JEAN PETERS BAKER

Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney

March 23, 2023

Via Electronic Mail: mcw@wukelacom.com and dupree@adupreelaw.com

Sister of Tyrea M. Pryor
c/o Harry Daniels and Arimeta Dupree
The Law Office of Harry M. Daniels LLC
A. DuPree & Associates, LLC

Via Electronic Mail: sean@mccauleyroach.com

Police Officers and
c/o _________
__________________
____________________
_______, Missouri ________

Via Electronic Mail:

Chief Adam Dustman
Independence Police Department
223 N. Memorial Drive
Independence, Missouri 64050

Re: Law Enforcement-involved shooting on

March 11, 2022 at or near 24 Highway and Noland Road 1

All interested parties:

The Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office convened its Use of Force Committee
on multiple occasions to examine the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of a Civilian
by an Independence, MO, Police Department on March 11, 2022 in Jackson County. 2
The contemporaneously recorded audio and video demonstrates that Shooting Officer 1,
the first one to fire his weapon, did so only after observing what he believed was the Civilian
accessing and/or moving a pistol through an obstructed portion of the Civilian’s damaged

1
The main investigative file is identified as INDEPENDENCE O.I.S. CRN: 22-15499/MSHP
CRN 220123314. A copy of this file will be maintained for release upon request in keeping with
our policy.
2
The victim of the use of force will be referred to as the “Civilian” and the shooting
Independence Officers will be referred to as “Shooting Officer 1” and “Shooting Officer 2.”
vehicle. Shooting Officer 2, the second one to react and/or fire his weapon, reports to seeing
movement of a weapon in the vehicle, hears Shooting Officer 1 yell “gun” and fires.
The State is legally constrained by the available facts and law. While the facts of this
investigation conclusively demonstrate that Shooting Officer 1 was ultimately wrong in his belief
that the Civilian was moving a pistol, the law does not allow the State to analyze the
reasonableness of the force used based on information learned after the incident has occurred.
Rather, the law requires us to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Officers’ use of
force was unreasonable in light of the facts and/or information known at the moment they used
force. Because of this, there is insufficient evidence to overcome the Officers’ available legal
defenses. Accordingly, for the reasons stated more fully below, this office will not seek charges
against Shooting Officer 1 or Shooting Officer 2.
Summary of Facts
On the night of March 11, 2022, just before 8:00 p.m., Independence Police were
dispatched by a 911 call for a disturbance at 803 College Street. At that time, officers were
informed that people were “banging” on the caller’s door. In addition to this report, the civilian
caller reported to 911 dispatch that the banging sounded as if the people outside were intending
to kick in the door When officers arrived, a white Dodge fled from the driveway of 803 College
Street, and, although officers attempted to pursue with lights and sirens, they quickly lost sight of
the Dodge. The Civilian was the driver of the Dodge and inside that vehicle were two
passengers, Witness 1, who was seated in the front passenger seat, and Witness 2, who was
seated in the rear of that vehicle.
In her statement, Witness 1 noted that the Civilian, Witness 2, and she went to the
residence at 803 College to get items back for Witness 2. When they arrived, some type of
argument occurred. Witness 1 added that as they were about to leave, police showed up, and
when police turned on their lights, the Civilian “drove really fast” and fled from police. As
officers attempted to pursue in the direction that the Dodge was last seen traveling, they quickly
came upon a crash involving the Dodge and another vehicle.

Less than a mile away, at the intersection of 24 Highway and Noland Road, the Dodge,
traveling westbound, drove through a steady red light at a high rate of speed and collided with a
silver Toyota. The collision between the Dodge and Toyota was significant. The Toyota was
pushed across the intersection. 3 The Toyota was disabled, its airbags deployed, and it sustained
extensive front end and passenger side damage. It came to rest on the west side of the
intersection as shown below:

3
A link to a video of this collision is available here:
https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2157/March-11-2022-IPD-
OIS-Supplementary-Materials
2
3
 That collision disabled the Dodge which was left on the side of the road pointed northeast
as shown below:

There was substantial damage to the front of the Dodge, including its front fender and
front driver’s door. The Dodge’s front, side, and rear air bags had deployed:

4
 The deployed airbags and extensive windshield damage decreased the available visibility
for officers looking into the Dodge through the front windshield as shown here:

After arriving at the crash site, officers surrounded the Dodge with weapons drawn. Dash
camera shows Shooting Officer 1 quickly remove Witness 2 from the rear driver’s side of the
Dodge. Witness 2 is taken east out of camera view by Shooting Officer 1. As Shooting Officer 1
does this, Shooting Officer 2 is seen standing at or near the front driver’s side door closer to front
of the vehicle focused on the Civilian while officers approach and surround the passenger side of
the vehicle. At the same time, Officer Witness 1 crawls into the back driver’s side of the Dodge.

