EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

THOMAS J. NEE
President
Boston Police
Patrolmens Association

MICHAEL MCHALE
Executive Vice President
Florida Police Benevolent
Association

CHRIS COLLINS
Recording Secretary
Las Vegas Police Protective
Association

SEAN M. SMOOT
Treasurer
Police Benevolent & Protective
Association of Illinois

KEITH DUNN
Sergeant-at-Arms
New Jersey State Policemens
Benevolent Association

JOHN A. FLYNN
Executive Secretary
Patrolmens Benevolent
Association of New York City

WILLIAM J. JOHNSON
Executive Director





NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC.
Representing Americas Finest
317 South Patrick Street ~ Alexandria, Virginia ~ 22314-3501
(703) 549-0775 ~ (800) 322-NAPO ~ Fax: (703) 684-0515



www.napo.org ~ Email: info@napo.org



Dr. Andrew M. Baker
Chief Medical Examiner
Hennepin County Medical Examiners Office
530 Chicago Avenue
Mail Code 870
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415

October 28, 2013

Re: Investigation into death of Police Officer Ryan Hoeft

Dear Dr. Baker,

I respectfully write to you on behalf of the more than 240,000 law
enforcement officers across the United States represented by our Association
regarding the above-referenced case. I also write to you as a former law
enforcement official and prosecutor in the Miami, Florida State Attorneys
Office, and in house legal counsel with various police entities charged with
investigation of deaths. Im not a physician, and would never presume to
contradict a medical opinion offered by you or your office. But I have had
numerous opportunities since the 1980s to investigate and detect and
prosecute cases involving different manners of sudden death, violent and
otherwise. These cases include justifiable homicide, murder, suicide,
accident, in-custody deaths, and vehicular homicide. In particular, on more
than one occasion I have been responsible for the investigation of the deaths
by firearm wounds (including wounds to the head) of individuals in the
drivers seat within a functioning motor vehicle. In addition, I served from
1988 to 1989 as the Chief of the Mental Health Unit for the Miami State
Attorneys Office, where I was responsible for handling both criminal and
civil cases involving persons with mental illness. I feel this is relevant
because one of the primary issues in each of the civil cases and some of the
criminal ones was whether or not there was evidence to indicate that a
particular person was a risk to themselves, i.e., suicidal.

I respectfully ask you to consider whether this type of experience might not
have some additional value beyond a strictly medical analysis of this case.

I have spent the last several months reviewing all the evidence and reports in
this case that I could get my hands on. Because I know you are familiar with
the facts as well, I wont reiterate them, but I would offer what seems to me
to be three clear points:




1. There is no evidence that I am aware of that would make it more
likely than not (or even a cognizable risk) that Officer Hoeft was
contemplating suicide, prior to his actual death.

2. The only evidence of suicide at the crime scene itself is the fact
that a projectile from Officer Hoefts service weapon caused the
wound.

3. There are enough unusual circumstances surrounding the actual
death scene of Officer Hoeft which are at least as compatible with
an accident as with suicide that, given points one and two above,
the benefit of the doubt should weigh in favor of an accidental
death, or at least an undetermined finding.
These circumstances include the first significant factor, for me, that
Officer Hoefts marked police vehicle was running and in gear when the
fatal shot occurred. I am aware of cases (and have handled cases) where:

1. a suicidal subject wishes to harm as many other people as possible
on the way out (including using a vehicle), and cases where:
2. a subject who wishes to die but doesnt want to pull the trigger
himself deliberately presents a risk of harm to others (including
with a motor vehicle) such that others kill him, and cases where:
3. a running vehicle itself is used as the means of suicide, such as
enclosed within a garage or deliberately being run into a highway
embankment; and I am aware of cases where:
4. a subject shoots himself in a running (but not moving) vehicle as
the police close in on him, and cases where:
5. the driver of a moving vehicle is shot to death by someone inside
or outside the moving vehicle,

but I have never witnessed nor heard of a case where a subject shoots
himself to death in a moving vehicle on a city street for no apparent
reason.

A second significant factor for me is that Officer Hoeft was armed at the
time of his death with a .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol. When I was a
patrolman, I also carried that same weapon, and qualified as an expert
marksman with it. Like Officer Hoeft, I always carried that weapon with a
live round in the chamber, because that is the way that that type of firearm
has always been designed to be carried, since at least 1911 when the most
popular model was accepted by the U.S. government. The findings of your
office make a point in favor of suicide instead of accident by stating that
Officer Hoeft, once handling his weapon, would have had to grasp it with
two hands, use his left hand to draw back the slide of the weapon while
holding the frame with his right hand, thus withdrawing a round from the
magazine, allow the slide to travel forward by releasing the slide from the
grip of his left hand while maintaining his right hands grip on the frame,
thus chambering the round, release the safety using a finger or thumb of
his right hand while still maintaining his right hands grip on the frame,
then finally present the weapon towards the target to be fired upon. The
clear implication is that so many steps and so much activity and time
before the officer could fire his gun means it cant be an accident. And
that conclusion might well be supported if the premises offered in support
were true.

But think about it, the very fact that so many steps and so much activity
and time would intervene before any given officer could fire that weapon
in such a sequence necessarily means that any given officer would also be
handicapped (perhaps fatally) in the real world when confronted by a
sudden danger and corresponding need to defend his or her own life with
his or her firearm, if the officer was carrying his or her weapon in such a
way as to require the completion of this sequence of steps before they
could fire their weapon. And that is why, in the real world, officers always
carry this type of weapon loaded, and with a round already extracted from
the magazine and chambered, ready to be fired.
Even knowing this, I would still defer to your offices previous
determination in this case, if not for the third significant factor to me,
which is that all the difficulties presented by the two above mentioned
factors are resolved by the alternative option, which is an accidental death.
As unusual an accident as it might seem at first blush, it is still much less
unusual an accident, in my experience, than how unusual a suicide it
would have to be to fit these facts. And the accident hypothesis is not
merely speculative, but supported and corroborated by reconstructive
evidence of sufficient scientific rigor and relevance to prove persuasive,
even compelling.

Therefore, I would respectfully ask whether the fuller facts surrounding
Officer Hoefts death (both affirmative facts at the death scene as well as
the absence of suicidal evidence preceding it) do not merit classification of
his death as accidental. In the alternative, if accidental is not acceptable, I
would most strongly urge a finding of undetermined under these most
unusual circumstances.

Very respectfully,

William J. Johnson
Executive Director and General Counsel