OFFICE OF THE

State Attorney
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
SERVING
INDIAN RIVER, MARTIN, OKEECHOBEE
AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES
2000 16th Avenue, Suite 329
Thomas R. Bakkedahl Vero Beach FL 32960
State Attorney (772) 226-3300

February 27, 2023

Sheriff Eric Flowers

4055 41st Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960

RE: Review of Agency Case Number 2022-64971

To Sheriff Eric Flowers,

Pursuant to Section 943.1740, Florida Statutes 2022, the Office of the State Attorney has
conducted an independent review of your agency’s actions in the above referenced matter. In
reaching the following conclusions, this office relied upon interviews, radio traffic, written reports,
recorded footage, expert evidence analysis, and consultation with St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Training
Deputy Donald Christman.

The incident reviewed stemmed from a traffic stop which occurred on the evening of June 11,
2022 at the 3100 block of 45th Street in Vero Beach. While a large number of Indian River County
Sheriff’s Office employees ultimately responded to the location of the incident, four law enforcement
officers were initially involved and each discharged his respective firearm. Those four individuals
are as follows: Deputy Sheriff Daniel Dieghan; Deputy Sheriff Kevin Peach; Deputy Sheriff Shane
Joerger; and, Sergeant Chris Lester. The vehicle those law enforcement officers encountered was
collectively occupied by the following individuals: Sharavea Jones; Z’Bryius Jones; Kamarion
Walker; and, Jamall Frederick. During the encounter, Jamall Frederick fled from the vehicle and
ultimately suffered multiple gunshot wounds as a result of bullets discharged from the above law
enforcement officers’ firearms. Mr. Frederick recovered from those injuries.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF INDIVIDUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

Given the complexity of the issues to be discussed, it is pertinent to further identify known
information regarding each of the eight primarily involved witnesses. Regarding the law enforcement
officers, as of the date of this incident each had varying levels of experience working as a law
enforcement officer and differing responsibilities as to how each was to execute his assigned duties
for Indian River County. What follows is an accounting of each law enforcement officer’s respective
experience and job description as of June 11, 2022.

1
Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Daniel Deighan:

At the time of the incident Deputy Sheriff Daniel Deighan, hereinafter D/S Deighan, had been
employed by the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office, hereinafter the IRCSO, for approximately one
year. Prior to said employment, he had no prior law enforcement experience. On the date at issue he
was assigned to Road Patrol, specifically the “C” Platoon, to work as a uniformed deputy. His general
job description involved operating a marked patrol vehicle and responding to calls for service as well
as conducting proactive policing in the zone to which he was assigned.

Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Kevin Peach:

At the time of the incident Deputy Sheriff Kevin Peach, hereinafter D/S Peach, had been
employed by the IRCSO for approximately one year. Prior to said employment, he served
approximately ten years in the United States Marine Corp in varying capacities. On the date at issue
he was assigned to Road Patrol, specifically the “C” Platoon, to work as a uniformed deputy in the
same manner as described above with regards to D/S Deighan.

Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Shane Joerger:

At the time of the incident Deputy Sheriff Shane Joerger, hereinafter D/S Joerger, had been
employed by the IRCSO for approximately five years. Prior to said employment, he was employed
by the Vero Beach Police Department for approximately four years, giving him nine years of
experience as a law enforcement officer at the time of this incident. On the date at issue he was
assigned to the Canine Unit, and worked throughout Indian River County as needed in a support
capacity.

Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Christopher Lester:

Deputy Sheriff Christopher Lester, hereinafter Sgt. Lester, had been employed by the IRCSO
for approximately eight years. Prior to said employment, he had no previous law enforcement
experience. On the date at issue he as assigned to the Road Patrol, specifically the “C” Platoon, to
work as a Sergeant. His general job description involved functioning as the immediate supervisor of
the entirety of “C” Platoon, as well as responding to calls for service in a backup capacity.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF INDIVIDUAL CIVILIANS

As previously indicated, the June 11, 2022 incident originated with a traffic stop. The vehicle
at issue was a 2021 gray-in-color Nissan Altima bearing Florida license plate number DYZM98. At
the time of the stop, it was occupied by the below listed individuals.

Sharavea Jones – Driver:

Sharavea Jones, hereinafter S. Jones, was located in the driver seat of the vehicle at the time
of the encounter. She is a female who was born on May 12, 1994. The vehicle at issue was registered
to her, but at the time of this incident the vehicle’s registration was expired. Prior to this incident,
she had no prior criminal history.

2
 From this incident S. Jones was charged as follows: by citation in civil traffic court with
“Driving On Expired License,” reference 31-2022-TR-005483; by citation in civil traffic court with
“Illegal Window Tint,” reference 31-2022-TR-005480); and, by information in County Court with
“Resisting Officer Without Violence,” reference 31-2022-MM-000952-A. As of the date of this
writing, all of those matters have been resolved.

Z’Bryius Jones – Front Seat Passenger:

Z’Bryius Jones, hereinafter Z. Jones, was located in the front passenger seat of the vehicle at
the time of the encounter. He is a male who was born on November 28, 2003. Prior to this incident,
he had the following criminal history: on October 9, 2017, he received a withhold of adjudication on
a “Trespass,” reference 31-2017-CJ-000174-A; on September 13, 2019, he was adjudicated
delinquent of “Burglary Of Unoccupied Dwelling,” “Third Degree Grand Theft,” “Resisting Officer
Without Violence,” “Trespass,” “Loitering & Prowling,” another count of “Resisting Officer Without
Violence,” another count of “Trespass,” and another count of “Resisting Officer Without Violence,”
reference 31-2017-CJ-000334-A, 31-2019-CJ-000088-A, 31-2019-CJ-000156-C, and 31-2019-CJ-
000209-B; and, on February 9, 2021 he was adjudicated delinquent of “Tampering With Electronic
Monitor,” and “Burglary Of A Structure.”

From this incident he was charged with “Possession Of a Firearm By One Adjudicated
Delinquent,” reference Indian River County Circuit Court case number 31-2022-CF-000731-B.

Kamarion Walker – Rear Passenger, Driver’s Side:

Kamarion Walker was located in the driver’s side rear passenger seat of the vehicle at the time
of the encounter. He is a male who was born on May 29, 2004. Prior to this incident, he had no
criminal history and he was not charged with any crimes related to this incident.

Jamall Frederick – Rear Passenger, Passenger’s Side:

Jamall Frederick was located in the passenger’s side rear passenger seat of the vehicle at the
time of the encounter. He is a male who was born on May 17, 2003. Prior to this incident, he had
the following criminal history: on February 9, 2022 he was adjudicated guilty of two counts of
“Burglary Of Structure,” reference 31-2021-CJ-000023; on June 18, 2021 he received a withhold of
adjudication for “Petit Theft” reference 31-2021-MM-000780; and on February 24, 2022 he was
convicted of “Burglary of a Conveyance,” reference 31-2022-CF-000731. At the time of this
incident, Mr. Frederick was under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections while on
felony probation.

From this incident he was charged with “Resisting Officer With Violence,” and “Possession
Of A Firearm By A Convicted Felon,” reference Indian River County Circuit Court case number 31-
2022-CF-000731-A.