5
 In his statement, Officer Witness 1 stated that he climbed inside the vehicle to determine
if there were any threats in the car and to examine the extent of the injuries to the Civilian. After
entering the Dodge’s rear seat, Officer Witness 1 is seen unholstering his weapon.

Officer witness 1
draws his weapon.

After directing Witness 1, the front seat passenger, to move out of the vehicle, Officer
Witness 1 told investigators that he saw the Civilian’s right hand moving and this hand was close
to a silver assault style rifle that was lodged in the console area. After seeing this hand
movement, he gave commands to the Civilian to “quit reaching or I’m going to shoot you.”
Because the Civilian stopped reaching, Officer Witness 1 reports that he began to holster his
weapon and start his efforts to secure the assault style rifle by grabbing the “stock of it” and
began to attempt to pull the rifle out. It was in an around this moment, that he heard someone on
the exterior of the car say something like, “he’s reaching again, he’s reaching again..” and “he’s
got a gun…he’s got a gun.” Officer Witness 1 reported that, almost instantly, shots began to
enter the Dodge while he was in the line of fire from his fellow officers requiring him to take
cover in the backseat.
The video footage shows that Shooting Officer 1 did not see Officer Witness 1 climb into
the Dodge. This footage also shows that no other officer communicated that Officer Witness 1
had entered the Dodge. The footage shows that, upon returning to the Dodge from moving
Witness 2, Shooting Officer 1’s attention is drawn to the Civilian when he hears someone yell
“hey..don’t move your f*cking hand!” This command appears to have been interpreted by
Shooting Officer 1 as coming from one of the officers outside the vehicle. However, footage
shows that it is coming from Officer Witness 1 inside the Dodge, and this command, although
not verbatim, is wholly consistent with what Officer Witness 1 reported to investigators in his
statement. Upon returning, Shooting Officer 1 took a position at or near the driver’s side front
window next to Shooting Officer 2. In his statement, Shooting Officer 1 described that when
coming up to this area, he heard Shooting Officer 2 say something to the Civilian like “show his
other arm, his right arm.” At this point, Shooting Officer 1 began to try to get a better view of the
Civilian and to do so, he began to look in the vehicle. In doing so, he noted “a lot of
6
obstructions” because of damage from the crash and because of the deployed airbags.
Nonetheless, Shooting Officer 1 reported seeing what appeared to be the Civilian’s right arm
down towards his right leg.
He then stated “I saw the suspect’s hand moving and it looked like he was pulling back
towards his body and I observed a gun in his hand.” At that point, he yelled, “Gun!” Shooting
Officer 1 reported that, immediately thereafter, he fired because he was concerned that the
Civilian was attempting to engage with him and Shooting Officer 2. 4
Shooting Officer 2 also provided a statement. In his statement, Shooting Officer 2 noted
that after Witness 2 was removed from the vehicle, Officer Witness 1 climbed into the back of
the Dodge. Similar to Shooting Officer 1, Shooting Officer 2 reported an obstructed view into
the Dodge. Nonetheless, he reported giving commands to the Civilian to show his hands which
he described as continuing to “dip” or lower down to his waistband. From Shooting Officer 2’s
vantage point, he recalled Shooting Officer 1 returning to the front driver’s side of the vehicle
and, a short time later. He recalled Shooting Officer 1 yell “he’s got a gun!” At that moment,
Shooting Officer 2 reported that from his vantage point, he could see only the “butt stock” of a
rifle which was starting to move as if it was moving upward. As the weapon started to move and
as Shooting Officer 1 yelled “gun” and fired, Shooting Officer 2 fired.
The following picture shows the location of various officers, including Shooting Officer 1 and
Shooting Officer 2 just prior to the shooting:

Shooting Officer 1

Shooting Officer 2

The evidence shows that Shooting Officer 1 fired his weapon 9 times at the Civilian.
Shooting Officer 2 fired his weapon 13 times at the Civilian who was struck by multiple bullets.
A rifle was ultimately recovered from the Dodge. As shown above, although Witness 1, the front

