Personnel Complaint Opa 2018-012 Investigator: Sergeant Josh Clark

PERSONNEL COMPLAINT OPA 2018-012
INVESTIGATOR: SERGEANT JOSH CLARK
I. INTRODUCTION
Richmond Police Department Sergeant Josh Clark, of the Office of Professional

Accountability (OPA) investigated allegations that on April 30, 2018, Officer Brandon
Hodges (hereafter referred to as Officer Hodges) used excessive force when deploying
his K9 to apprehend a suspect later identified as Eduardo Huezo-Flores (hereafter
referred to as Eduardo)
On or about May 2, 2018 the Richmond Police Department Office of Professional

Accountability received an email thread regarding a citizen’s complaint regarding
alleged excessive use of force by one of our K-9 officers during an arrest. In summary,
the citizen claims the suspect was ordered to get on the ground and arms spread. The
citizen reported the suspect did what he was asked without resisting but the police
released their dog which bit the suspect. The citizen claimed the K-9 contact continued
for “some minutes” without the police calling off the dog.
The citizen wished to remain anonymous and did not want police contact.
This report contains factual findings based upon the information made available in the
course of the investigation and does not draw any legal conclusions. This report does
not purport to include every detail as described by the individuals involved, but rather,
assesses the important facts as they pertain to the incident being investigated.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Allegation #1: On April 30, 2018, K-9 Officer Hodges used unreasonable force to
affect an arrest by utilizing his K-9 partner who made K-9 contact
with the suspect.
Finding: Exonerated
Allegation #2: On April 30, 2018, K-9 Officer Hodges failed to verbalize a
department required K-9 announcement prior to utilizing his K-9
partner to affect an arrest of a suspect.
Finding: Sustained
Page 1
Confidential Report
III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Richmond Police Department Policy Manual (Adoption Date: 2013/05/10):
A. Richmond Police Department Policy Manual Section 318.2- Guidelines for

the Use of Canines- A canine may be used to locate and apprehend a suspect if
the canine handler reasonably believes that the individual has either committed
or threatened to commit and serious offense and if any of the following conditions
exist:
(a) There is reasonable belief that the individual poses an imminent threat
of violence or serious harm to the public, any officer, or the handler.
(b) The individual is physically resisting or threatening to resist arrest and
the use of a canine reasonably appears to be necessary to overcome
such resistance.
(c) The individual(s) is/are believed to be concealed in an area where
entry by other than the canine would pose a threat to the safety of
officers or the public.
B. Richmond Police Department Policy Manual Section 318.2.2 – Warnings

Given to Announce the Use of a Canine – A clearly audible warning to
announce that a K-9 will be released if the person does not come forth, shall be
made prior to releasing a K-9.
IV. METHODOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATION
The investigation consisted primarily of interviewing individuals of the Richmond

Police Department (RPD), interviewing the victim of the reported crime and
reviewing various records and documents. During the course of the investigation,
where possible, the investigator attempted to obtain corroboration of certain facts
from multiple sources. The credibility of the information gathered was reviewed
using several factors, including, but not limited to:
Source of the information;

Witness’ basis of knowledge;
Existence of corroborating information;
Period of time, if any, between certain events and the date of any
reported complaint relating to those events;
Motivation of those providing information; and
Page 2
Confidential Report
Ordinary experience and common sense of the investigator.
Additional Tasks Included:
Review of the City of Richmond Police Department Policy and

Procedures;
Review of the Richmond Police Department Code of Conduct
Review of IAPro tracking and various IAD case files and process;
Review of the City of Richmond Police Department Policy on Internal
Affairs and Citizens Complaints.
A. Interviews
All witness interviews were digitally recorded and uploaded to the OPA computer
server. All interviewees were admonished to keep all aspects of the interview
confidential, that responses to investigator questions were required to be
complete and truthful, and that City policy prohibited retaliation for cooperating in
the investigation.
Interview Subject Party Interview Date

Ofc. Brandon Hodges Subject 10/30/2018
Ofc. Matthew Meyer Witness 02/24/2019
B. Reviewed Documents
Exhibit No. Description

1 RPD report #18-5002 and all supplements
2 Officer Hodges AVR of incident
3 Citizen’s complaint email thread
4 Sgt. Nelson Canine Contact Memo
5 RPD Policy Section 318 – Canine Program
6 Officer Meyer AVR
7 CAD Notes
8
9
10
11
12
Page 3
Confidential Report
C. EVIDENCE, FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The U.S Department of Justice Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs
Investigations were used to adjudicate this investigation.
1) The burden of proof is on the agency.
2) The standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence.
3) The standards of evidence are those of administrative law, not criminal law.
4) No presumptions of truth are made regarding facts in dispute.
5) No presumptions are made regarding witness credibility: all persons are equally
credible unless an objective, fact-based evaluation of the witnesses’ capacities,
testimonial coherence, and other relevant and demonstrable factors justify
otherwise.
6) Conclusions are logically deduced from the evidence.
The following is a key to the terminology used in reaching findings as specified from the
Richmond Police Department Manual:
Unfounded: When the investigation discloses the alleged act(s) did not occur or
did not involve Department personnel. (Complaints that are
determined to be “frivolous” pursuant to Penal Code § 832.5(c) will
fall within the classification of unfounded).
Exonerated: When the investigation discloses the alleged act occurred, but the
act was justified, lawful and/or proper.
Not Sustained: When the investigation discloses there is insufficient evidence to

sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the employee.
Sustained: When the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to establish

the act occurred and that it constituted misconduct.
Page 4
Confidential Report
Statement Summaries
Anonymous Citizen:
The email sent by an anonymous citizen was sent in Spanish and was translated by
Sonia Bustamante, Chief of Staff in the Office of Supervisor John Gioia. The email was
translated to the following:
“3 Police Cars, 1 identified as El Cerrito Police Department (the others I