3
Sebastian Barrientos – Civilian Ride-Along with D/S Joerger:

Only one other civilian was involved in this matter. He was not a passenger in the
aforementioned Altima, but rather on the evening of June 11, 2022, an individual named Sebastian
Barrientos was located in the front passenger seat of D/S Joerger’s IRCSO vehicle as a civilian ride-
along. He was not under any form of criminal investigation, but was participating in a program
whereby civilians ride with various employees of the IRCSO to learn about law enforcement’s role
in the community. Subsequent to this incident, Mr. Barrientos was interviewed about his
observations, and he has played no other role in this matter.

REVIEWED DIGITAL EVIDENCE

It is also pertinent to review what evidence was available for use in this review. From an
evidentiary standpoint, the majority of this event was captured on camera in one fashion or another.
Additionally, a number of the involved individuals submitted to interrogations by law enforcement
officers answering questions as to each individual’s conduct and observations. What follows is an
accounting of the recorded footage which was available for use in this Office’s review of this
situation.

Body Camera Footage:

Prior to this incident, the IRCSO deployed agency-wide body worn recording devices for
personnel. On June 11, 2022, all four of the involved law enforcement officers had been issued body
camera recording devices. The devices assigned to Sgt. Lester, D/S Joerger, and D/S Peach were
worn and activated during the below described incident. The device assigned to D/S Deighan was
neither worn nor activated during the incident, as that device was suffering from a power issue. At
the time of the shooting D/S Deighan’s body worn camera was located off his person within his
vehicle on a charging device.

Dash-Camera Footage:

Prior to this incident, the IRCSO deployed dash mounted recording devices on certain vehicles
within the fleet of patrol cars used in Indian River County. On June 11, 2022, the vehicles driven by
D/S Joerger, D/S Peach, and D/S Deighan were equipped with dash mounted cameras. At the time
of the traffic stop, Sgt. Lester’s assigned vehicle was having mechanical issues and had been
temporarily removed from service; as such he was in a different assigned vehicle which did not have
a dash mounted recording device.

Recorded Interviews:

On June 11, 2022, shortly after the incident three of the individuals located within the vehicle
at issue were interviewed at the IRCSO, specifically within the Criminal Investigations Division.
Specifically, S. Jones, Z. Jones, and Mr. Walker were each advised of their respective Miranda rights
and chose to waive those rights and speak with IRCSO Detective Greg Farless, hereinafter Det.
Farless, regarding their observations of the events in question.

4
 On June 17, 2022, IRCSO Detectives Luis Avila and Philip Daugherty, hereinafter Det. Avila
and Det. Daugherty interviewed D/S Deighan, D/S Peach, D/S Joerger, and Sgt. Lester at the IRCSO,
again within the Criminal Investigations Division. Each interviewee had an attorney present, was
advised of his Miranda rights, and chose to waive those rights and speak regarding his respective
observations of the events in question. These deputies freely and voluntarily provided statements
without subpoena or inducement.

REVIEWED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

On or between June 10 and June 11, 2022, multiple members of the IRCSO collected physical
items of evidence from two different crime scenes. Those items of evidence have been analyzed by
both the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Crime Scene Unit and the Indian River Crime
Laboratory. Said items will be referenced in the below analysis, and include but are not limited to:
multiple cellular phones; multiple bode swabs for DNA; recovered projectiles; recovered spent
cartridge casings; recovered cartridge casings; clothing; six firearms (four of which are attributed to
law enforcement). The specific items of evidence and their relevance to this memorandum are
delineated below.

HISTORY OF RELEVANT PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

Prior to the events of June 11, 2022, three specific incidents of criminal activity occurred
relevant to this situation that provide context into both law enforcement’s encounter with the vehicle
at issue and evidence located in or around said conveyance. What follows is a limited description of
each event.

Incident 1 - Fellsmere Police Department Agency Case #2022-5505:

On May 29, 2022, Fellsmere Police Department Officer Natalie Dotson, hereinafter Ofc.
Dotson, responded to an apartment complex located at 110046 Esperanza Circle in Fellsmere
reference a reported theft from a vehicle. The Victim in that matter informed Ofc. Dotson that
between 1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on May 29, 2022, the Victim’s vehicle had been burglarized. The
Victim noted no damage to the vehicle, and informed Ofc. Dotson that a maintenance worker found
multiple items of the Victim’s at the east entrance to the apartment complex.

Among the items reported stolen was a beige in color Ruger LCP .380 caliber semi-automatic
pistol, bearing serial number 37205596. It should be noted, a number of other individuals reported
their respective vehicles as having been burglarized at that location during the timeframe specified
by the Victim, but those incidents are not relevant to the matter at hand. Ofc. Dotson’s investigation
into these offenses remains active.

Incident 2 – Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Agency Case #2022-00062658:

On June 6, 2022, IRCSO Deputy Eric Brashears, hereinafter D/S Brashears, responded to a
residence located at 1355 29th Avenue in Vero Beach reference a reported theft from a vehicle. The
Victim in that matter informed D/S Brashears that during the night before the Victim’s vehicle had
been burglarized. The Victim noted no damage to the vehicle.

5
 Among the items reported stolen was a Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm caliber semi-automatic
pistol, bearing serial number 224-027319. It should be noted, a number of other individuals reported
their respective vehicles as having been burglarized at that location during the timeframe specified
by the Victim, but those incidents are not relevant to the matter at hand. D/S Brashears investigation
into that offense is presently inactive.

Incident 3 – Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Agency Case #2022-00064554:

On June 10, 2022, at 7:06 p.m., IRCSO Deputy Morgan Hatton, hereinafter D/S Hatton,
responded to 3826 44th Street in Vero Beach reference to a report of the discharge of a firearm. The
incident under investigation was reported by an individual desiring to remain anonymous. On arrival
D/S Hatton, in conjunction with D/S Peach, searched the area and ultimately located sixteen spent
shell casings at the intersection of 44th Street and 38th Avenue. It should be noted, this location was
approximately 2,000 feet from the June 11, 2022 shooting incident that is the subject of this
memorandum.

During the investigation into the incident, D/S Deighan spoke with the anonymous
complainant in an attempt to gather more information. The informant advised that multiple black
males were observed possessing firearms while behind the residence of 3816 44 th Street. The
informant advised that he feared for his family’s safety due to the males believed to be involved in
recent shooting incidents in the Gifford community, and due to a recent shooting at the 4400 block
of 38th Avenue at the time. The informant further advised the subjects frequently traveled in a
gray/silver Nissan Altima, and that the informant called 911 in the past in reference to the same
vehicle traveling with black males wearing ski mask holding guns while in the Gifford community.
Also during this portion of the investigation, another concerned citizen who wished to remain
anonymous indicated that four black males were seen standing in the vicinity of where the shell
casings were located. It should be noted that aside from the aforementioned shell casings located on
scene on June 10, 2022, there was no other ballistic evidence at the scene indicative of a shooting
event.