4
A link to a video of the shooting is available here:
https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2157/March-11-2022-IPD-
OIS-Supplementary-Materials
7
seat passenger in the Dodge, and Officer Witness 1 were in the path of the multiple shots fired by
Shooting Officer 1 and Shooting Officer 2, neither were struck by the gunfire. Although aid was
rendered, the Civilian died as a result of the gunshots from Shooting Officer 1 and 2.
Applicable Law
This office has continually maintained that any examination of use of force by a law
enforcement officer in the State of Missouri must analyze the applicability of the legal defense
set forth in Section 563.046, RSMo. In some circumstances, Missouri law permits a law
enforcement officer to use force, even deadly force, in making an arrest or in preventing an
escape. 5 First, the officer must have a reasonable belief that the person being arrested has
committed or is committing a crime. 6 Second, if an officer determines that force is necessary to
effect an arrest, the officer can only use a level of force that is reasonably necessary to effect the
arrest or prevent the escape. 7 Moreover, the law does not require that an officer retreat or desist
from his or her efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.
When it comes to the criminal review of a police officer’s use of deadly force, specific
rules apply. In Missouri, a law enforcement officer can use force that the officer knows will
create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury only when the officer
reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by using a deadly
weapon or when the person being arrested may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury
unless arrested without further delay. 8 Even then, an officer can use this heightened level of force
only when he reasonably believes that the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect
the arrest or prevent the escape. 9
In the context of use of force, the term “reasonable belief” is specifically defined as a
belief based on reasonable grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to
the same belief. 10
This standard is based upon the holding in Graham v. Connor. In Graham, the Court
articulated specifics that must be considered in determining the constitutionality of an officer’s
use of force and held that an officer is entitled to use deadly force when a review of the
circumstances confronting that officer show that his actions were objectively reasonable. 11 The
Court held that a proper analysis of the reasonableness of the force used must examine the
totality of the circumstances, including the paying of careful attention to facts and circumstances

5
Section 563.046, RSMo, Missouri Approved Instructions (“MAI”) 406.14; See Tennessee v.
Garner, 471 U.S.1 (1985) (holding that deadly force may be used to prevent escape where
probable cause exists that shows that the subject sought poses a significant threat of death or
serious physical injury to the officer or others).
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
MAI 406.14. See Garner, 471 U.S. 11-12 (holding that a proper analysis of whether the deadly
force used was constitutional must include an examination of the totality of the circumstances,
including the payment of careful attention to facts and circumstances involved from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. This
analysis must also allow for the split-second decisions that often occur in these tense, uncertain,
and rapidly evolving situations).
11
490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989).
8
involved from the perspective of officer on the scene not through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. 12
The Court instructed that this analysis must allow for the split-second decisions that often occur
in these tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations. The Court held that any analysis of the
circumstances and facts must include a discussion of: (i) the severity of the crime at issue, (ii)
whether the victim of the force posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others,
and (iii) whether the victim is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. 13
In multiple cases since then, the Court has made clear that whether the use of force –
including the use of deadly force – is excessive is a fact-specific question that requires
considering whether the use of force was unreasonable in light of the events as viewed from the
perspective of the officer. 14
As specifically applicable here, this standard does not depend upon whether the belief
turned out to be true or false. 15 And Missouri law goes further: an officer has no legal duty to
“retreat or desist” from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person
being arrested. 16
As such, in this matter, the Officers were not entitled to shoot at the Civilian unless they
reasonably believed either that (1) the Civilian may have inflicted serious physical injury unless
arrested without delay; or (2) the Civilian was attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.
Even then, the Officers were authorized to shoot at the Civilian only if they reasonably believed
that shooting him was immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape. 17
In addition to the instruction on use of force by a law enforcement officer, if charged, at
trial, the Officers would also be entitled to the self-defense and defense of others instructions
applicable to civilians. Similar to the use of force instruction, these instructions allow a person to
legally use deadly force to defend themselves or others from what they reasonably believe to be
the use or imminent use of force against them or another that would cause serious physical injury
or death or to stop the commission of a forcible felony. Under these instructions, a person is not
required to retreat before resorting to using force to defend against such an attack. Finally, the term
reasonable belief is specifically defined to match the definition found in the use of force
instruction. See MAI 406.06.
Finally, we must be guided by the appropriate charging standard for prosecutors which
mandates that “[a] prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably
believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be
sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in
the interests of justice.” 18
Analysis and Conclusion