couldn’t tell their markings from where I was standing) (I’m declaring this
witness statement is a true statement, I’ve known this person for 49 years
and they want to remain anonymous) The police ordered a man (appeared
to be Latino) to lie down on the floor with legs and arms spread. The man
did exactly what he was asked without resisting. The man had a backpack
on his back (located at the street perpendicular to San Pablo Ave. at the
Trevino’s Restaurant and McDonalds, right across from Supervisor John
Gioia’s office). They proceeded to release the dogs which bit the man
making him scream. This continued for some minutes without the police
calling off the dogs. The witness can’t do anything but watch in horror. I
have this testimony in English – with all details can be requested from 4-
6pm.
Please investigate what happened- because this seems to be a civil rights

violation of an individual who was cooperative with police.
Eduardo Flores-Huezo:
Flores-Huezo was the suspect who was apprehended by the canine and placed
under arrest for commercial burglary, possessing a dirk or dagger, and resisting,
delaying, or obstructing an officer. Flores-Huezo did not contact or file a
complaint with the City of Richmond regarding the force used during his arrest. I
attempted to contact him for a statement. He was listed as a transient with no
address, phone numbers, or any contact information on the police reports or the
memorandum by Sgt. Nelson.
I conducted a person search to locate any contact information for Flores-Huezo. I

located a phone number that was entered on March 3, 2017 of
listed for him. I called the number which went to voicemail stating the number
belonged to a “ ”. I also found one address listed of
in Richmond also entered in March 3, 2017 and October 23, 2017. I went
to the address and attempted to contact Flores-Huezo.
Page 5
Confidential Report
I contacted resident . She identified herself as

Flores-Huezo’s cousin. She said he used to live there but he moved out
approximately two years ago. She did not have a forwarding address or phone
number for him. She said she hasn’t seen him in a while and believes he may
have been recently arrested for stealing a car. I conducted an inmate search for
Flores-Huezo and could not locate him as an inmate anywhere. Due to a lack of
contact information I was unable to locate and interview Flores-Huezo.
Officer Matthew Meyer:
On February 14, 2019 at approximately 1416 hours, I interviewed Officer

Matthew Meyer (hereafter referred to as Officer Meyer) as a witness officer. The
interview was conducted at 440 Civic Center, 2nd Floor in my office. The interview
was audio recorded and later uploaded to IAPro under OPA 2018-012.
Officer Meyer has worked for the Richmond Police Department for approximately
four years. Prior to Richmond, He worked for approximately two years with the
Los Angeles Police Department and one year with the Pittsburgh, CA Police
Department. He currently is assigned to Team 5 working Friday through Sunday
and every other Thursday from 1330-0100 hours.
Officer Meyer said he did not review anything prior to this interview. He recalled
working on April 18, 2018 and responding to a 459 commercial burglary in
progress at The Home Depot. When he arrived on scene he observed Officer
Hodges contacting the possible suspect with his canine. He said the dog was
already in the process of apprehending (biting) the suspect.
I asked Officer Meyer if he remembers Officer Hodges saying anything to him

when he arrived on scene and was walking up to Officer Hodges. He stated, “Not
that I recall”. He said he helped by placing the suspect in handcuffs and
conducting a search of the suspect. He did not have any specific recollections of
what was recovered from the suspect’s pockets. After assisting with the
handcuffing he responded to the Home Depot to assist in contacting the reporting
party.
I asked Officer Meyer if Officer Hodges made any comments to him regarding the
use of the canine or the canine bite itself. He stated, “No, not that I remember
anything specific.” I asked him if Officer Hodges has spoken to him about this
canine contact since the incident. He stated, “No.” I asked him what his
understanding of what the suspect was wanted for. He stated, “Commercial
burglary”. I asked him if he recalled any radio traffic by Officer Hodges that night.
He stated, “Not specific, no.”
Page 6
Confidential Report
I played Officer Meyer a portion of his AVR when he arrived on scene and was
walking up to the suspect. I stopped the AVR when he muted his AVR when he
and Officer Hodges were debriefing the call. I asked Officer Meyer if the AVR had
refreshed his memory and if he wanted to provide any clarification or statements
regarding what he saw. He stated, “We located knives on the suspect.”
I asked Officer Meyer if at any time did Officer Hodges give him an explanation or
tell him why he utilized his canine to apprehend the suspect. He stated, “Other
than what you heard (AVR) that he observed him sprinting with a
generator…that’s all I can remember.” I asked him if he spoke to Officer Hodges
anymore that evening or afterwards regarding the canine contact. He stated,
“No”.
Officer Meyer did not have any further statements or questions. The interview
was concluded at approximately 1423 hours.
Ofc. Brandon Hodges:
On October 25, 2018 at approximately 1421 hours, I interviewed Officer Brandon