On June 10, 2022, D/S Peach located the Nissan Altima described by the anonymous
complainant located at 3816 44th Street, and the vehicle was determined to be S. Jones’ vehicle. D/S
Peach observed and confirmed the vehicle had illegal window tint. The requirements in the State of
Florida regarding window tint on passenger vehicles are as follows: pursuant to Section 316.2953,
Florida Statutes 2022 front side windows must allow more than 28% of light into a vehicle; pursuant
to Section 316.2954, Florida Statutes 2022, rear side windows must allow more than 15% of light
into a vehicle. S. Jones’ vehicle was determined to have front passenger windows tinted to the point
that only 13% of light came into the vehicle, and to have rear passenger windows tinted to the point
that only 12% of light came into the vehicle. D/S Peach also confirmed the registration of the vehicle
in question was expired in violation of Section 320.07, Florida Statutes 2022. At the time the vehicle
was examined, it had been sitting parked in a driveway located at the aforementioned address and
there were no occupants within the vehicle.

6
 When the investigative actions into the events of June 10, 2022 were concluded, it was the
intent of multiple employees of the IRCSO to resume surveillance of the Nissan Altima on June 11,
2022 based on the allegations of the anonymous complainant and physical evidence at the scene.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In light of the above, the reader can now consider the totality of the circumstances that existed
at the time of the IRCSO’s use of deadly force at the 3100 block of 45 th Street on June 11, 2022. This
analysis dissects the encounter into five specific components, those being: (1) the stop of the vehicle
and law enforcement’s initial approach; (2) Fredericks’ escape from the vehicle and law
enforcement’s response; (3) Fredericks’s flight from the scene and law enforcement’s continued
response; (4) Frederick’s apprehension and law enforcement’s subsequent evidence collection; and,
(5) the sworn statements of D/S Deighan, D/S Peach, D/S Joerger, Sgt. Lester, and Mr. Barrientos
detailing each individuals’ observations at the time of the incident. What follows is a finding of fact
as to each component.

(1) The Stop Of The Vehicle & Law Enforcement’s Initial Approach:

When “C” Platoon came on shift on the evening of July 11, 2022, a number of law
enforcement officers resumed surveillance of the Nissan Altima at issue from the previous evening.
At 9:02 p.m. on June 11, 2022, D/S Deighan conducted a traffic stop on the Nissan Altima driven by
S. Jones, as depicted in the below image from D/S Deighan’s dash camera.

Prior to effectuating a stop, S. Jones’ vehicle had been traveling eastbound on 45 th Street. After D/S
Deighan activated his lights and sirens, S. Jones’ vehicle pulled over on the south shoulder of 45 th

7
Street, just east of 31st Avenue. The location of the traffic stop was primarily a residential area with
limited presence of local businesses. An overhead view of the area is depicted below.

D/S Deighan’s basis for the traffic stop was his own contemporaneous observation of S. Jones’
vehicle tint as well as the knowledge gained from D/S Peach’s observations from the night before.
D/S Deighan was also aware, based on the investigation from the previous evening, that the vehicle’s
registration was expired. Prior to any other units responding, D/S Deighan approached S. Jones’
vehicle from the rear passenger side, as depicted in the below image obtained from his dash camera.

8
D/S Deighan was soon joined by backup law enforcement officers. Per the IRCSO Call For Service
Detail Report, by 9:04 p.m. D/S Peach – Unit 2102, D/S Joerger – Unit K92, and Sgt. Lester – Unit
2180, had each also arrived on scene. As the scene was assessed and processed, D/S Deighan
maintained his position just behind the rear passenger side door. D/S Peach took up a position
adjacent to the rear driver’s side door, as seen in the below image obtained from D/S Peach’s body-
camera footage.

At 9:03:28 pm, D/S Deighan can be heard exclaiming, “Hey, I think I got a firearm.” D/S Joerger
was now standing behind D/S Deighan, and D/S Peach was standing next to the rear driver side door
of the vehicle, all as indicated in the below image from D/S Deighan’s dash camera footage. It should
be noted, while he is not visible in the below image, Sgt. Lester was determined to be off camera
behind D/S Deighan, closer to the front passenger side of D/S Deighan’s vehicle outside of that
camera’s angle of view.

9
During this exchange, a firearm is observed to be located in plain view in the seat pocket immediately
in front of Mr. Frederick. At this point, no other firearms are visible within the vehicle, and the
attention of the responding law enforcement officers is primarily upon Mr. Frederick.

(2) Mr. Fredericks’ escape from the vehicle and law enforcement’s response

Given law enforcement’s observations of the scene and considering their escalating safety
concerns, at 9:04:25 pm, the deputies began to remove the occupants of the vehicle. The first
individual they collectively address (due to his proximity to a firearm) is Mr. Frederick. D/S Joerger
took the lead in directing Mr. Frederick’s exit from the vehicle. The below image from D/S Joerger’s
body camera footage depicts the beginning of this process, as Mr. Frederick has been directed to place
his hands outside of the vehicle’s window.

At 9:04:30 pm, D/S Joerger states to Mr. Frederick, “Hey you hear me, I’m going to open this door,
you keep your hands out the window.” D/S Joerger then reaches for the handle of the vehicle, as
depicted in the below image from D/S Joerger’s body camera footage.

10
At 9:04:32 pm, D/S Joerger opens the door behind which Mr. Frederick was seated. At the time the
door is opened, both of Mr. Frederick’s hands are visible. D/S Peach and D/S Deighan can clearly
be seen addressing the situation with their respective firearms drawn and aimed at Mr. Frederick, as
depicted in the below image from D/S Joerger’s body camera footage.

At 9:04:33 pm, D/S Joerger states to Mr. Frederick, “Step out and give me your hands.” D/S Joerger
is able to place his right hand on Frederick’s right hand, as depicted in the below image obtained from
D/S Joerger’s body camera footage. Almost simultaneously, Mr. Frederick looks down within the
vehicle and D/S Joerger states, “Do not…” while D/S Joerger observes Mr. Frederick grab the firearm
from the pocket of the vehicle with his left hand. Simultaneously, D/S Peach shouts, “Don’t reach
for it.”

11
At 9:04:37 pm, Mr. Frederick, now in possession of a firearm, pushes past D/S Joerger and proceeds
to run south of the vehicle, as depicted in the below image obtained from D/S Joerger’s dash camera
footage. The firearm at issue is visible in Mr. Frederick’s left hand.

Between 9:04:37 and 9:04:38 pm, Mr. Frederick continues his flight south with the firearm.
Simultaneously, D/S Peach and D/S Deighan discharge their respective firearms at Mr. Frederick,

12
while D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester are drawing their respective firearms from their holsters, as seen
in the below image obtained from D/S Joerger’s dash camera footage.

At 9:04:38 pm, Mr. Frederick continues his path south. D/S Joerger, D/S Deighan, and D/S Peach
repeatedly discharge their respective firearms at Mr. Frederick. This is reflected in the below image
obtained from D/S Joerger’s dash camera footage. As the shooting began, Sgt. Lester stumbled and
fell behind a law enforcement vehicle and is out of view of the recorded footage. As a result of his
fall, Sgt. Lester was not able to initially engage Mr. Frederick and did not discharge his firearm during
the initial volley. Only D/S Peach, D/S Deighan, and D/S Joerger fired their weapons during the
initial portion of this incident.

13
At 9:04:40 pm, three seconds after the initial rounds were discharged at 9:04:37 pm, the initial volley
of fire ends as Mr. Frederick has fled into an undeveloped lot immediately south of the location where
the traffic stop occurred (see image below from D/S Joerger’s body camera).

