited as assault or murder in
Colorado, the Criminal Code specifies certain circumstances
in which the use of physical force or deadly physical force is
justified. As there is generally no dispute that the officer
intended to shoot at the person who is wounded or killed, the
determination of whether the conduct was criminal is
primarily a question of legal justification.
Section 18-1-707 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
provides that while effecting or attempting to effect an
arrest, a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical
force upon another person . . . when he reasonably believes
that it is necessary to defend himself or a third person from
what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of
deadly physical force. Therefore, the question presented in
most officer-involved shooting cases is whether, at the
instant the officer fired the shot that wounded or killed the
Officer-Involved Shooting Protocol - 2007
3
person, the officer reasonably believed, and in fact believed,
that he or another person, was in imminent danger of great
bodily injury or death from the actions of the person who is
shot. In order to establish criminal responsibility for
knowingly or intentionally shooting another, the state must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the
shooting either did not really believe he or another was in
imminent danger, or, if he did hold such belief, that belief
was, in light of the circumstances, unreasonable.
The statute also provides that a peace officer is justified in
using deadly physical force upon another person . . . when
he reasonably believes that it is necessary to effect an arrest .
. . of a person whom he reasonably believes has committed
or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or
threatened use of a deadly weapon; or is attempting to
escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or otherwise
indicates, except through motor-vehicle violation, that he is
likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily
injury to another unless apprehended without delay.
In Colorado, deadly physical force means force the
intended, natural, or probable consequence of which is to
produce death and which does in fact produce death.
Therefore, if the person shot does not die, by definition, only
physical force has been used under Colorado law.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The following statement concerns issues that are pertinent
to all officer-involved shootings.
The great majority of officer-involved shootings in
Denver, and throughout the country, ultimately result from
what is commonly called the split-second decision to shoot.
It is often the culmination of a string of decisions by the
officer and the citizen that ultimately creates the need for a
split-second decision to shoot. The split-second decision is
generally made to stop a real or perceived threat or
aggressive behavior by the citizen. It is this split-second
time frame which typically defines the focus of the criminal-
review decision, not the string of decisions along the way
that placed the participants in the life-or-death final frame.
When a police-citizen encounter reaches this split-second
window, and the citizen is armed with a deadly weapon, the
circumstances generally make the shooting justified, or at
the least, difficult to prove criminal responsibility under the
criminal laws and required legal levels of proof that apply.
The fact that no criminal charges are fileable in a given case
is not necessarily synonymous with an affirmative finding of
justification, or a belief that the matter was in all respects
handled appropriately from an administrative viewpoint. It
is simply a determination that there is not a reasonable
likelihood of proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable
doubt, unanimously, to a jury. This is the limit of the
District Attorney’s statutory authority in these matters. For
these reasons, the fact that a shooting may be “controversial”
does not mean it has a criminal remedy. The fact that the
District Attorney may feel the shooting was avoidable or
“does not like” aspects of the shooting, does not make it
criminal. In these circumstances, remedies, if any are
appropriate, may be in the administrative or civil arenas.
The District Attorney has no administrative or civil authority
in these matters. Those remedies are primarily the purview
of the City government, the Denver Police Department, and
private civil attorneys.
Research related to officer-involved shootings indicates
that criminal charges are filed in approximately one in five
hundred (1-in-500) shootings. And, jury convictions are rare
in the filed cases. In the context of officer-involved
shootings in Denver (approximately 8 per year), this ratio (1-
in-500) would result in one criminal filing in 60 years. With
District Attorneys now limited to two 4-year terms, this
statistic would mean there would be one criminal filing
during the combined terms of 8 or more District Attorneys.
In Denver, there have been three criminal filings in
officer-involved shootings in the past 40 years, spanning
seven District Attorneys. Two of the Denver officer-
involved shootings were the result of on-duty, work related
shootings. One case was in the 1970s and the other in the
1990s. Both of these shootings were fatal. The cases
resulted in grand jury indictments. The officers were tried
and found not guilty by Denver juries. The third criminal
filing involved an off-duty, not in uniform shooting in the
early 1980s in which one person was wounded. The officer
was intoxicated at the time of the shooting. The officer pled
guilty to felony assault. This case is mentioned here, but it
was not in the line of duty and had no relationship to police
work. In 2004, an officer-involved shooting was presented
by the District Attorney to the Denver Statutory Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury did not indict. A brief report was issued by
the Grand Jury.