Hodges (hereafter referred to as Ofc. Hodges) as a subject officer. The interview was
conducted at 440 Civic Center, 2nd Floor in my office. Officer Hodges was accompanied
by his representative, Justin Buffington, Attorney at Law with Rains, Lucia, Stern, St.
Phalle & Silver, PC. The interview was audio recorded and later uploaded to IAPro
under OPA 2018-012. Prior to going on the record, I provided Officer Hodges with the
following documents: Officers Rights and Obligations during Internal Affairs
Investigations (POBR Document), Officer Hodges’s RPD police report #18-5002, CAD
notes, CD with dispatch audio of call, and RPD Policy Manual Section 318-Canine
Program. I informed Officer Hodges I also had his AVR footage that will be reviewed
later in the interview. Officer Hodges elected “Miranda Not Waived” and signed the
POBR document which was signed by his representative as a witness. Below is a
summary of the interview, refer to the recorded interview for full details.
Prior to the interview, Officer Hodges said the only time he reviewed anything related to
this case was directly after the K-9 apprehension during the incident. He said he
reviewed the AVR to make sure his police report was accurate given the fact there was
a use of force. He has not reviewed anything pertaining to this case since.
Officer Hodges has been a Police Officer for the City of Richmond for approximately 5
years and 8 months. He is currently assigned as a K-9 Officer for Team 6, Junior
Graveyard, working Friday through Monday night from 2130-0630 hours.
Page 7
Confidential Report
Officer Hodges has been assigned as a K-9 Officer for approximately a year and a half.
He explained that K-9 training occurs once every month for one 10 hour shift and also
once every quarter they train for 5 eight hour days in a row. He explained that each K-9
officer does a lot of training on their own as well. He described training with their K-9’s
either on their off days at home or they will come into work on their off days to put in
more time training with their K-9’s such as K-9 demonstrations.
Officer Hodges said he has had 11 “K-9 Bites” in his K-9 career as well as
approximately 45-50 K-9 “give ups” where the K-9 was brought out but the suspect(s)
gave up without having to utilize the K-9 to make contact for the apprehension. I asked
him how many times he has had K-9 contacts of suspects during his K-9 career where
he was the only officer on scene. He stated, “Zero, besides this one”.
I asked Officer Hodges if he has had any prior K-9 training regarding “hot” calls or in
progress calls where he is the first officer on scene or on viewed the crime. He said they
have trained in direct apprehension during their K-9 training. He described the training
as a person is wearing their bite suit and when the K-9 arrives, the person wearing the
suit automatically begins to run and they send their K-9’s after the “suspect”. He said if
he did have to apprehend someone while he was alone he would leave his dog “on” the
suspect until a cover officer arrived and they could safely take the person into custody.
Officer Hodges said he was working on April 30, 2018 at approximately 0135 hours. He
was working the central district in the City of Richmond with the call sign of 1K5 (One
King Five) with his canine partner Gunnar. He responded to a call at the Home Depot
on San Pablo Avenue regarding a reported burglary in progress. He could not recall
what dispatch said that night regarding the suspect(s) or suspect(s) descriptions. He
said Officer Nguyen was in front of him and was the only other (patrol) car that could be
seen in the area. Officer Nguyen decided to go out on a van that was pulling out of the
driveway leaving the Home Depot parking lot. Officer Hodges passed him because
dispatch had said the suspect was on foot and was running southbound through the
parking lot.
Officer Hodges said he made a west bound turn onto Wall Avenue and that’s when he
saw the suspect. He turned on his “scene” lights which he described as the forward
facing white bright lights and the spot light. He did not remember how the lighting was in
the area. He saw the suspect pulling the generator east bound on Wall Avenue along
the south curb. He parked his patrol car, exited, and ran around to the passenger side
of his patrol car. He got his K-9 partner out of the car to confront the suspect. He said
he started to give the suspect commands such as “hey stop”, “get on the ground” but he
doesn’t remember exactly what he said that day. He “downed” his dog off to his right
and after he confronted the suspect he realized he needed to get behind cover because
Page 8
Confidential Report
he had been standing out in the open and he was by himself with no cover or backup.
He couldn’t hear any sirens coming and didn’t see anyone else around. He got behind
his car and used it for cover. He kept his dog down at this time. He was trying to talk to
radio while he was also trying to control his dog to make sure he didn’t do anything on
his own, as well as confronting the suspect whom he did not know was armed or not.
Officer Hodges described from his training and experience knowing that burglary
suspects do possess weapons and firearms in case they get confronted. He said he
was out there by himself confronting the suspect when it appears the suspect was going
to lie down. He said at the time it felt like 15 minutes because he was alone, didn’t have
any cover, couldn’t hear any sirens coming, and had never been in a situation like that
before as a K-9 handler. It felt forever to him in his mind and he was thinking “where’s
my backup” and “why is no one coming”. He realized every time he talked on the radio
his transmission wasn’t going through because his portable radio was “washing out” his
car radio. He said nothing was going through because normally dispatch would respond
with “Copy” “Code 33” “emergency traffic” or similar. He said they weren’t even
responding.
Officer Hodges said as he was confronting the suspect, the suspect appeared to be
high on some type of amphetamine or stimulant because he was “tweeking” or moving
around a lot, fidgety, and yelling. In his opinion, he felt that the suspect realized he
didn’t have any backup and tried to use that opportunity to flee. He described the
suspect as moving around, not sitting still, and possibly high on drugs. He thought the
suspect may have seen him talking on the radio and wondering where the other cops
were. He stated, “It appears like he tries to get up, like he’s trying to get up and push his
body up”
I asked Officer Hodges for verbal clarification because while he was providing the
previous statement he was making gestures with his hands and arms. He stated, “So he
kept moving his arms and it appeared to me like he was almost trying to or kept moving
to try to get into a pushup position while at the same time he’s moving around…his
head around. He’s looking at me, he’s looking towards my dog, he’s looking to the left,
looking to the right and that’s another common sign which I’ve dealt with many
scenarios where suspects knew that. They’ll look around…and their looking for a place
to run to. Maybe he’s gonna go hop a fence and try to get away from the dog real quick.
I don’t know or maybe… he’s trying to get up…hey no one’s around…any witnesses…
and maybe he’s gonna try to attack me or assault me, I have no clue what’s going
through his mind. So at that time I felt it was necessary for me to send my dog to
apprehend him. And then of course, just as it happened, Officer Meyer pulls up. Directly
after that, after the K-9’s already made contact with the suspect, Officer Meyer pulls up
on scene to cover me. And then that’s when Officer Meyer’s there, call the dog off,
Page 9
Confidential Report
Officer Meyer…um…handcuffs him. And sure enough once we search him I believe
there’s ammunition on him, some knives, so um…that was pretty much the incident.”
I asked Officer Hodges to explain what happens after the dog bite. He said the first
thing is medical attention for the suspect. He requested an ambulance to the scene to
treat the suspect as well as a supervisor for the use of force. He said the suspect would
eventually be booked into jail.
I asked Officer Hodges if he remembered what crimes the suspect was booked for. He
said he believed he was booked for burglary and resisting arrest.
Officer Hodges said Sgt. Nelson responded to the scene. I asked him if Sgt. Nelson
attempted to get a statement from him at the scene. He said Sgt. Nelson asked for a
summary of what happened. I asked him if he remembers telling Sgt. Nelson the same
thing he had just described to me. He stated, “Yes”. I asked him if there were any
other conversations with Sgt. Nelson regarding the K-9 contact. He said later on that
same shift he was at Sgt. Nelson’s desk and they were reviewing the body camera
video. He said Sgt. Nelson, “talked to me about the uh, canine announcement, just
make sure next time, he verbally counseled me, he said hey make sure next time you
give a canine warning prior to sending your dog.”
Officer Hodges could not remember if they both reviewed the AVR at that time or if Sgt.
Nelson had reviewed the AVR prior to them meeting at Sgt. Nelson’s desk.
I asked Officer Hodges if he recalled giving a canine warning prior to the canine
apprehension. He stated, “I don’t believe I did.” I asked him if there was any reason why
he would not give the canine announcement prior to sending his dog. He stated, “Yeah,
so that was the…like I said earlier that was the first time I’ve ever been in a scenario like
that, live scenario like that. Um…where I had no backup, no cover, knew no one was
coming, knew my radio traffic wasn’t going on. I was pretty much on an island by
myself. And it was me confronting a suspect and I don’t know…um…you never know
what the suspects are gonna do when they’re caught up in a position like that. And
when they have time, if he’s going to flee, if he’s going to try to fight you, hurt you, you
don’t know what he’s going to do. And in my opinion I had a lot, I had a ton of stuff going
on. So normally on when you’re taking a fel…a felonious suspect down you got three,
four, five, six, seven cops there. And everyone has a job and it’s a lot more calm down.
This was a very active, quick unfolding situation that happened. Where I’m trying to
control my dog as a handler cause they’re not on lead, they’re…we do all of our canine
stuff with no leashes basically so my control is verbal with him, with the E-collar. So I’m
continuously watching him, which is dangerous in itself because you’re taking your eyes
off the suspect. Trying to control the suspect and trying to talk on the radio. So there’s
just a ton going on in a very short amount of time.”
Page 10
Confidential Report
I asked Officer Hodges if he gave Sgt. Nelson any response regarding not giving a
canine announcement prior to sending his dog. He stated, “We talked about it. I mean
it’s, it’s agreed and disagreed because it’s a very grey area. In that scenario that was a
very special unique scenario where I had a ton going on and I was by myself and it was
a rapidly evolving scenario where it didn’t even process through my mind because I was
too busy. My mind was…ok I’m controlling him, controlling my dog and trying to talk on
the radio to get backup here so we can take this guy into custody. And I just, in my