14
(3) Mr. Fredericks’s flight from the scene and law enforcement’s continued response

After the initial volley of gunfire by D/S Peach, D/S Joerger, and D/S Deighan, the scene was
divided into two areas of concern. One of those areas of concern involved securing the remaining
occupants of S. Jones’ vehicle, to wit: S. Jones, Z. Jones, and Mr. Walker. The other issue to be
addressed was Mr. Frederick, as he had fled with a firearm toward a residential community.

Between 9:04:48-50 pm, D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester pursued Mr. Frederick into the
undeveloped property just south of the location of the traffic stop, as seen in the below images
obtained from D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester’s respective body camera footage.

Simultaneously, also at 9:04:48 pm, D/S Deighan and D/S Peach remained with the vehicle securing
that aspect of the scene, as seen in the below image obtained from D/S Peach’s body camera footage.

15
 At 9:04:52 pm, from his position as denoted above, D/S Peach loudly announces, “He’s
reaching” in reference to Mr. Frederick. At 9:04:54 pm, D/S Peach again announces, “He’s reaching”
and takes up a firing position from the rear of S. Jones’s vehicle and discharges his firearm at Mr.
Frederick, as seen in the below image obtained from D/S Peach’s body camera footage. As D/S
Joerger and Sgt. Lester pursue Mr. Frederick, the video reflects that he was being commanded
multiple times “Don’t move” and “Get your hands up.” D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester discharged their
respective firearms at Mr. Frederick after observing that he was still in possession of a firearm and
refused to follow their lawfully issued commands.

The last rounds discharged by law enforcement occurred at 9:04:58 pm, at which time both
Sgt. Lester and D/S Joerger each called for a “hold.” This second volley of fire occurs over a
timeframe of six seconds. In total, twenty one seconds elapsed between law enforcements’ first
discharged round at 9:04:37 pm and the final round of 9:04:58 pm. It is worth noting that all rounds
fired by law enforcement during this entire encounter occurred within nine (9) seconds. D/S Deighan

16
did not discharge his firearm during this second volley. Only D/S Peach, D/S Joerger, and Sgt. Lester
fired their weapons during the second portion of this incident.

(4) Mr. Frederick’s apprehension and law enforcement’s subsequent evidence collection

Subsequent to the second volley of fire and Mr. Frederick’s continued flight, a large law
enforcement presence responded to the scene, to include numerous back up units, the Sheriff’s Office
helicopter, and canine units. At 9:27:53 pm, through this combined law enforcement effort, Mr.
Frederick was located at 4436 31st Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. This address was a private
residence, and Mr. Frederick was located hiding in an attached carport, as seen in the below image
obtained from Sgt. Lester’s body camera footage. At the time Mr. Frederick was located, he stated
he threw the firearm in question during his flight, and he had a number of visible gunshot wounds.
Law enforcement immediately called for an ambulance to respond to Mr. Frederick’s location. At
9:35 pm emergency medical services responded and Mr. Frederick was transported to the Lawnwood
Regional Medical Center in St. Lucie County.

After Mr. Frederick was taken into custody and removed from the scene by emergency
medical services, members of the IRCSO Crime Scene Unit processed the entirety of the scene, to
include the suspect vehicle, in an effort to document and collect any potential evidence. Among the
items of evidence located were two firearms, specifically a tan in color Ruger LCP semi-automatic
pistol chambered in .380 caliber ammunition, and a black in color Heckler & Koch VP9 semi-
automatic pistol chambered in 9 mm ammunition.

The Ruger firearm was located in the field south of the location of the traffic stop, as seen in
the below photographs taken by members of the IRCSO Crime Scene Unit. The photograph below
depicts a traffic cone used to denote the exact location of the firearm in relation to the suspect vehicle.
The firearm was in the path of Mr. Frederick’s flight, and more specifically, located where Mr.
Frederick was engaged by D/S Peach, D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester during the second volley of shots
fired when D/S Peach exclaimed, “He’s reaching.”

17
 LOCATION OF RUGER

TREE

Of note, a tree is visible in the above photograph immediately to the right of the location of
the firearm. That same tree was also visible in the still photographs lifted from both D/S Joerger’s
and Sgt. Lester’s body camera footage, and has been identified in each photograph. This clearly
shows the location of Mr. Frederick at the last point at which he is known to have been in possession
of the Ruger firearm at issue.

TREE

18
 At the time it was located, the Ruger firearm was loaded with three cartridges of ammunition
in the magazine, with no rounds chambered for discharge. Through the IRCSO’s subsequent
investigation, the Ruger firearm was confirmed to be the same firearm stolen from a victim on May
29, 2022. That incident was previously described in this memorandum, reference Fellsmere Police
Department agency case number 2022-5505. There was no evidence the Ruger firearm was
discharged at any point during the entirety of this event. Further, none of the spent casings collected
at the scene of the shooting event were attributed to the Ruger firearm.

Analysists at the Indian River Crime Laboratory conducted an analysis of the evidence.
Regarding the Ruger firearm, Indian River Crime Lab Firearms Analyst Mark Chapman, hereinafter
Analyst Chapman, compared the spent casings collected during the investigation of the shooting event
from the previous evening of June 10, 2022, with the Ruger firearm recovered on June 11, 2022 and
determined the Ruger firearm was fully functional, and determined that multiple spent casings
recovered from the June 10th shooting event were cycled through that specific weapon. This finding
places the Ruger firearm at both the location of the June 10, 2022 report of “shots fired” and at the
June 11, 2022 incident with law enforcement.

Indian River Crime Lab Analyst Wayne Walker, hereinafter Analyst Walker, also completed
an analysis of evidence obtained from the Ruger firearm. Analyst Walker determined the DNA
results obtained from the swab of the lower frame of the Ruger firearm demonstrated the presence of
a mixture. Due to the limited nature of this profile, the likely number of contributors was not
determined, and the profile was not suitable for interpretation. As such, no comparisons were possible
for the DNA profile generated from the mixture.

The Heckler & Koch 9mm firearm was located under the front passenger seat of S. Jones’
vehicle when members of the IRCSO searched the same pursuant to a search warrant. This firearm
was recovered from under the seat occupied by Z. Jones at the time of the stop, and was loaded with
twelve cartridges of ammunition in the magazine and one cartridge of ammunition chambered for
discharge. Through the IRCSO’s subsequent investigation, the Heckler & Koch 9mm firearm was
confirmed to be the same firearm stolen from a victim on June 6, 2022. That incident was discussed
earlier in this memorandum, reference IRCSO agency case number 2022-62658.

Regarding the Heckler & Koch 9mm firearm, Analyst Chapman compared the spent casings
collected on June 10, 2022 with test fired casings from the Heckler & Koch 9mm firearm recovered
on June 11, 2022 and determined multiple spent casings recovered from the June 10 th shooting event
were cycled through that specific weapon. This finding places the Heckler & Koch 9mm firearm at
both the location of the June 10, 2022 report of “shots fired” and at the June 11, 2022 incident with
law enforcement.

