STATEMENT REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF MARCH 2 2019 OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING © August 27, 2019 Categories: News, Press Release The State Attorney's Office has concluded its review of the March 26, 2019 non-fatal officer-involved shooting between Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Estanislau and a 17-year-old male. As part of our exhaustive and independent examination of this incident, we reviewed witness interviews, interviewed the 17-year-old, analyzed available surveillance videos and photographs, listened to 911 calls, visited the scene to reconstruct the event, reviewed Deputy Estanislau’s personnel records, subpoenaed medical records, discussed the investigation with our grand jury, met with attorneys representing the 17-year-old, and spent countless hours assessing the facts and applicable law. As with any incident involving the use of deadly force, either by a law enforcement officer or a civilian, our office must determine whether the use of deadly force constitutes a crime and whether it was justifiable self-defense. After our thorough analysis, we have determined that the facts and evidence of this incident cannot refute the reasonableness of Deputy Estanislau's actions in self-defense, and therefore no charges will be filed against him.The evidence presents a clear picture of most of the incident, although as with any event, there are some inconsistencies in the evidence that result from witnesses’ different perspectives and memories. At approximately 7:40 p.m. on March 26, 2019, Hillsborough County 9-1-1 operators received two phone calls regarding a domestic violence incident involving a 17-year-old suspect and his mother at the 1200 block of Skipper Road. The suspect's sister and grandfather made the 9-1-1 calls. The sister informed the 9-1-1 operator that there was no gun used in the domestic violence incident, but no information was provided about whether the suspect was presently armed. Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office was dispatched to the scene, as was Hillsborough County Fire Rescue for purposes of tending to the mother. The 17-year-old left the location of the incident and walked along Skipper Road before deputies arrived. Deputy Estanislau, a deputy since 2016, was the first law enforcement officer to arrive. He encountered the young man on Skipper Road and parked his marked Hillsborough County Sheriff’ Office patrol car approximately 20 feet behind him. Deputy Estanislau exited his car, began walking towards the young man, and verbalized that he wanted to talk with him. Moments after this initial encounter, Deputy Estanislau, while walking past the front of his, Vehicle, drew his service weapon and instructed the young man to show his hands. For a few moments after drawing his gun, Deputy Estanislau walked quickly towards the young man, who was walking away from the Deputy. Approximately thirty feet from the initial encounter, Deputy Estanislau fired two shots. Surveillance video from nearby businesses captures the incident just prior to shots being fired but does not show either Deputy Estanislau’s or the young man's actions at the time shots were fired. The first shot missed, and the second hit the young man in the upper back at a left to right angle. Deputy Estanisiau immediately began providing medical attention until back-up and emergency medical personnel arrived. Unresolved facts in this incident include the precise position of the 17-year-old's hands and body. The evidence indicates that during the initial encounter, the young man was holding a black smartphone in a black case near his waist with his right hand, which Deputy Estanislau mistakenly believed to be a ‘un. The evidence also indicates that the young man raised his hands in front of his chest and was walking sideways with his left shoulder turned towards the Deputy so that his right hand was not clearly visible to the Deputy. Additionally, at some moment during this encounter, Deputy Estanislau perceived an imminent threat from the young man that caused him to fire his weapon. The evidence indicates the young man was struck with his back turned diagonally away from the Deputy as he was ‘turning to run, although the precise movements of the young man's body, arms, and hands as he suddenly tured to run are unclear. What is clear is that these sudden movements contributed to the Deputy's belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great harm. The State Attorney's Office reviewed the facts and evidence to determine what charges, if any, were appropriate against the Deputy. Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, any person, including law enforcement, is immune from prosecution if the State cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that the use of deadly force was not justifiable self-defense. The perceived danger does not need to be actual but must be reasonable. Our office considered Florida law related to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, as well as culpable negligence. Deputy Estanisiau mistakenly believed that the young man had a gun, but his belief was not objectively unreasonable. Deputy Estanislau perceived an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and therefore his use of deadly force was not objectively unreasonable. Therefore, there is no legal basis to charge the Deputy with any type ofbattery. In order for the Deputy to be charged with a crime for culpable negligence, the State must be ‘able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Deputy Estanislau’s actions were so gross and flagrant that they demonstrated a conscious indifference to the consequences. Because the State cannot disprove the reasonableness of Deputy Estanislau's actions, his conduct does not constitute criminally culpable negligence. This shooting of an unarmed minor is tragic. The State Attorney's Office, however, cannot let emotion or undue speculation dictate our decision, We must faithfully apply the law to the facts—objectively and reasonably. We must always hold law enforcement to the highest standards possible. We recognize that we do not have a monopoly on perspectives in any situation, which is why we took the unprecedented step of having the grand jury review our investigation. Although we remain steadfast in our belief that no person—law enforcement or otherwise—is above the law, the evidence, in this case, does not support filing criminal charges.