opinion didn’t even have the opportunity. But he (Sgt. Nelson) didn’t give no, no clear
opinion…Hey you messed up, you should’ve done this. He just said make sure next
time you think to give a canine announcement if you can.”
I asked Officer Hodges to provide clarifying and specific reasons he sent his canine
regarding what he felt the suspect may or may not do and why he did not wait for
backup. He stated, “So, when I was sitting there confronting him…um…it appeared…1)
I had no backup so there’s no walking up and taking him into custody like you would
normally do. So it appeared he was getting up to flee. He could’ve been doing a million
things in all reality. I don’t know what’s going through his mind. But, he could’ve been
getting up to come get me. He could’ve been getting up to…which would’ve been silly
with the canine out there but who knows what these guys do especially when they’re on
narcotics…high…they don’t think straight they don’t do smart things. And I sent my dog
in order to apprehend a suspect who appeared to be fleeing.”
I asked Officer Hodges if at that time, besides the flight, he thought the suspects options
could potentially be to approach him, to attack him, or to assault him in any fashion to
get away. He stated, “Yes sir, pretty much anything. Or jump into the drivers’ seat of my
police car and take that for a ride.”
I asked Officer Hodges if he could recall what the suspect was wearing in regards to
potentially being armed with a concealed weapon. He stated, “So I do recall that he had
baggy clothing. Don’t…I couldn’t give you a description right now cause that was a while
ago. I don’t remember, but it was very baggy clothing and I do remember
his…something he could’ve easily concealed a weapon in. And sure enough once we
searched him he did. He had a…he had I think… I believe he had a couple of knives
and he had some ammunition on him.”
I asked Officer Hodges if he knew where Officer Nguyen was at the time he confronted
the suspect. He stated, “So as far as proximity he was close but he could not see me.
So Between us was a very large McDonalds with a drive through. So I’m on the other
side of McDonalds on Wall Avenue and he’s actually on San Pablo Avenue on the other
side of the McDonalds with that blocking our view. So, I don’t think he ever saw me over
there or even knew what I was doing. Plus my radio traffic wasn’t going through.”
Page 11
Confidential Report
I asked Officer Hodges if his portable radio and vehicle radio were working properly
before and after this incident. He stated, “Yes, they were functioning properly. Both
were. What happens is, if you stand…if you have your car radio volume loud, I’ve
experienced this a few times, it’s unfortunate but it does happen and it happens with a
lot of people. And even on the receiving end you can hear it too. But when the…your
portable radio is up kind of loud, and then your car radio is up, and the volume is up, it
depends on the volume too. If the volume’s to a certain point they will wash each other
out and you can’t even hear anything.”
I asked Officer Hodges if he recalled one of his patrol car doors being open which would
add to the squelch or feedback from the radio traffic. He stated, “Yes, I believe I know
for a fact, I believe my right rear canine door was open. Again, it’s hard to remember but
I believe…I did open it obviously to get my partner out. And then uh…at one point I
believe the right front passenger door was open but I’m not 100% on that.”
I asked Officer Hodges what the suspect was doing when he initially saw him. He
stated, “He was running eastbound pulling a very large generator east bound Wall
Avenue on the south curb towards San Pablo Avenue clearly fleeing from the Home
Depot which was directly north. And it made sense how the caller had put it out was he
had ran southbound through the lot. Well this made perfect sense why he was here and
he was running, continuing running from that area.”
I asked Officer Hodges if the suspect immediately stopped running once he saw him.
He stated, “No. He didn’t immediately stop. He was…he slowed down. He saw me,
slowed down, and appeared…like my opinion obviously I’m not in his head but
appeared like he was trying to figure out what he was going to do next, There’s the
cops. He slowly stopped to a jog and then released it cause it was a large generator.
And then was doing all his amphetamine movements and yelling and saying stuff I don’t
remember what he was saying. But he was clearly, in my opinion, high on some sort of
stimulant.”
I asked Officer Hodges to briefly explain his training and experience with regards to
noticing or identifying subjects who are under the influence of methamphetamine or any
other narcotics. He stated, “I’ve made probably over 100 arrests with specifically
methamphetamine. And that’s just a rough estimate; I don’t know the exact number. But
several drug arrests with people who use methamphetamine and sell
methamphetamine. A lot of the time the users have very specific erratic behavior. The
users, because it’s a stimulant, so it will make them almost very fidgety. They can’t stop
moving, they don’t necessarily always listen to you, they’re combative, they fight and
I’ve actually gotten in a lot of knock down drag out fights with people who are high on
methamphetamines because they don’t typically think straight. They’re not thinking
Page 12
Confidential Report
normal like a normal person who is sober, who is not under the influence. They also
have…they’re very strong. They have a lot of strength for whatever reason I am not
sure. Not a scientist can’t explain how it works but they’re typically a lot stronger than
you. You could go out on the scrawniest, smallest dude in the world and if he’s hopped
up on methamphetamines it’s gonna be…and he wants to fight you…it’s gonna be a
really good fight.”
I asked Officer Hodges what the suspect was doing when he initially got on the ground
and was in a prone position compared to a suspect who is in a prone position and lies
still until taken into custody by officers. He stated, “I’ve arrested a ton of people, a
majority, a vast majority of the people comply and your goal is to get them to comply.
Last thing you want to do is use a dog or use force to apprehend a person. So typically,
someone who is cooperative or necessarily not high, they’ll just lay down, they’ll prone
out, they’ll listen, they’ll listen to exactly your…what you want, what you want them to do
and they’ll listen and they’ll do it. This person, or a general person that’s usually high on
some sort of stimulant, they typically sometimes don’t hear you or they are so high that
they don’t understand. And they’re always fidgety, moving around, which is a problem
for us. Because unfortunately a lot of people in our city…there’s a lot of gun violence
and a lot of people carry firearms. The last thing I want to do is get shot and killed on
duty working. Especially confronting a suspect out by myself on a dark street who just
committed a felony and he kept moving his hands and would not sit still, kept talking,
turning his head, moving his hands. So I didn’t know what he was going to do. They’re
unpredictable.”
I asked Officer Hodges if the suspect made any verbal threats towards him. He said he
did not recall.
I asked Officer Hodges to review his report and after a short break the following
statements were obtained. I asked if after reading his report he would like to provide any
further statements or if his memory was refreshed regarding any details tht he would
like to discuss. He stated, “One thing I realized reading my report, I realized I forgot to
add in there was the different routes he could’ve gone while he was on the ground. I
realized I articulated or spoke about him fleeing but there was also the potential of him
coming to attack me, assault me, and shoot me. He was in a prone position, could’ve
very easily accessed a weapon at any point or came and attacked me, assaulted me.
He could’ve done various different things and I just forgot to put that in the report.”
I asked Officer Hodges what specific actions did he see or hear that led him to believe
the suspect was going to potentially resist arrest. He stated, “So, he kept moving his
hands which we don’t want them to do. Um…prone out, hands out like an airplane, lay
down…um…he was very…based off his…in my opinion high I guess…um he kept
Page 13
Confidential Report
moving…uh fleeing…kept reaching towards his waistband, back out. Kept moving his
arms and then he was going to get up. Now when he was going to get up or what I
observed in my opinion was him getting up was he was either gonna flee, he was gonna
attack me, hurt me, assault me. Was he simply gonna reach for a weapon and shoot
me? I don’t know what he was gonna do. Any of those things made me believe that way
and feel that way.”
I asked Officer Hodges if he attempted to get a canine administrative statement from the
suspect. He stated, “Yes.” He said the suspect apologized to him and said he was sorry
and that he was hungry and wanted to eat.” He said the suspect was speaking English
to him when he was talking. He said he could tell the suspect had a small accent but
they could clearly understand each other. He does not speak Spanish and did not
attempt to speak Spanish to the suspect.
Officer Hodges had nothing further to say or comment on regarding his report.
At this time Officer Hodges and his representative were shown Officer Hodges’s AVR
footage from the incident on my desktop computer monitor. I asked him if that refreshed
his recollection of any details he would like to add or provide a statement. He stated,
“No, sir”.
I referred to the AVR footage just reviewed by Officer Hodges and asked him about the
moment where the footage shows the suspect lying on the ground and then the camera
angle goes behind the patrol vehicles door blocking any view of the suspect and his
actions at that moment and shortly after he gives his dog the apprehension command
and sends his dog to the suspect. I asked him to describe what he saw or heard at the
moment the camera view was blocked by the patrol vehicle door and just prior to him
sending his dog. He said he did not recall.
I asked Officer Hodges to describe again his mindset and the reasoning he felt the need
to send his canine and gave the apprehension command. He stated, “Yes sir. So while I
was had my canine partner off and is down, I was trying to talk on the radio, speak on
the radio, realize it wasn’t going through. I was looking back behind me trying to see if I
had cover or backup coming. No cover, still there by myself solo, no backup, no cover,
confronting a potentially armed suspect who was now trying to get up, to either flee or
come attack me. But he was clearly, in my opinion, getting up to do one or the other and
that’s why I sent my canine partner to apprehend the suspect, to deter from any further
potential officer involved shooting or use of force. That was the safest best way for me
to do that was to use my canine partner.” He further stated, “He was continuously
looking around, not sitting still, not compliant. Not necessarily listening to what I’m telling
him to do and he gets up almost sort of in like a pushup position or pushes his body up
to…in my opinion…he’s either coming for me or he’s running to flee.”
Page 14
Confidential Report
I described to Officer Hodges that throughout the AVR footage it sounds as if he is