Analyst Walker also completed an analysis of evidence obtained from the Heckler & Koch
9mm firearm by comparing unknown DNA swabs collected from the firearm with a known DNA
standard obtained from Z. Jones and Mr. Frederick. Analyst Walker identified DNA profiles
consistent with three individuals from the DNA swabs of the firearm, and concluded Z. Jones was a
possible contributor to that mixture. Specifically, Analyst Walker opined the evidence DNA profile
was approximately 129 sextillion (129 x 10^21) times more likely to be observed if it originated from
Z. Jones and two unknown, unrelated individuals than if it originated from three unknown, unrelated

19
individuals. This analysis provides strong support for the proposition that Z. Jones was a contributor
to the DNA profile. As such, this finding places the DNA of Z. Jones on the Heckler & Koch 9mm
firearm when it was recovered on June 11, 2022.

In addition to his work on the Ruger and Heckler & Koch firearms, Analyst Chapman also
reviewed the firearms of the four involved law enforcement officers. He performed both functionality
and comparison analysis on each and determined all of the weapons were functioning firearms, each
with unique characteristics. Analyst Chapman then compared the forty-nine spent casings on scene
to the law enforcement firearms and concluded the following with respect to each involved officer:

 D/S Deighan:
o 11 casings were identified as having been cycled through D/S Deighan’s weapon.

 D/S Joerger:
o 5 casings were identified as having been cycled through D/S Joerger’s weapon.

 D/S Peach:
o 12 casings were identified as having been cycled through D/S Peach’s weapon.
o 9 casings were identified as potentially having been cycled through D/S Peach’s
weapon. More specifically, these casings had similar class characteristics as the
casings determined to have been cycled through D/S Peach’s weapon, but did not
bear any individual markings to make a further finding.

 Sgt. Lester:
o 3 casings were identified as having been cycled through Sgt. Lester’s weapon.

 Undetermined
o 9 casings were identified as potentially having been cycled through either D/S
Deighan’s, D/S Joerger’s, or Sgt. Lester’s weapon. More specifically, these
casings had similar class characteristics as the casings determined to have been
cycled through D/S Deighan’s, D/S Joerger’s, or Sgt. Lester’s weapon, but did not
bear any individual markings to make a further finding.

(5) Sworn Statements Of Responding Law Enforcement Officers & Mr. Barrientos:

As indicated above, after the shooting event D/S Deighan, D/S Peach, D/S Joerger, and Sgt.
Lester were each interviewed about their respective involvement in this incident. On June 17, 2022,
each of the four involved officers appeared of his own volition, was placed under oath, and read his
Miranda rights. All of the discussions occurred in an interview room within the Criminal
Investigations Division of the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office. Each officer was questioned by
Indian River County Sheriff’s Office Detective Luis Avila, hereinafter Det. Avila, and Indian River
County Sheriff’s Office Detective Philip Daugherty, hereinafter Det. Daugherty. While the
interviews encompassed the events of both June 10, 2022 and June 11, 2022, what follows is a
synopsis of each deputy’s description of the events leading up to and including the shooting.

20
 D/S Peach was the first officer who was questioned about his recollection of the events of the
June 11, 2022 event. He was asked to describe the scene as it was immediately before the shooting
event occurred. D/S Peach indicated he was standing on the driver’s side of the vehicle while
watching D/S Deighan and D/S Joerger address Mr. Frederick at the rear passenger door. D/S Peach
indicated that at that point he remembered:

“…that's when I saw a hand grab the gun and leave. At that point I
weaved to go in to attempt to shoot or, uh, I basically said don't touch
it. I went to go reach in. The guy that was on the back left leaned
forward. So I said that's it. Went over to the top of the car, Deighan
pushed to the right. Joerger pushed to the right and that's when I started
firing. Uh, at that point, you know, the minute he grabbed that gun I
already had it in my head, uh, there was two options, this guy's gonna
do, he's either gonna run, uh, without the gun. At that point he's just
gonna me running or he's gonna grab the gun. Uh, the minute he
grabbed that gun, uh, I was in fear for my life, uh, Joerger's and
Deighan's life and then, uh, the community's life as well as he started
to run with the gun. Uh, I started firing until the threat went down.”

D/S Peach then described his observation of Mr. Frederick’s flight and the second volley of gunfire.
In this description, D/S Peach stated:

“Um, when, uh, he got back up I saw the gun again. So I let -- I verbally
stated and I think I said he was reaching or something. I went -- I meant
to say he's getting up. Uh, I circled back around, sighted back in. Uh,
he had his gun pretty much out. Um, I fired again. I went around --
reloaded, went around, uh -- I thought it was Shane's vehicle. I don't
know whose vehicle it was and then reloaded, got back on target and
then when I found out that, uh, Lester was actually over with him.
There was two people over there 'cause I thought it -- by -- Joerger was
by himself, I said, okay, they're good. I went back over to Deighan and
then controlled the vehicle.”

The interviewing Detectives inquired further about whether Mr. Frederick discharged the firearm in
his possession. D/S Peach informed them that:

“I -- I couldn't tell you 'cause there was four of us shooting so I -- well

at my point I only thought there was three so, three of us shooting at
that point 'cause I didn't even know Lester was there.”

D/S Peach was then asked why he chose to discharge his firearm and whether he feared for either his
safety or the safety of his fellow officers. D/S Peach indicated that he was in fear, stating:

“'Cause when he grabbed that gun, he could've just ran. And I already
had it in my head there's two options. He's either gonna grab the gun
and run or he's just gonna run. If he runs, he runs. But you don't grab a

21
 gun and not expect to do something with it. So, I feared he was gonna
grab that gun. I thought he was gonna grab it and immediately point
and start shooting at them 'cause he could have, 100 percent. But it
happened so quickly that when he grabbed that gun, he had intent to do
something with it. Going through my head that I had to find cover on
that C pillar, pin myself on it and again, I thought Deighan and Joerger
were gonna be shot at that point…Doesn't make a difference where he
run [sic]. He can turn around and shoot at any point. He can stop behind
a tree and shoot. He can do whatever wants. He still has a gun in his
hand. He's a threat to me and everybody around.”

“And he was told multiple times to not touch the gun. It's not like it
was a -- a -- you know, a seeker at that -- we didn't know the gun was
there. We told him don't touch the gun. He was told what to do. Joerger
gave him commands, hey, I'm gonna open this door, you're gonna put
your hands out. I'm gonna grab your arm and you're gonna step out.
And he didn't do -- he did completely the opposite. He got -- he did up
to the point where Joerger grabbed his arm, at that point he reached and
grabbed the gun after he was told not to multiple times. I would say
roughly about five, six times we told him, don't touch the gun, stay
away from the gun.”

Sgt. Lester was the next individual to be interviewed by Det. Avila and Det. Daugherty
regarding the June 11, 2022 event. Regarding his observations of the events immediately prior to the
shooting, he informed that when he responded to the scene he observed D/S Deighan, D/S Peach, and
D/S Joerger were already present. Sgt. Lester approached the vehicle and described the situation as
Mr. Frederick retrieved the firearm and fled from the vehicle as follows:

“Um, so as they're trying to work through removing the suspect, I kinda

just stayed as a security position or like an over-watch and then, um, I
was getting ready to tell Deighan when the door opens to stay in the
doorway so the suspect couldn't do anything. And before I could even
get that statement, uh, I saw Shane go to go hands on like in the door
jamb so I took a step forward to, you know, go assist but then right
when I did that I heard a - - a round crank off and then multiple rounds
fire. So I hit the deck and tried to get behind cover 'cause I don't know
if the suspect was shooting at us.”