12
Id. at 397.
13
Id. at 396.
14
See, e.g., Mulenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015); Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012
(2014); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).
15
MAI 406.14
16
MAI 406.14.
17
Id.
18
ABA STANDARDS FOR PROSECUTION FUNCTION 3-4.3(a) (2015); See MO. SUP. CT.
R. 4-3.8(a).
9
 This office’s responsibility is to seek justice for the victim and the accused in a criminal
matter. This responsibility requires us to make decision on the evidence and law without fear or
favor.
Under Missouri law, the evidence shows that the Officers are entitled to a specific
justification defense for law enforcement officers using force. 19 The evidence shows that the
Officers did have a legal basis to stop the Civilian and the occupants of the Dodge, i.e. a call for
service involving a disturbance in which suspects who allegedly caused the disturbance fled from
the scene at a high rate of speed. 20
The next step in the analysis is to determine whether the force used in attempting to make
the arrest was reasonable. Importantly, the law does not require that a belief be found to be true
for it to be reasonable. 21 As noted, the applicable legal standard requires us to determine how the
facts reasonably appeared to the Officers at the time of the shooting. 22
The footage from the police vehicles shows that officers did give some commands after
seeing movement from the Civilian that they were concerned about. The footage also shows that
following the commands given by Officer Witness 1 and Shooting Officer 2’s expression of
concern about one of the Civilian’s hands, Shooting Officer 1 reacted to some perceived
movement from who he believes is the Civilian before firing his weapon.
Despite Shooting Officer 1’s belief that the civilian was moving a pistol, the evidence
shows that the Civilian did not have a pistol and it is undisputed that, while a rifle was recovered
in close proximity to the Civilian, no pistol was recovered from the Dodge. However, as noted,
the analysis does not conclude upon determining that Shooting Officer 1’s belief turned out to be
actually wrong. The law restricts the State to evaluating only what was known or reasonably
believed prior to or at the time of the shooting. Thus, the fact that the Civilian did not have a
pistol or, perhaps similarly, that it was debatable whether the Civilian in his post car accident
state would have been able to access the rifle lodged in the console area of the Dodge is not, by
itself, determinative of whether charges should be filed against the Officers. 24 Rather, the sole
question is whether there is sufficient facts to show that the Officers were unreasonable in their
beliefs.
Boiled down to its simplest terms, here, such evidence would be that the Officers knew
that the Civilian did not have a pistol or that they knew that the Civilian was unable to access the
rifle and still decided to fire their weapons at him. Nonetheless, the available evidence here is
that the Officers did not know these things and that the Officers fired their weapons in reaction to
movement that they believed involved a weapon, i.e. a pistol in the case of Shooting Officer 1
and a rifle in the case of Shooting Officer 2. Thus, there are insufficient established facts in this
case to demonstrate that the Officers beliefs were unreasonable at the time of the shooting.

19
MAI 406.14 [Use of Force instruction].
20
The specific violation would likely have been improper use of a turn signal pursuant to Section
304.019, RSMo.
21
Id.
22
Id. It should be noted that this is the same standard that applies in traditional, i.e. civilian and
civilian, self-defense. As noted above, both of these defenses would likely apply to this case.
MAI 406.06.
24
MAI 406.14.
10
 The facts of this case were highly unique. 25 Although it is not known, the timing of the
events and the weight of the facts available to the State raise questions about whether the
presence of Officer Witness 1 in the rear of the Dodge was mistaken by Shooting Officer 1 and
Shooting Officer 2 for movement by the Civilian who appeared to disregard commands of
officers. 26 Further, Officer Witness 1 reports having his service pistol drawn for part of this
encounter adding to the mistaken belief of Shooting Officer 1 and Shooting Officer 2.
However, even under this unconfirmed scenario, the law would not afford the State an
opportunity to charge for belief that was later demonstrated to be wrong even if that mistake
belief ended in tragedy as here. 27
Because of this, our Committee did not come to this decision lightly and this decesion
should not be interpreted as a statement indicating that the State believes the "right or "just"
thing happened. We must accept that our review of this incident is ethically and legally limited
to a review of the appropriateness of crimnal charges. The Civilian was only 39 years old at the
time of his death.He was a son, a brother, and a father. He was a member of our community, one
of the people that this office has sworn to represent. We offer our deepest condolences and
sympathy to the Civilian's family and loved ones.

Accordingly, we do not believe the facts and law support charges here.

Sincerely,

______________________________
Jean Peters Baker
Prosecutor for Jackson County

25
The State sought but was unable to obtain policies and procedures that were applicable to this
specific factual circumstance.
26
From the footage available, it appears that the officers did not openly or widely communicate
that an officer was entering the Dodge. It would also appear that no officer had taken control of
the scene in a lead role, adding to the disorientation by Shooting Officer 1 and Shooting Officer
2.
27
In addition to not supporting charges for murder, the evidence does not support other homicide
charges. The facts here do not show that the Officers “consciously disregarded” a risk that their
conduct would cause death nor did they “fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that circumstance exist or a result will follow.” MAI 414.10 (Involuntary Manslaughter in the
First Degree) and 414.12 (Involuntary Manslaughter in the Second Degree).