giving very stern “police voice” while he was giving his verbal commands to the suspect
but when he gave his dog the apprehension command it sounded like he used a calmer
voice than his other commands. I asked him to explain why he appeared to use a
calmer voice to his dog. He stated, “Typically we yell commands at suspects, try to get
them to comply. It’s kind of that…to deter them from doing anything stupid or to get
them to comply. So you typically yell at suspects. On this scenario it was feasible for me
to yell at the suspect so he knew clearly that I was verbally telling him what to do. With
the canine, he was right there right at my side, you don’t…we don’t typically scream or
yell at our dogs. Even in training, we train that way too. You don’t sit there and yell at
your dog. We simply give him his command in a calm, cool, collective voice. Cause if
you yell at the dog, the dog can sometimes get confused like well what am I doing
wrong? That’s the reason I calmly said it to him.”
I told Officer Hodges that after reviewing the AVR footage it did appear that there was
“downtime” where he was not talking on the radio or giving the suspect or his canine
partner commands which would’ve allowed him ample time to give a canine warning to
the suspect. He said he wasn’t sure about the timeframes in regards to giving a canine
warning prior to the apprehension.
Officer Hodges had no further questions or statements regarding this administrative

investigation. His representative also did not have any questions or statements
regarding this administrative investigation.
The interview was concluded at approximately 1540 hours.
Credibility Determinations
Officer Brandon Hodges:
Officer Hodges has been a police officer for the City of Richmond for approximately 5
years and 8 months. His recollection of the events and dates were good. He was
deemed credible.
Officer Matthew Meyer:
Officer Meyer had been a police officer for the City of Richmond for approximately 4
years. Prior to the City of Richmond, he worked as an officer for the City of Pittsburgh
for 1 year and the City of Los Angeles for 2 years. His recollection of the events was
good. He was deemed credible.
Page 15
Confidential Report
Findings and Analysis
Allegation #1: On April 30, 2018, K-9 Officer Hodges used unreasonable force to
affect an arrest by utilizing his K-9 partner who made K-9 contact
with the suspect.
Finding: Exonerated
The investigator makes the following findings:
On April 30, 2018 at approximately 0135 hours, Officer Hodges responded to a