“I heard Peach say don't do it right as that volley of shots came out. So
I didn't know if the suspect grabbed a gun, another suspect in the
vehicle grabbed a gun and fired a round but I was behind them so there
was pretty much nothing I could do. If returned fire I'd risk hitting
them. So I got behind the vehicle. When I came back up I saw, um,
Shane, uh, pursuing, now that I know the suspect, um, into this field.
Uh, Deighan and Peach stayed with the suspect vehicle so I went with,
uh, Shane Joerger. Um, I could hear Shane giving him loud, clear

22
 commands, show me your hands, put your hands up. I can't remember
the exact phrase that he said. Um, and then he discharged rounds and
so I peered out around him to get a better vantage point and that's when
I saw the suspect stand up and I could see a gun in his hand. And as he
was running he started to raise it towards me so, fearing for my life
because of the obvious firearm being pointed at me, I discharged four
rounds until he disappeared into the wood line.”

The investigating detective inquired further about Sgt. Lester’s initial reaction to the shooting, where
he fell to the ground. Sgt. Lester explained:

“So when they were trying to get him to step out of the vehicle, uh, the
-- Deputy Joerger opened the door and went hands on and then as I'm
watching that I see the suspect kinda go back towards the vehicle and
Deputy Joerger go into like the -- the door threshold so I was gonna go
up there figuring they were struggling and hands on. As I took two
steps forward I hear rounds start going. And I see, you know, a blur of
people going to my right. Knowing that I can't return fire 'cause A, I
don't know where -- where it's coming from or who's shooting or why
they're shooting I decided to get behind the vehicle for cover but in that
moment I tripped and fell.”

D/S Deighan was the third involved officer to be interviewed about his conduct during the
June 11, 2022 event. He was asked to describe what happened immediately prior to the shooting
event. He indicated that as he was standing on the passenger side of the vehicle he observed D/S
Joerger give directions to Mr. Frederick. D/S Deighan then stated the following:

“I could see the guy grab the gun, drew it out the car and I hear a round
crack off. So I believe I was getting shot at. I was in fear for my life,
my partners and the community and I returned fire. So then after I
returned fire, um, I saw that Joerger and Lester was, um -- was in the
area of the fields I guess over there that it was where he was running
towards, um, I decided to draw back down on the car and secure the
vehicle.”

Det. Avila and Det. Daugherty questioned D/S Deighan more about hearing a “round crack off.” In
response, D/S Deighan stated:

“All I know is the subject grabbed the gun and I heard a shot crack off.
I thought I was getting shot at...He was fleeing with the gun in his
hand.”

After this portion of the conversation, the interviewing Detectives pressed further for detail about
whether D/S Deighan ever saw Mr. Frederick point the gun at one of the law enforcement officers
who was on scene. D/S Deighan replied:

23
 “Um, I could see his body movement like moving back and forth like -
- like he was turning but, I can't confirm if he actually pointed the gun
at me. But like I said, all I heard was a round get cracked off and when
he was running, his body movement he was looking like back and forth.
I could see him look back like at least one time. I can't confirm if he
was pointing the gun at me but like I said, I was in fear of my life, the
community and the other deputies that was there.”

D/S Joerger was the final responding officer who was interviewed. Regarding his observation
of the scene immediately prior to the shooting event, he indicated he responded in a backup capacity
and began to assist in directing the individuals inside the vehicle. He described his interaction as
follows:

“Um, at that point in time I had two deputies at gunpoint on the

occupants of the vehicle. There were four occupants and, uh, everyone
was pretty compliant for the most part. Everybody had their hands up.
The front seat passenger was trying to get on his phone and do the
phone thing but he had his hands where we could see them. Uh, so, I
decided we're already on the car, we're not gonna back up. We can see
the gun, let's get this guy away from the gun…I opened the door. I told
him very clearly keep your hands out the window. He did initially keep
his hands out the window. This is the rear seat passenger who's close
to the gun. I said, "Hey, keep your hands out the window." Um, he did
initially. I opened the door. I grabbed his right hand.”

“When I went to grab his left hand, he reached for the gun and grabbed
the gun and bolted out of the vehicle. Would've been southbound across
the field. So, um, obviously as soon as he grabs the gun, I'm thinking
he's about to shoot me. I don't know why you would grab a -- a firearm,
um, without the intent to shoot at us, try to kill us, whatever -- whatever
you're trying to do there. Um, so grabs the gun. He bolts southbound
and shots start ringing out. Um, I thought he shot at -- at me. I never
saw a muzzle flash. Um, I broke eye contact with him momentarily
while I was trying to disengage and get away from him. I just checked
right, started moving right and let Deighan and Peach handle whatever
they needed to handle. Um, there were several shots ringing out. I
thought he shot at us. I -- I mean, I still don't know a hundred percent
whether he did or not shoot at us. I guess that'll be revealed through
your guys' investigation. Um, if you told me today that he shot at us, I
would believe you.”

“If you told me he didn't shoot at us, I would kinda question that a little
bit as to why he would even grab the gun in the first place then. Um,
so he's going across the field, um, you can actually see in my dash cam
if -- I'm sure you guys have looked at it, I thought he was shooting at
me, I get -- I'm getting low and small as I draw my pistol out. Uh, if

24
 you watch my dash cam, I know my body cam looks like I stand tall
and engage him across the field but, if you watch my dash cam I'm
actually getting low because I'm thinking he's shooting at me. Um, so,
I thought he shot at us. Um, I engage him across the field. He goes
down. I believe I fired two rounds. It's a pretty good distance. I know
it's probably more than 25 yards across the field. By the time I engaged
it was definitely over 25 yards. Um, I started -- once he went down I
started flanking right. Um, my backdrop was a residential community,
which he was running towards with the firearm, which was another
concern that I had. Um, he goes down. I go right and start closing the
distance on him. I can see him move -- he was motionless initially. I
could see him moving around on the ground a little bit, which is when
--that's-- that's exactly when I turned my flashlight on my, uh -- my gun
and start, uh, engaging him in dialogue verbally and saying get your
hands up. I gave him very clear commands, get your hands up. Um, he
still has the gun.”

“The only thing I wanted to see were hands go up or him not moving.
One of the two. Didn't matter to me but I gave him very clear
commands, get your hands up. He turned, he was facing away me. Um,
his whole body was -- like he was on his hands and knees, he was facing
away from me, he turned and looked back at me, which concerned me
because now he's trying to track my location at that time. Um, and I'm
telling him get his hands up at this time. So, he's looking back at me.
He's not following my commands. He -- he's moving around. I can see
his hands moving around and then he -- while his hips are still facing
away from me, he turns his shoulders and his head towards me and his
arm comes back, which is when I began to engage him again. Um, I
believe I engage three rounds, um, just tempo, um, rounds on him. I'm
still probably 20 yards away from him at this time roughly, um, and he
got up and continued to flee. I did not see the gun but I believed that he
still had it based on the way he was running. Um, Sergeant Lester was
off to my right at this time and when I started engaging him, I -- I
thought I was by myself. I couldn't hear anything. Um, Sergeant Lester
started engaging him. I knew somebody was off to my right at that
time.”

