‘Moralistic’ Issue Cited in Deputy’s Firing

The Sheriff’s Department policy on officer-involved shootings has changed since four fatal incidents in the summer of 1991, and deputies are now being fired for new “moralistic” and “civil liability” reasons, the commander of the Lakewood sheriff’s station told a county Civil Service Commission hearing Wednesday.

Capt. John E. Anderson said it had taken him months to realize that the unannounced policy changes had been made. He testified on the firing of Deputy Jose Belmares in the slaying of a 15-year-old Montebello youth, David Angel Ortiz.

Anderson said only after several discussions with three superior officers did he realize that he had been wrong to assume that previous policies regarding shootings were still in force and wrong to believe that Belmares had been “within policy” in the shooting of Ortiz.

Now, Anderson testified, he understands that even if a deputy has stayed within the boundaries of the criminal code in killing a suspect, he can be fired if he has acted in such a way as to expose the Sheriff’s Department to big civil lawsuits.

In the past, he said, the policy had been that the deputy would keep his job as long as he had not committed a criminal offense for which he could be indicted.

No one then ever mentioned a necessity for a “moralistic” shooting policy as distinct from a legal one, Anderson said. But in the Ortiz matter, he said, Morris had justified the firing of Belmares in those terms and had told him “a reverence for life” should motivate deputies in such circumstances.

Altogether, at least 11 deputies have been fired in recent months in shooting cases, but no formal announcements have been made by the Sheriff’s Department because state law prohibits public statements on why a deputy has left the force.

Ortiz was shot in the back several times while fleeing, Belmares said, because he believed that the youth might be armed and about to attack him. The Ortiz killing has become the most highly publicized of the four 1991 shooting incidents.

Belmares is seeking reinstatement. The proceeding before hearing officer Michael Prihar has become a window on usually secretive Sheriff’s Department disciplinary proceedings.

In a key exchange in the hearing Wednesday, the dismissed deputy’s attorney, Richard Shinee, asked Anderson, the Lakewood station commander, how long he as a 25-year-veteran had to realize that departmental shooting policy had changed.

“Months,” Anderson replied.

How long had Belmares had to make up his mind whether the department’s shooting policy allowed him to shoot Ortiz, Shinee asked.

“Seconds,” Anderson responded.

He went on to testify that, aside from a generally worded statement of the department’s “core values,” issued by Sheriff Sherman Block, no one had apprised the deputies in the field that views at the highest levels of the department of what would constitute an improper shooting had changed.

Block could not be reached for comment on Anderson’s assertions.

Anderson also testified that he had lost confidence in Belmares’ “emotional control” after hearing a tape recording of his radio calls as he chased the youth before the shooting.

“He sounded like he was hyperventilating, to the point he was almost incapable of speech,” Anderson said.

He added that Belmares did not appear to be in a state of mind to rationally use his judgment in deciding to shoot the youth.

“As a result of this particular incident, I have some concern he would be able to maintain control” if he were reinstated, Anderson said.

Anderson was called as a witness after Sgt. Raymond Marlett, a departmental investigator, testified that he had objected to the way some facts had been presented at the meeting where the decision was made to fire Belmares. Block was present at that meeting.

Anderson said he had told fellow deputies that his intervention at the meeting “hasn’t done me a lot of good” with superiors in his efforts to be promoted to commander.