commercial burglary in progress at the Home Depot on San Pablo Avenue. He located
the suspect running from the scene with the reported stolen property in tow. The
suspect was wearing baggy clothing and was wearing a backpack at the time Officer
Hodges located him.
Officer Hodges confronted the suspect by giving him verbal commands to “get down”
and “let me see your hands”. Officer Hodges is heard on AVR telling the suspect
multiple times to “get down” and telling him twice to “let me see your hands”. Officer
Hodges is also heard on AVR telling the suspect “Hey, you better stop!”
Officer Hodges described the suspect as not listening, fidgety, and yelling. Due to the
objective signs, Officer Hodges believed the suspect was under the influence of a
stimulant such as methamphetamine.
Officer Hodges attempts to broadcast his location as well as the fact he was out with the
suspect but his portable radio and patrol car radio “washed out” his transmission and
could not be heard. He sees the suspect looking around possibly looking for an avenue
of escape or sees that Officer Hodges is alone with no cover. The suspect then
appears to be pushing himself off the ground to get up. Officer Hodges does not know if
the suspect is going to attempt to run away or attack him. The suspect has not been
searched for weapons, is wearing baggy clothing and a backpack.
Officer Hodges described the specific actions he saw or heard that led him to believe
the suspect was going to potentially resist arrest as:
“So, he kept moving his hands which we don’t want them to do.
Um…prone out, hands out like an airplane, lay down…um…he was
very…based off his…in my opinion high I guess…um he kept moving…uh
fleeing…kept reaching towards his waistband, back out. Kept moving his
arms and then he was going to get up. Now when he was going to get up
or what I observed in my opinion was him getting up was he was either
gonna flee, he was gonna attack me, hurt me, assault me. Was he simply
Page 16
Confidential Report
gonna reach for a weapon and shoot me? I don’t know what he was
gonna do. Any of those things made me believe that way and feel that
way.”
Officer Hodges’s AVR footage shows the suspect lying on the ground but it also
confirms that the suspect can be seen moving prior to the dog being sent in to
apprehend the suspect. The suspect can be seen leaning on his left side and moving
his right arm. The AVR footage also has audio confirming Officer Hodges ordered the
suspect to get on the ground on five separate occasions. Officer Hodges also ordered
the suspect to “let me see your hands” twice. On another occasion Officer Hodges can
be heard telling the suspect “Hey, you better stop!” All of these verbal orders by Officer
Hodges are consistent and support his account of the suspect not doing what he was
told, acting fidgety, and moving around. The following is a listing of timestamps and
what Officer Hodges can be heard saying on his AVR:
0:39 “Get down!”
0:44 “Get down; let me see your hands!”
0:55 “Get down now!”
1:00 “Let me see your hands!”
1:11 “Hey, you better stop!”
1:15 Officer Hodges attempt to broadcast over his handheld radio
1:26 Officer Hodges gives his dog the send command and the dog
contacts the suspect
Between the AVR timestamps of 1:11 from “Hey, you better stop” to the timestamp of
1:26 when Officer Hodges gives his dog the command to apprehend the suspect, his
AVR shows the interior of his opened patrol car which he is behind for cover. AT no
point in time during this timeframe is the suspect seen on the AVR footage.
Officer Hodges described his mindset regarding the decision to send his dog as follows:
“No cover, still there by myself solo, no backup, no cover, confronting a

potentially armed suspect who was now trying to get up, to either flee or
come attack me. But he was clearly, in my opinion, getting up to do one
or the other and that’s why I sent my canine partner to apprehend the
Page 17
Confidential Report
suspect, to deter from any further potential officer involved shooting or