While not a law enforcement officer, Det. Avila and Det. Daugherty also interviewed Mr.
Barrientos. That discussion occurred on June 15, 2022, and during his interview he indicated he had
limited view of the encounter, as Mr. Barrientos never left D/S Joerger’s patrol vehicle. Mr.
Barrientos described his observation of the events upon D/S Joerger and his arrival as follows:

“Um, so at that point, uh, the deputies looked like they were already,
uh, being threatened by the weapon inside of the vehicle. And, um,
after that, uh, Deputy Shane got out of the vehicle. He got behind one
of the deputies on the rear right side of the passenger seat. Uh, he also

25
 noticed a weapon. Um, from what I remember, the suspect got out after
Deputy Shane was about to what looked like apprehend him and, um,
he took off. And the deputies opened fire.”

Det. Avila and Det. Daugherty questioned whether Mr. Barrientos ever saw Mr. Frederick in
possession of a firearm. Mr. Barrientos said no and further stated that he never saw Mr. Frederick
threaten the responding deputies with a firearm.

LEGAL FINDINGS

Having reviewed the known facts and evidence of the events of June 11, 2022, this
memorandum will now make specific legal findings as to the following: (1) whether the IRCSO’s
traffic stop of S. Jones’ vehicle on June 11, 2022 was lawful; (2) whether the IRCSO had authority
to act in directing Mr. Frederick out of the S. Jones’ vehicle after the traffic stop occurred; (3) whether
the volley of shots fired beginning at 9:04:37 pm, when Mr. Frederick fled the vehicle, were lawful;
and finally, (4) whether the volley of shots fired beginning at 9:04:45 pm, when Mr. Frederick was
pursued by D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester, were lawful.

It should be noted, this memorandum should not be construed as either acceptance or reproach
of the tactics employed by members of the IRCSO during or immediately after the traffic. Rather,
these findings are limited to aspects of the case over which the Office of the State Attorney has
jurisdiction – specifically, whether D/S Deighan, D/S Peach, D/S Joerger, or Sgt. Lester should be
criminally charged for each law enforcement officer’s respective conduct during the incident.

(1) Was the traffic stop lawful?

The initial issue to consider in this matter is whether D/S Deighan’s stop of S. Jones’ vehicle
was legally permissible. In Florida, before any law enforcement officer acting in his legal capacity
may stop or detain a citizen, he or she must have a reason for so doing. This specific concept has
been addressed on a number of occasions by appellate courts, and our state Supreme Court had the
opportunity to consider this question when it ruled on the matter of Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757
(Fla. 1997). In Holland, the defendant appealed a conviction for possession of cocaine that stemmed
from law enforcement’s observation that the defendant ran a stop sign. Id. at 758. In considering the
legality of the stop, the Court employed an objective test when deciding whether there was probable
cause supporting the stop. In essence, for a law enforcement officer to affect a stop of a citizen, that
officer must have probable cause to believe an infraction or crime of some sort had been or was being
committed.

As this analysis continues perhaps the next question to consider is, what is probable cause?
Probable cause has been defined by Florida’s Supreme Court as, “…a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances strong enough in themselves to warrant a cautious person in belief that
the named suspect is guilty of the offense charged.” Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648, 654 (Fla. 1995).
Put more simply our immediate appellate court, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, described
probable cause as “…is it more likely than not that a crime was committed.” League v. State, 778
So.2d 1086, at 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In applying this law to the facts of this case, the question

26
as to the validity of D/S Deighan’s stop is simple – did he have probable cause to believe S. Jones’
vehicle had committed an infraction at the time he performed the traffic stop?

As noted above, the basis for D/S Deighan’s traffic stop arose from both the illegal tint on the
windows of S. Jones’ vehicle and the vehicle’s expired registration. The Fourth District of Appeals
considered whether illegal window tint was a sufficient basis for a traffic stop when it rendered an
opinion on the matter of State v. Coley, 157 So.3d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). In Coley, that defendant
challenged a conviction for possession of cocaine and cannabis stemming from a traffic stop based
on illegal window tint. Id. at 543. Citing the Supreme Court in Holland, the Fourth District Court of
Appeals held, “[a] traffic stop is permissible under the Fourth Amendment where an officer has
probable cause to believe that a traffic infraction has occurred.” Id. at 544. The Appellate Court then
further stated illegal window tint was a justified basis for a law enforcement officer to conduct a
traffic stop. Id. at 544. Alternatively, the court of appeals in State v. Johns, 920 So.2d 1156 (2nd
DCA 2006), held the officer was justified in stopping the defendant for an expired tag.

In light of the above, an officer may conduct a traffic stop if that officer had a reasonable basis
to believe that “it was more likely than not” that either a crime or a civil infraction was occurring.
Here, D/S Deighan knew that at least two infractions were being committed at the time he affected
the traffic stop, those being the vehicle’s windows possessed illegal window tint (Sections 316.2953
and 316.2954), and the vehicle was being operated while the registration for that vehicle was expired.
(Section 320.07) In light of those facts and the legal precedent discussed above, the State of Florida
specifically finds the traffic stop performed on S. Jones’ vehicle was lawful.

(2) Did the IRCSO have authority to direct Mr. Frederick out of the vehicle?

The next issue that must be addressed is whether the IRCSO had the lawful authority to order
Mr. Frederick out of the vehicle. The Florida Supreme Court considered this issue in Presley v. State,
227 So.3d 95 (Fla. 2017). The defendant in Presley challenged a conviction for offenses that arose
from a search of his person that occurred while the defendant was merely the passenger in a vehicle
stopped by officers. Id. at 96. Our high Court specifically held, “…as a matter of course, law
enforcement officers may detain a vehicle's passengers for the reasonable duration of
a traffic stop without violating the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 107 – 108. In reaching this decision,
Florida’s Supreme Court offered the following detailed analysis:

The evolution of these cases—primarily the statements in Brendlin,

551 U.S. at 258, 127 S.Ct. 2400, that “[i]t is ... reasonable
for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime,
arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that
could jeopardize his safety,” and in Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333, 129 S.Ct.
781, that “[t]he temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily
continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop”
(emphasis added)—demonstrates that the Presley and Aguiar courts
correctly held that law enforcement officers may
prevent passengers from leaving a traffic stop, as a matter of course,
without violating the Fourth Amendment. In Johnson, the Supreme
Court reiterated that the “weighty interest in officer safety” applies

27
 regardless of whether the occupant of the vehicle is a driver or
a passenger, and the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to
prevent apprehension for a more serious crime “is every bit as great as
that of the driver.” 555 U.S. at 331–32, 129 S.Ct.
781 (quoting Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 413–14, 117 S.Ct. 882).
The Supreme Court also explained that because the passenger is
already stopped, the “additional intrusion on the passenger is
minimal.” Id. at 332, 129 S.Ct. 781 (quoting Maryland v. Wilson, 519
U.S. at 415, 117 S.Ct. 882).

Id. at 108.

In light of the above, it is clear that D/S Deighan, then D/S Peach, followed by D/S Joerger
and Sgt. Lester, each had lawful authority over Mr. Frederick, and all occupants of the vehicle for
that matter, to direct his movements within S. Jones’ vehicle. It is also clear that the responding
IRCSO law enforcement officers had the lawful authority to direct Mr. Frederick to exit the vehicle.

