Change in Gun Law Proposed

A state assemblyman from San Diego County wants to give a break to some law enforcement officers convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Under a bill filed by Jay La Suer (R-La Mesa), a law that requires increased prison time for those who use a firearm while committing a crime would exempt police officers and others “acting in good faith and in the performance of his or her duties.”

La Suer said his legislation was prompted by the case of an investigator for the Riverside County district attorney’s office who in July was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after shooting an innocent man to death outside the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission in Indio.

Investigator Daniel Riter in February 2002 was trying to detain a woman whose two children had been declared wards of the court when he shot Jesus Pena “Jesse” Herrera, who was giving the family a ride in his pickup truck. Riter was sentenced to seven years in prison, a sentence that included a five-year “enhancement” for using a gun during the crime.

“Law enforcement leaders are the ones who first pushed for this [gun law] as a deterrent to those people who use a gun to terrorize people,” said La Suer, a 31-year law enforcement veteran of the San Diego Police Department and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. “Law enforcement was not supposed to be a victim of the ‘use a gun, go to jail’ law.”

Herrera’s brother fears that if the legislation passes, other law enforcement officers who kill innocent people would avoid just punishment.

“My brother was an average joe who’d given some poor people a ride to pick up their welfare check and go grocery shopping,” said Juan Herrera. “My brother had no weapon ... not even a butter knife. But Riter was angry ... he shot my brother dead in cold blood.”

When Herrera was shot, the woman and her two children also were in the truck. Riter, 57, fired at the truck’s tires and engine and ordered Herrera to stop, and then stuck his handgun inside the truck and killed the Indio construction worker. La Suer said he sympathized with Herrera’s family but pointed out the challenges faced by police.

“We expect our policemen to be superhuman, to fear nothing, and to go to dangerous places and dark corners we’d never go,” La Suer said. “We then expect them to make life-or-death decisions in a split second without ever making a mistake. That happens 99.9% of the time, but I don’t believe this [gun law] was designed to punish them when that accident happens.”

La Suer’s original bill would have changed the law by providing an explicit exception only for law enforcement officials who are on duty and acting in good faith when they use a firearm. Had such a law been in effect during Riter’s sentencing, he would have received a two-year term.

The legislation was amended in the Assembly so that the exception to the gun law would apply to all citizens, not just police officers. The bill won unanimous approval in the Assembly on May 17 and will now be considered by the Senate. La Suer said he would urge the Senate to stick to his initial legislation and limit the exemption to law enforcement officers.

Riter’s former boss, Riverside County Dist. Atty. Grover Trask, said the legislation was unnecessary and bad public policy.

“I believe there is enough discretion in the law to allow peace officers to argue for mitigating factors,” Trask said. “It’s an especially bad bill the way it’s written now, allowing no [sentencing] enhancement to everyone, and even if they change it to be just for police, the Senate’s not going to make this a law.”

Herrera’s brother said officers convicted of felonies should not receive preferential treatment. He said he was troubled that the bill was submitted by La Suer, who has accepted at least $12,000 in campaign donations from various law enforcement unions and political action committees since January 2003.

La Suer said Herrera’s allegation was offensive and groundless.