Based on the officer-involved shooting national statistics,
there is a very high likelihood that individual District
Attorneys across the country will not file criminal charges in
an officer-involved shooting during their entire tenure. It is
not unusual for this to occur. In Denver, only two of the past
seven District Attorneys have done so. This, in fact, is
statistically more filings than would be expected. There are
many factors that combine to cause criminal prosecutions to
be rare in officer-involved shootings and convictions to be
even rarer. Ultimately, each shooting must be judged based
on its unique facts, the applicable law, and the case filing
standard.
The American Bar Association’s Prosecution Standards
state in pertinent part: “A prosecutor should not institute,
cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of
criminal charges in the absence of sufficient admissible
evidence to support a conviction. In making the decision to
prosecute, the prosecutor should give no weight to the
Officer-Involved Shooting Protocol - 2007
4
personal or political advantages or disadvantages which
might be involved or to a desire to enhance his or her record
of convictions. Among the factors the prosecutor may
properly consider in exercising his or her discretion is the
prosecutor’s reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact
guilty.” The National District Attorneys Association’s
National Prosecution Standards states in pertinent part:
“The prosecutor should file only those charges which he
reasonably believes can be substantiated by admissible
evidence at trial. The prosecutor should not attempt to
utilize the charging decision only as a leverage device in
obtaining guilty pleas to lesser charges.” The standards also
indicate that “factors which should not be considered in the
charging decision include the prosecutor’s rate of
conviction; personal advantages which prosecution may
bring to the prosecutor; political advantages which
prosecution may bring to the prosecutor; factors of the
accused legally recognized to be deemed invidious
discrimination insofar as those factors are not pertinent to
the elements of the crime.”
Because of the difference between the criminal,
administrative, and civil standards, the same facts can fairly
and appropriately lead to a different analysis and different
results in these three uniquely different arenas. While
criminal charges may not be fileable in a case,
administrative action may be very appropriate. The legal
levels of proof and rules of evidence that apply in the
criminal-law arena are imprecise tools for examining and
responding to the broader range of issues presented by
officer-involved shootings. Issues related to the tactical and
strategic decisions made by the officer leading up to the
split-second decision to shoot are most effectively addressed
by the Denver Police Department through the Use of Force
Review Board and the Tactics Review Board process and
administrative review of the shooting.
The administrative-review process, which is controlled by
less stringent legal levels of proof and rules than the
criminal-review process, provides both positive remedial
options and punitive sanctions. This process also provides
significantly broader latitude in accessing and using
information concerning the background, history, and job
performance of the involved officer. This type of
information may have limited or no applicability to the
criminal review, but may be very important in making
administrative decisions. This could include information
concerning prior officer-involved shootings, firearm
discharges, use of non-lethal force, and other conduct, both
positive and negative.
The Denver Police Department’s administrative review of
officer-involved shootings improves police training and
performance, helps protect citizens and officers, and builds
public confidence in the department. Where better
approaches are identified, administrative action may be the
only way to effect remedial change. The administrative
review process provides the greatest opportunity to bring
officer conduct in compliance with the expectations of the
department and the community it serves. Clearly, the
department and the community expect more of their officers
than that they simply conduct themselves in a manner that
avoids criminal prosecution.
There are a variety of actions that can be taken
administratively in response to the department’s review of
the shooting. The review may reveal that no action is
required. Frankly, this is the case in most officer-involved
shootings. However, the department may determine that
additional training is appropriate for all officers on the force,
or only for the involved officer(s). The review may reveal
the need for changes in departmental policies, procedures or
rules. In some instances, the review may indicate the need
for changing the assignment of the involved officer,
temporarily or permanently. Depending on the
circumstances, this could be done for the benefit of the
officer, the community or both. And, where departmental
rules are violated, formal discipline may be appropriate. The
department’s police training and standards expertise makes it
best suited to make these decisions.
