Actions of Officer Slain in Simi Called Proper

Simi Valley Police Officer Michael Clark’s actions were “totally consistent” with police procedure when he responded to a check-the-welfare call at Daniel Allan Tuffree’s home last year, police experts testified Monday.

The fact that Clark was slain during a shootout with Tuffree was a result of the officer walking into an unprotected open area, a “kill zone” that could not have been avoided, one tactics expert testified.

“It is probably considered an ambush,” said Jerry L. Mulford, a retired tactics expert with the Los Angeles Police Department and a former academy instructor.

During his testimony, Mulford said Clark--who unsuccessfully knocked on Tuffree’s front door--was in a “very dangerous” position in Tuffree’s yard: exposed, without a place to take cover, and facing the tinted windows of the house.

“You have a lot of glass, which gives the person inside the ability to see you before you can see them,” Mulford said. “You have one way to escape, that is the gate.”

Tuffree, a former Chatsworth High School teacher, is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Clark on Aug. 4, 1995. He also faces charges of armed assault and attempted murder for allegedly shooting at a second officer during the gunfight.

When asked by Deputy Dist. Atty. Patricia Murphy whether he thought Clark’s position in the yard was appropriate, Mulford said, “It was probably the only one he had.”

Mulford was one of two instructors from the Los Angeles Police Academy--where Clark, a former LAPD officer, was trained--to take the stand Monday and testify that the 28-year-old officer responded to the situation in a textbook manner.

Using a hypothetical situation that mirrored evidence presented in the Tuffree murder trial to date, both witnesses testified that Clark’s actions were consistent with LAPD procedures for crisis intervention and tactics:

* He was correct in talking to neighbors before entering Tuffree’s yard.

* He made the right move in calling his patrol supervisor to the scene after one neighbor described Tuffree as “kind of a nut” and a man who owned guns.

* He properly drew his pistol before walking inside the yard and calling out to Tuffree, who was reportedly inside and possibly suicidal after taking Valium and alcohol.

“What we teach the officers is to defuse the situation,” said Sgt. Robert Medkeff, who teaches crisis intervention at the LAPD academy. “He is showing empathy and concern . . . he is telling him he is not in trouble.”

This approach, Medkeff said, was “totally consistent” to crisis-intervention procedures taught to academy recruits.

But on cross-examination, Tuffree’s attorneys questioned whether it was appropriate for police officers to remain in the yard, querying Tuffree after it was apparent that the man was not injured.

“You can see he is not unconscious or slumped over or bleeding,” Deputy Public Defender Howard Asher said. “At that point would you consider it appropriate to leave?”

But Medkeff said police officers have a legal responsibility to ensure that the person inside the house on a check-welfare call is safe.

“That is what we are paid to do,” he said. “We cannot just walk away.”

*

Richard Holly, Tuffree’s other attorney, told Mulford that other witnesses had described the situation as a tactical nightmare, and questioned whether there would have been a safer way to enter the yard.

“It is not a tactical nightmare,” Mulford testified, though he admitted the tactics could have been better without offering any specifics.

Mulford also said during cross-examination that in some situations a police officer could panic and fire his weapon before being fired upon. Tuffree’s attorneys have argued that a nervous Clark fired first, and Tuffree returned fire.

Testimony is scheduled to continue today with a visit to Tuffree’s Simi Valley home.