Officer’s Attorney Assails City Manager in Taser Case

The city manager’s office violated the City Charter when it intervened with top police officials to make sure a police sergeant was harshly disciplined for shooting a man with a Taser gun, the sergeant’s attorney charged Monday.

James Gattey told the Civil Service Commission that Assistant City Manager Jack McGrory side-stepped normal city policies and became personally involved in Sgt. Charles Mattingly’s case because of community concerns that the San Diego Police Department was not being tough enough in disciplining its officers.

By doing so, Gattey said, McGrory improperly allowed political pressures to come to bear in deciding how Mattingly should be punished for shooting Mario Gastelum with a Taser in November, 1987.

“There are no standards for the city manager to come down, take certain cases and dictate what the appropriate discipline will be,” the attorney said.

‘Violation of Charter’

When McGrory did that, Gattey added, “there was a violation of the City Charter.”

However, Nina Deane, a Police Department attorney who is defending the five-day suspension given Mattingly, told the commission that the charter does allow the city manager’s office to approve or reject discipline in serious cases.

“The City Charter allows for the direction and supervision by the police chief of his officers, but with the approval of the city manager,” she said.

Monday’s testimony brought to an end two days of hearings into Mattingly’s appeal of his suspension. The commission now is expected to rule within 30 days on whether to affirm or reject the suspension.

A 15-year police veteran, Mattingly was placed on light duty after he shot Gastelum with the Taser during an arrest of the drug suspect.

Under Influence of Drugs

Testimony in the case showed that Gastelum was under the influence of drugs when police found him writhing violently inside a basement crawl space. Mattingly shot him once with the electronic stun gun.

Gastelum then was placed in handcuffs and leg restraints, and carried into the back of a patrol car. As he was being driven to San Diego Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, he once again became violent and Mattingly was asked to stand by at the hospital.

When the car arrived, Mattingly opened the back door, reached in and once again shot Gastelum with the Taser gun.

The 24-year-old suspect died three days later, but his death was never directly related to the use of the Taser.

Police officials testified that Mattingly used excessive force when he shot Gastelum at the hospital, especially since the suspect was already in custody and had been hogtied and restrained inside the police car.

Chance He Could Break Free

However, Mattingly--speaking publicly Monday for the first time about the case--said he shot Gastelum because there was a very good chance that the drug-crazed man would try to break free from the handcuffs and harm the arresting officers.

“We would have had a violent confrontation right there,” Mattingly said. “Mr. Gastelum would have been injured and, in my opinion, the officers would have been injured too.”

Mattingly said he suffered for seven months after the shooting without knowing whether he would be charged with a crime in the case. The district attorney reviewed the shooting, but found no criminal wrongdoing.

He said he also worried over what discipline, if any, he would be given. He said he experienced emotional problems, visited a psychologist weekly, and suffered vomiting and sleeping disorders as the anxiety continued.

He said he was finally told by his lieutenant and his commander that they had decided he had suffered enough, and that a formal written reprimand would be issued to end the matter. But next he was told that the case “had been called upstairs” for review by the chief’s office and the city manager.

Attitude Toward Him Changed

He said he also noticed that the department’s attitude toward him changed.

“The department’s feeling for me was that this was a very political issue, highly publicized and perhaps embarrassing to them,” he said. “And they were not extremely pleased with me.”

Chief Bob Burgreen testified Monday that McGrory “wanted to be apprised before the final decision was made” on discipline, especially after the assistant city manager learned that a reprimand was being discussed.

Burgreen said he met with McGrory on three occasions to update him on the Taser case, and eventually sent Deputy Chief Mike Rice to McGrory’s office to discuss the final decision on discipline.

Rice testified that, although McGrory “was making the statement that this was worth 30 days” of suspension, they eventually compromised on the five-day suspension that eventually was given to Mattingly.

Interested in Following Case

McGrory testified that his office was indeed deeply interested in following the matter, so much so that he even talked to a deputy county coroner about the cause of Gastelum’s death.

“We decided this was a case we ought to keep an eye on,” McGrory said.

But he denied that he was responding to political pressures. Instead, he said, his office was only trying to make sure that all citizens are treated fairly by police officers, and particularly by police sergeants.

“Our expectations are that all citizens are going to be treated with dignity and respect,” he said. “But in this case, that didn’t happen.”