No Criminal Wrong Found in Taser Case

A San Diego police sergeant “acted precipitously and without good judgment” when he shot a man, who later died, with a police Taser gun in November, the county district attorney’s office ruled Monday.

However, the district attorney also concluded that a criminal charge is not provable against Sgt. Charles Mattingly and called on police commanders to determine whether the 39-year-old sergeant violated any internal police regulations in the death of Mario Gastelum.

Police Chief Bill Kolender said the department’s Internal Affairs Unit has already begun an administrative review into Mattingly’s actions. Mattingly fired four Taser shots, three of which struck Gastelum.

Will ‘Investigate the Matter’

“We’re going to do just as they suggest,” Police Chief Bill Kolender said of the district attorney’s report and recommendations. “We’re going to investigate the matter.”

But Roberto Martinez, head of the Coalition for Law and Justice, which has been monitoring the case, said he is not satisfied with the district attorney’s findings.

“I think this report is totally irresponsible,” Martinez said. “They shot him while he was handcuffed.”

He said his group will call for a county grand jury investigation of the death.

“This is deadly force and excessive use of a Taser gun,” he said. “It was a bad shooting, a very primitive and barbaric use of force. You can’t get more abusive than that.

“And we have to draw the line somewhere. There are just too many shootings and killings going on around here by law enforcement that are being justified.”

Assistant Chief Bob Burgreen said Mattingly, who joined the Police Department for a second time in 1982 and was working in central patrol, has been assigned to station duties. Burgreen said he expected the administrative review to take about two weeks to complete.

“It needs to be reviewed up the ladder,” he said.

Radioed for Help

According to the district attorney’s report, police were called to an Encanto neighborhood, where they found Gastelum, 24, dressed only in underwear and lying on his back in a storage area under a house, thrashing about and appearing to be under the influence of drugs. The officers could not safely remove Gastelum, so they radioed for assistance from their supervisor, Mattingly, because he carried a Taser as part of his special equipment.

The Police Department instruction manual describes the Taser as a non-lethal electronic control device, designed to be effective for temporary immobilization of violent subjects. The size of a large flashlight, it shoots a dart that can deliver 50,000 volts of electricity and immobilizes a person’s neuromuscular system, thus stunning him to control him.

The district attorney said Mattingly first fired one shot, but the dart missed Gastelum.

“Sgt. Mattingly fired again, with the dart this time adhering to Gastelum,” the report said. “A brief burst of voltage was applied, with Gastelum moving further away from the three-foot-square doorway.

“He was again commanded to move toward the opening and did so after the voltage was applied a second time. This permitted officers to reach in and grab him.” Gastelum was handcuffed behind his back. A cord-cuff leg restraint was also applied. He was driven by police to Physicians & Surgeons Hospital.

But on the way to the hospital, the report said, Gastelum again became violent and Mattingly was radioed to stand by at the hospital. As they arrived at the hospital, the officers had verbally calmed Gastelum down, but Mattingly told the officers “to stand clear” and immediately reached in and shot Gastelum with the Taser once again.

“Prior to doing so,” the report said, “Sgt. Mattingly had little if any opportunity to observe Gastelum’s condition at that time, had received no information beyond the officers’ earlier radio request, and did not make further inquiry of the need for use of the Taser.”

Hospital nurses noted that Gastelum was still breathing. He was placed in a small room with the lights out, designed to calm him. But within minutes he had stopped breathing, the report said, and was placed on life-support systems. He never regained consciousness. He was pronounced dead three days later.

The report said the use of the Taser did not directly cause Gastelum’s death. The coroner also did not attribute the use of the Taser as a cause of the death. The death certificate said cardiorespiratory failure occurred “during drug use, Tasering and restraint.”

The district attorney noted that nationwide, no case is known where use of a Taser has been the direct cause of anyone’s death or serious injury. And, the report said, “there is no credible evidence that the Taser was applied to Gastelum a greater number of times, or in a different manner, than heretofore described.”

But the report concluded:

“The use of the Taser at the scene, in initially subduing Gastelum and securing him in custody, was appropriate. Much more problematical, however, is Sgt. Mattingly’s use of the Taser upon Gastelum in the patrol vehicle, when he was already restrained.

“In our view, Sgt. Mattingly acted precipitously and without good judgment. However, his reliance upon the information in the prior radio transmission compels us to the conclusion that a criminal charge is not provable against Sgt. Mattingly.”