The Denver Police Department’s Use of Force Review
Board and the Tactics Review Board’s after-incident,
objective analysis of the tactical and strategic string of
decisions made by the officer that lead to the necessity to
make the split-second decision to shoot is an important
review process. It is clearly not always possible to do so
because of the conduct of the suspect, but to the extent
through appropriate tactical and strategic decisions officers
can de-escalate, rather than intensify these encounters, the
need for split-second decisions will be reduced. Once the
split-second decision time frame is reached, the risk of a
shooting is high.
It is clear not every officer will handle similar situations
in similar ways. This is to be expected. Some officers will
be better than others at defusing potentially-violent
encounters. This is also to be expected. To the degree
officers possess skills that enhance their ability to protect
themselves and our citizens, while averting unnecessary
shootings, Denver will continue to have a minimal number
of officer-involved shootings. Denver officers face life-
threatening confrontations hundreds of times every year.
Nevertheless, over the last 20 years officer-involved
shootings have averaged less than eight annually in Denver.
These numbers are sharply down from the 1970s and early
1980s when there were 12-to-14 shootings each year.
Skill in the use of tactics short of deadly force is an
important ingredient in keeping officer-involved shootings
to a minimum. Training Denver officers receive in guiding
them in making judgments about the best tactics to use in
various situations, beyond just possessing good firearms
Officer-Involved Shooting Protocol - 2007
5
proficiency, is one of the key ingredients in minimizing
unnecessary and preventable shootings. Denver police
officers handle well over a million calls for service each year
and unfortunately in responding to these calls they face
hundreds of life-threatening encounters in the process. In
the overwhelming majority of these situations, they
successfully resolve the matter without injury to anyone.
Clearly, not all potentially-violent confrontations with
citizens can be de-escalated, but officers do have the ability
to impact the direction and outcome of many of the
situations they handle, based on the critical decisions they
make leading up to the deadly-force decision. It should be a
part of the review of every officer-involved shooting, not
just to look for what may have been done differently, but
also to see what occurred that was appropriate, with the
ultimate goal of improving police response.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
Officer-involved shootings are matters of significant and
legitimate public concern. Every effort must be made to
complete the investigation and make the decision as quickly
as practicable. The Denver Protocol has been designed to be
as open as legal and ethical standards will permit and to
avoid negatively impacting the criminal, administrative, or
civil procedures. “Fair Trial—Free Press” standards and
“The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct” limit the
information that can be released prior to the conclusion of
the investigation.
Officer-involved shooting cases always present the
difficult issue of balancing the rights of the involved parties
and the integrity of the investigation with the public’s right
to know and the media’s need to report the news. The
criminal investigation and administrative investigation that
follows can never keep pace with the speed of media
reporting. This creates an inherent and unavoidable
dilemma. Because we are severely restricted in releasing
facts before the investigation is concluded, there is the risk
that information will come from sources who may provide
inaccurate accounts, speculative theories, misinformation or
disinformation that is disseminated to the public while the
investigation is progressing. This is an unfortunate
byproduct of these conflicted responsibilities. This can
cause irreparable damage to individual and agency
reputations.
It is our desire to have the public know the full and true
facts of these cases at the earliest opportunity, but we are
require by law, ethics, and the need to insure the integrity of
the investigation to only do so at the appropriate time.
CONCLUSION
The protocol that is used in Denver to investigate and
review officer-involved shootings was reviewed and
strengthened by the Erickson Commission in 1997, under the
leadership of William Erickson, former Chief Justice of the
Colorado Supreme Court. The report released after the 15-
month-long Erickson Commission review found it to be one
of the best systems in the country for handling officer-
involved shootings. We recognize there is no “perfect”
method for handling officer-involved shooting cases. We
continue to evaluate the protocol and seek ways to
strengthen it.
Mitchell R. Morrissey
Denver District Attorney
CONTACT FOR INFORMATION
Chuck Lepley, First Assistant District Attorney, Denver
District Attorney’s Office, 201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept.
801, Denver, CO 80202 720-913-9018
Officer-Involved Shooting Protocol - 2007
6