use of force. That was the safest best way for me to do that was to use
my canine partner.” He further stated, “He was continuously looking
around, not sitting still, not compliant. Not necessarily listening to what
I’m telling him to do and he gets up almost sort of in like a pushup
position or pushes his body up to…in my opinion…he’s either coming for
me or he’s running to flee.”
After the subject was detained in handcuffs, a search incident to his arrest led to
the discovery of a large knife in his front waistband, a smaller knife in his pocket,
and several loose bullets in his pocket as well.
Officer Meyer said he arrived on scene when Officer Hodges canine partner was
already in the process of taking the suspect into custody (biting). He said he
could not recall Officer Hodges saying anything specific about the canine contact
or the reason he utilized his canine to apprehend the suspect minus the want for
commercial burglary.
I reviewed Officer Meyer’s AVR and the footage starts when Officer Hodges
canine partner was in contact with the suspect. The footage is consistent with
the statements provided by Officer Meyer.
Sgt. Nelson authored a canine memorandum regarding this incident. Sgt. Nelson
found that Officer Hodges was within policy when Officer Hodges utilized his
canine partner to apprehend the suspect. Sgt. Nelson did find that Officer
Hodges neglected to give a formal canine announcement prior to sending his
canine partner in for the apprehension. Sgt. Nelson found Officer Hodges to be
in violation of RPD Policy Section 318.2.2 for not giving a loud verbal warning to
the suspect prior to deploying his canine. Sgt. Nelson believed a lack of training
played a role in Officer Hodges not providing a verbal warning and recommended
further training for Officer Hodges related to on-view apprehensions.
Sgt. Nelson cited that Officer Hodges was by himself and was unsure if other
officers had heard his radio traffic and was unsure if back was coming. Sgt.
Nelson cited the suspect appeared to be intoxicated, made several movements
with his hands, and he gave Officer Hodges reason to believe he would attempt
to resist or flee. It was also noted that upon his arrest, the suspect was found to
be in possession of a large knife which had been concealed in his waistband as
well as one 9mm round of ammunition and one .22 caliber round of ammunition.
Page 18
Confidential Report
Based on statements provided by the anonymous complainant, Officer Meyer, Officer

Hodges coupled with Sgt. Nelson’s memorandum, and AVR footage, I recommend
allegation #1 be - Exonerated.
Allegation #2: On April 30, 2018, K-9 Officer Hodges failed to verbalize a
department required K-9 announcement prior to utilizing his K-9
partner to affect an arrest of a suspect.
Finding: Sustained
The investigator makes the following findings:
On April 30, 2018 at approximately 0135 hours, Officer Hodges responded to a

commercial burglary in progress at the Home Depot on San Pablo Avenue. He located
the suspect running from the scene with the stolen property in tow. Officer Hodges AVR
footage depicts the following contact between him and the suspect. The time depicted is
based off of Officer Hodges AVR recording:
0:44 “Get down; let me see your hands!”
0:55 “Get down now!”
1:00 “Let me see your hands!”
1:11 “Hey, you better stop!”
1:15 Officer Hodges attempt to broadcast over his handheld radio
1:26 Officer Hodges gives his dog the send command and the dog
contacts the suspect
The suspect was wearing baggy clothing and had a backpack on his back. Due to the
suspect’s clothing, movements, and perceived objective signs of narcotic intoxication,
Officer Hodges believed that the suspect was going to flee or possibly confront and
attempt to attack or assault him so he sent his canine partner to apprehend the suspect.
Officer Hodges failed to give a canine warning to the suspect prior to sending his
canine.
Page 19
Confidential Report
During Officer Hodges contact with and verbal commands to the suspect, he appeared
to have ample time to make the canine warning per policy.
Sgt. Nelson authored a canine memorandum and cited the fact Officer Hodges failed to
give a loud verbal warning prior to deploying his canine partner. Sgt. Nelson found
Officer Hodges to be in violation of RPD Manual Section 318.2.2 Warnings Given to
Announce the Use of a Canine.
Based on statements provided by the anonymous complainant and Officer Hodges

coupled with AVR footage and Sgt. Nelson’s memorandum, I recommend allegation #2
be - Sustained. Officer Hodges is in violation of the following:
Richmond Police Department Policy Manual Section 318.2.2 – Warnings Given to

Announce the Use of a Canine – A clearly audible warning to announce that a K-9 will
be released if the person does not come forth, shall be made prior to releasing a K-9.
Page 20
Confidential Report
9/7/2020 Incident Summary
Richmond PD
Use Of Force Report
Incident Entered By: Officer Brandon Hodges - 1655
Assigned Investigator: [Incident pending assignment]
Incident Details
Date Received Date of Occurrence Time of Occurrence

4/30/2018 4/30/2018 01:35
Record ID # Case No IA Number
4593 18-5002 UOF2018-066
Date/Time Entered
4/30/2018 02:53
Incident Summary
On 04-30-2018 at approximately 0135 hours, I responded to a burglary in progress at the Home Depot store
located at 11939 San Pablo Ave The reporting party stated that a Hispanic male wearing a white shirt just
stole a generator from the store. The suspect was last observed running southbound behind the Mcdonalds
located at Wall Ave and San Pablo Ave. I observed the suspect fleeing eastbound along the SCL of Wall Ave
towards me and San Pablo Ave. The suspect was still running with the generator that was taken. The suspect
also matched the description The suspect failed tr comply and was apprehended with K 9 contact The
suspect was searched and two rounds of live ammunition on his person. The suspect was also in possession
of a concealed dirk or dagger in his waistband area. The suspect was arrested without further incident. The
suspect was treated for his injuries and transported to Kaiser Richmond. The suspect was arrested for
burglary and possession of a dirk or dagger with an outstanding arrest warrant for burglary out of Marin
County.
Incident Location
• 11939 SAN PABLO Avenue, RICHMOND, CA 94804
Use of Force Specific Information
Reason for Use of Force Service Being Rendered

Effect Arrest 459
Weather Condition Lighting Condition Distance to Involved Party
Clear Dark-Street Lights 22 feet to 25 feet
Involved Party Injured Involved Party Taken to Hospital Involved Party Arrested
Yes Yes Yes
More than 1 Involved Party
Involved
No
Involved Party's Build Involved Party's Height
Thin 5'7'' to 5'9''
Employee Assessment of Involved Party Condition During Incident
Unknown
Employee(s) Injured Employee(s) Taken to Hospital
No No
Reporting/Involved Involved Party Information
rpd-app01/BlueTeam/Unrestricted/IncidentReport.aspx?x=FDfEZLA6pobqCP2d3ZRbHALHllRLMVdRQJq20dse9S5xP%2bEuhOwoIW60UCzacvPkld9… 1/5
EDUARDO FLORES-HUEZO
DOB: Race: Hispanic Ethnicity: Gender: Male
Role
•
Types of Resistance Involved Party Used Against Employee(s)

• Armed-Knife
• Escape-Attempt
• Ignoring Commands
• Conceal Hands
Injuries sustained by this citizen
Injury Regions Injury Locations

Abrasion A, B, C, E 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Charges against this Involved Party

