Use of Deadly Force

Part II: Use of Deadly Force

Interview: Brian Davis

DA Investigator

Sonoma County (CA) District Attorney’s Office

Use of deadly force to protect society is the dark side of maintaining law and order. There comes a point when the mere presence of a uniform or a badge is not enough to force a violent person to stand down. To back away and allow police to do their job.

Police officers are not mind readers. The person they meet on the street might be a law-abiding citizen or a law-breaking criminal. Those they meet might be blinded by drugs, harbor a deep fear of going back to prison, or might be a violence-prone patient just released from a state mental hospital.

And an officer might only have a second to decide between life and death.

It is this awesome choice—and responsibility—that we focus on during today’s interview. It is a subject upon which public attention quickly turns whenever bad things happen. This public scrutiny falls on both those who used deadly force and those charged with investigating the incident.

Today, we’ll learn from a man who has been caught in this unforgiving situation many times. Brian Davis is currently an investigator for the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office in California, after nearly thirty years with the Santa Rosa  Police Department. Brian brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to this explosive issue.

MARK:  Let’s talk about another Hollywood misconception—the chasm between fiction and reality over forensic evidence. Here are a couple examples: DNA results before investigators even leave the crime scene; or blood samples typed and identified before the victim’s pool of blood gels. As an investigator, what do you know about the turnaround of these lab reports? What time frames are realistic as you work your way through the case?

BRIAN:  It sure would be nice to have instant results and instant access to all sorts of data bases but as you point out, that is total fiction.   DNA evidence is processed in controlled conditions in a crime lab that is usually associated with a government entity.   Some counties in California have their own labs; where I live, we have to send DNA samples to a lab that is operated by the State Department of Justice.  There are also federal labs run by the FBI, BATF, etc.  

DNA analysis is labor intensive and costs money.  Police managers have to make decisions on how to spend taxpayer money.   So, hard decisions have to be made during a criminal investigation about the relative worth of some crime scene processing.  Usually, in a homicide or sexual assault, there is no question about funds being spent for such work.  However, decisions are made has to how much and what type of evidence will ultimately be processed.  On rare occasions, DNA evidence may be sent out to a private lab but there are additional costs associated with those decisions.   

Here in Northern California, we are fortunate to get DNA results within 6 months of submitting samples to a lab.  Crime labs serve potentially hundreds of law enforcement agencies and they can only do so much with the personnel they have. Even if DNA evidence seems to be available, you need to do everything else in the meantime to complete your investigation.

MARK:  As part of the investigation, all witnesses must be interviewed either at the scene or back at the station. In our scenario, the wife is the only eye witness.  Neighbors may have heard the couple yelling, see the officer arrive, and heard shots fired. But only the wife saw what happened inside the dwelling except for the officer. She claims hubby did not arm himself with the knife and charge the officer. She alledges the officer shot and killed her husband with no provocation. You must play Solomon and find out whether she is telling the truth, lying to you, or just misinterpreted what happened. How do you get to the truth?

BRIAN:  Sometimes, you do not get the truth.   However, experienced investigators often have to put themselves in the shoes of the person on the other side of the table.   In this scenario, it is almost understandable that the wife would react in this way.   Sometimes it is due to shock at the situation so an immediate interview may not be the best time to talk to this person.  On the other hand, this is a great opportunity to build a rapport with the person by understanding that she is a victim.   If medical attention is not necessary, this would be a good time to bring in a victim advocate.   You don’t want to suck up to this person but you do need to understand what she is going through.   If she isn’t pressured right away, and recognizes that someone from the Police Department actually tried to help, maybe she will calm down and give you the whole story later.

If not, any statement is better than no statement.   Maybe there will be no way to reconcile her statement with that of the officer, but if she lies about one thing, she is likely to lie about others.   If you can diminish her credibility through other statements, then her version will speak for itself.   Of course, this is all assuming the officer’s version is completely true.  

Use of Deadly Force

Part I: Use of Deadly Force

Interview: Brian Davis

Senior DA Investigator

Sonoma County (CA) District Attorney’s Office

Every police officer plans for that moment of truth—shoot, don’t shoot. That point in time when they must decide in a split-second whether to take a life. 


Preparation for this agonizing decision begins in the academy for most officers. They learn how to use deadly weapons without hesitation while learning about legal and moral consequences when these weapons are used. Survival is hammered into them.

In that one fraction of a second their whole life may flash before their eyes. Officers may hesitate for a fatal second as everything they’ve been taught crashes down upon them. They know their world will go up in flames if they are wrong—loss of job, civil suits that may drag on for years, psychological damage that may tear apart their own family, and criminal charges. Many officers walk away from the job regardless of the outcome within five years.

And if they hesitate—death.

A use of deadly force investigation is one of the toughest cases for investigators to handle. The community expects justice, administrators expect the case to be expeditiously processed, and loved ones of the deceased often want their pound of flesh. The spotlight falls on both those who used deadly force and those charged with investigating the incident.

Today, we’ll learn from a man who has been caught in this unforgiving spotlight a number of times. Brian Davis is currently an investigator for the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office in California, after nearly thirty years with the Santa Rosa  Police Department. Brian brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to this explosive issue.

MARK: Brian, tell us a little about your background, focusing on your investigative experience involving violence crimes and officer-involved incidences. What variety of situations have you been called to investigate or supervise?

BRIAN: I spent nearly 30 years with the Santa Rosa Police Department and retired four years ago at the rank of Lieutenant. I was fortunate to receive extensive training in homicide, sexual assault, child molestation and other violent crimes prior to the serious budget problems that now face California. After my first seven years as a patrol officer (including assignments in traffic and hostage negotiation) I became a detective handling all types of violent crimes. Not only was I fortunate to have great training opportunities, I had a very demanding supervisor who himself had been a very accomplished detective. I learned a great deal about being a good detective, and later modeled myself after him as a supervisor.

At the time I was a detective, our department handled officer-involved shootings in-house. In other words, we did not have another agency come in and do those investigations as is the case in many agencies today. I seemed to always be on-call when one of these things happened and I felt a deep sense of personal and professional responsibility to do the most thorough and objective job possible on those cases. 

After five years as a violent crimes detective, I promoted to Sergeant and became one of the Field Training supervisors as well as running a patrol team. After a quick three years, I was assigned to supervise the Violent Crimes Unit (VCU) becoming one of the youngest Sergeants to do so. I enjoyed taking on the role of the Sergeant I had so much admired when I was a detective by mentoring detectives and demanding more out of them than they thought was in them. By now, the officer-involved shooting policies in the county had changed so that an outside agency would be brought in to do the investigation.  

After six years as the VCU supervisor, it was time to rotate out to patrol. I felt like I was pretty much done with Violent Crimes investigations but the Deputy Chief reassigned me as VCU's supervisor for a second tour of duty. I’m glad I did because I got to work with yet another group of highly motivated people that impressed me, my bosses, and most of all, did a great job putting together cases on the worst violent offenders in the community.   

I promoted out of Violent Crimes to Lieutenant, which gave me some other interesting opportunities, like managing our canine program. But it was the end to being the hands on law enforcement officer that I had enjoyed so much.

When I retired from the Police Department, I came over to the District Attorney’s office and worked as a District Attorney Investigator. After about a year, I was promoted to Senior DA Investigator (sort of like a Sergeant) so I guess I am starting the cycle all over again. DA Investigators work with other law enforcement agencies on homicides, officer involved incidents, and other major investigations. We are full time peace officers with subpoena powers and have the ability to conduct independent investigations such as in matters of political corruption.