• PC 459 Burglary
• PC 148(a)(1) Interfere with Officer
• PC 21310 Dirk/Dagger
• Warrant-Misdemeanor
Involved Employees
Officer Brandon Hodges - Serial #: 1655
Assignment at time of incident: Title: Officer Policing/Patrol/Central/Team 6
Video Footage [No Response]
Role
•
Force used by this employee against the involved party

• Canine Challenge - Was force effective: No
• AVR Activated Was force effective Yes
• Canine Contact - Was force effective: Yes
Force Used Effective? Regions Points of contact

Canine Challenge No 1 1
AVR Activated Yes 7 2
Canine Contact Yes 7 3
Tasks
No tasks to show
Running Sheet Entries

No running sheet entries to show
Attachments
No attachments
Assignment History
Sent Dt From To
8/6/2018 Manager II Eddie Aubrey (None Specified)
Assignment notes
Released back to IAPro
Email sent to receiver

No email sent
Chain of Command History
Routing #1
Sent From: Officer Brandon Hodges
Sent To: Sergeant Walter Nelson
CC: Lieutenant Timothy Gray
Sent Date/Time: 4/30/2018 4:18 AM
Instructions from Officer Brandon Hodges to Sergeant Walter Nelson:
2018-5002
Comments/Response from Sergeant Walter Nelson:
Comments:
See the attached memo.
Routing #2
Sent From: Sergeant Walter Nelson
Sent To: Lieutenant Stina Johanson
CC: (none)
Instructions from Sergeant Walter Nelson to Lieutenant Stina Johanson:
Please review.
Comments/Response from Lieutenant Stina Johanson:
Comments:
[Forwarded by Lieutenant Stina Johanson]
Routing #3
Sent From: Lieutenant Stina Johanson
Sent To: Captain Al Walle
Lieutenant Timothy Gray,
CC:
Sergeant Joseph Vigil
Instructions from Lieutenant Stina Johanson to Captain Al Walle:
Capt. Walle,
I agree with Sgt. Nelson assessment. The use of the K-9 was lawful, however, Officer Hodges failed to make a
canine announcement in violation of RPD Policy Manual Section 318.2.2. I agree that this is a training issue
and additional training involving on view apprehensions scenarios would be appropriate.
Comments/Response from Captain Al Walle:
Comments:
Case has been forwarded to OPA for investigation.
Routing #4
Sent From: Captain Al Walle
Sent To: Project Manager II Eddie Aubrey
CC: (none)
Sent Date/Time: 6/25/2018 12:07 PM
Instructions from Captain Al Walle to Project Manager II Eddie Aubrey:
Case will not be reviewed by the Use of Force Committee at this time.
Comments/Response from Project Manager II Eddie Aubrey:
Comments:
OPA Investigation.
Assigned Investigator Signature Line
______________________________________________________
[Incident pending assignment]
Chain of Command Signature Lines
______________________________________________________
Sergeant Walter Nelson
______________________________________________________
Lieutenant Stina Johanson
______________________________________________________
Captain Al Walle
______________________________________________________
Project Manager II Eddie Aubrey

Personnel Complaint Opa 2018-012 Investigator: Sergeant Josh Clark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Complaint Opa 2018-012 Investigator: Sergeant Josh Clark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONNEL COMPLAINT OPA 2018-012

INVESTIGATOR: SERGEANT JOSH CLARK

Richmond Police Department Sergeant Josh Clark, of the Office of Professional

On or about May 2, 2018 the Richmond Police Department Office of Professional

II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Richmond Police Department Policy Manual (Adoption Date: 2013/05/10):

A. Richmond Police Department Policy Manual Section 318.2- Guidelines for

B. Richmond Police Department Policy Manual Section 318.2.2 – Warnings

IV. METHODOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATION

The investigation consisted primarily of interviewing individuals of the Richmond

Source of the information;

Ordinary experience and common sense of the investigator.

Additional Tasks Included:

Review of the City of Richmond Police Department Policy and

Interview Subject Party Interview Date

Exhibit No. Description

C. EVIDENCE, FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

1) The burden of proof is on the agency.

2) The standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence.

4) No presumptions of truth are made regarding facts in dispute.

6) Conclusions are logically deduced from the evidence.

Not Sustained: When the investigation discloses there is insufficient evidence to

Sustained: When the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to establish

“3 Police Cars, 1 identified as El Cerrito Police Department (the others I

Please investigate what happened- because this seems to be a civil rights

I conducted a person search to locate any contact information for Flores-Huezo. I

I contacted resident . She identified herself as

Officer Matthew Meyer:

On February 14, 2019 at approximately 1416 hours, I interviewed Officer

I asked Officer Meyer if he remembers Officer Hodges saying anything to him

Ofc. Brandon Hodges:

On October 25, 2018 at approximately 1421 hours, I interviewed Officer Brandon

I described to Officer Hodges that throughout the AVR footage it sounds as if he is

Officer Hodges had no further questions or statements regarding this administrative

The interview was concluded at approximately 1540 hours.

Officer Brandon Hodges:

Officer Matthew Meyer:

Findings and Analysis

The investigator makes the following findings:

On April 30, 2018 at approximately 0135 hours, Officer Hodges responded to a

0:39 “Get down!”

0:43 “Get down!”

0:44 “Get down; let me see your hands!”

0:46 “Get down!”

0:55 “Get down now!”

1:00 “Let me see your hands!”

1:11 “Hey, you better stop!”

1:15 Officer Hodges attempt to broadcast over his handheld radio

“No cover, still there by myself solo, no backup, no cover, confronting a

suspect, to deter from any further potential officer involved shooting or

Based on statements provided by the anonymous complainant, Officer Meyer, Officer

The investigator makes the following findings:

On April 30, 2018 at approximately 0135 hours, Officer Hodges responded to a

0:39 “Get down!”

0:43 “Get down!”

0:44 “Get down; let me see your hands!”

0:46 “Get down!”

0:55 “Get down now!”

1:00 “Let me see your hands!”

1:11 “Hey, you better stop!”

1:15 Officer Hodges attempt to broadcast over his handheld radio

Based on statements provided by the anonymous complainant and Officer Hodges