It should be noted, the cases cited above gives law enforcement the described authority over
a given citizen simply from being a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle. This has not even taken
into account the facts of this case, that on top of Mr. Frederick being a passenger in S. Jones’ vehicle
on the night in question, he had a firearm in plain view immediately in front of him for his ready
access. Once D/S Deighan and D/S Peach observed that firearm in plain view, they had the additional
lawful authority to temporarily detain Mr. Fredrick’s for their safety. This authority originates from
the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in the matter of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In
Terry, our nation’s highest Court held, “[W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct which
causes him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and
that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous ... he is entitled for
the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” Id.
at 30.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the responding members of the IRCSO were not operating
in a vacuum on the night of June 11, 2022. The involved personnel were among the investigating
law enforcement officers from incident which occurred on June 10, 2022 which involved S. Jones’
vehicle in connection with an alleged shooting incident. The combination of these facts created a
clear and present danger to the deputies. As such, the responding law enforcement officers had the
authority to direct Mr. Frederick to exit the vehicle based on the law surrounding passengers and
traffic stops. The responding law enforcement officers also had the lawful authority to direct Mr.
Frederick to exit the vehicle under Terry because Mr. Frederick had immediate access to a deadly
weapon and so for their safety they could lawfully detain him. Furthermore, in light of the totality of
the circumstances it would be reasonable for those deputies to believe Mr. Fredrick may be engaged
in criminal activities. As such, the State of Florida specifically finds the D/S Deighan, D/S Joerger,
D/S Peach, and Sgt. Lester had lawful authority to direct Mr. Frederick to exit S. Jones’ vehicle on
June 11, 2022.

28
(3 & 4) Whether the volleys of shots fired by the IRCSO were lawful?

With the above findings in mind we now turn our analysis to the crux of this incident, that is
to say whether members of the IRCSO were justified in using deadly force when they discharged
their firearms at Mr. Frederick. As previously discussed, this incident can be broken down into two
separate volleys, and each will be addressed separately. That said, the law controlling each evaluation
is similar and will be addressed collectively.

The seminal case addressing the lawful use of force by a law enforcement officer is The
United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In Graham, our
nation’s highest Court addressed the standard of review which is to be employed when considering
the lawfulness of an officer’s use of force. Id. at 388. Given the complicated nature of civilian/law
enforcement interactions, the Court held that a standard of objective reasonableness should be applied
to a review of an officer’s use of force. Id. at 396. Specifically, the Court held:

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from

the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with
the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S., at
20–22, 88 S.Ct., at 1879–1881. The Fourth Amendment is not violated
by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is
arrested, Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d
484 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on
the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S.Ct.
1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). With respect to a claim of excessive force,
the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every
push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a
judge's chambers,” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d, at 1033, violates the
Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must
embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to
make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense,
uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is
necessary in a particular situation. Id. at 396-397. (Emphasis added).

In authoring this opinion, the Supreme Court emphasized that law enforcement encounters
are often tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving events. Id. at 397. It is for this reason that the standard
of review to be employed when assessing an officer’s use of force is one of “objective
reasonableness.” In other words, an officer’s use of force is to be judged from the perspective of an
“objectively reasonable officer” and not from the perspective of a lay person judging the officer’s
actions with the benefit of hindsight.

Having discussed the standard of review by which law enforcement’s actions are evaluated, I
will now offer an analysis of the State’s justifiable use of deadly force statute which applies to law
enforcement and civilians alike. (see State v. Peraza, 259 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 2018)). Our Legislature
has codified the law on this topic in, Section 776.012(2), Florida Statutes 2022. Section 776.012(2)
reads as follows:

29
 “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he
or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible
felony1. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in
accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has
the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to
use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a
place where he or she has a right to be.” Chapter 776.012(2), Florida
Statutes (2022).

In trying to understand Florida’s justifiable use of deadly force statute, it is often helpful to
review the standard jury instructions which elaborate upon the statutory language contained in
Section 776.012(2). Florida’s Standard Jury Instruction in Criminal Cases 3.6(f) addresses the
definition of justifiable use of deadly force. Of particular importance is the following language:

In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly

force, you must consider the circumstances by which he was surrounded
at the time the force was used. The danger need not have been actual;
however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger
must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person
under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger
could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon
appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger
was real. (Emphasis added).

While assessing Deputies Deighan, Peach, Joerger and Sgt. Lester’s use of force on June 11,
2022, it is this law that we must apply to our analysis bearing in mind that the standard of review is
one of objective reasonableness. More specifically, we are instructed to examine the deputies’ use
of force from the perspective of the hypothetical “objectively reasonable officer” on the ground at the
moment the force was employed.

For the purposes of this review, the first sentence of Florida Statute 776.012(2) is the most
important. Specifically tailored to the facts of this scenario, it may be read as follows, “A person is
justified in using … deadly force if he … reasonably believes that using … such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, … or another, or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” The issue to consider for both the first
and second shooting events, as to each involved IRCSO deputy, is as follows – would the “objectively
reasonable officer” under the same circumstances have believed that at the time he discharged his
firearm he was either: personally at risk of imminent death or great bodily harm; OR, that shooter

1
Section 776.08, Florida Statutes, defines a forcible felony as treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-
invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy;
unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of
physical force or violence against any individual. Chapter 776.08, Florida Statutes (2022).

30
believed another was at risk of imminent death or great bodily harm; OR, that the shooter believed
Mr. Frederick was engaged (or about to engage) in the imminent commission of a forcible felony?

In a final point before applying the above law to the known facts of the case, it should be
noted the undersigned is not an expert in use of force. It is for this reason that St. Lucie County
Sheriff’s Office Deputy Don Christman, hereinafter D/S Christman, was retained by the State
Attorney’s Office. Prior to working for the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office as a Training Deputy,
D/S Christman previously worked for the Fort Pierce Police Department for 28 years, retiring with
the rank of Lieutenant. Over the course of his law enforcement career, he became recognized as an
expert witness within the 19th Judicial Circuit in the area of “Use of Force,” and has testified in that
capacity on eighteen occasions collectively in State and Federal Court. Prior to this memorandum,
D/S Christman reviewed the same evidence as the undersigned, and made specific written findings
as to the conduct of each involved law enforcement officer. In authoring this letter, the undersigned
has taken D/S Christman’s expert findings into consideration.

(3) The first shooting event that occurred at 9:04:37 pm

Having reached the core of this issue, this memorandum will now address the question of
whether D/S Deighan, D/S Peach, and D/S Joerger each possessed an objectively reasonable belief
that justified their actions at the time each discharged his firearm at Mr. Frederick during the initial
encounter. By way of reminder, Sgt. Lester did not discharge his firearm during the first volley. In
conducting this analysis, it is important to review the facts known to both Mr. Frederick and to the
involved law enforcement officers.

Consider what can be known of Mr. Frederick based not upon speculation, but based upon
the objective evidence documented through body and dash camera footage as well as prior
investigative activities. Immediately prior to Mr. Frederick’s decision to physically resist law
enforcement and flee from S. Jones’ vehicle with a firearm (which he almost certainly knew was
stolen), Mr. Frederick was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by a marked patrol unit with overhead
lights activated. He was present as multiple back-up units arrived, also with lights activated. He was
surrounded by uniformed IRCSO law enforcement officers who announced their presence and gave
directions and commands to all parties within S. Jones’ vehicle. Having observed a firearm in the
vehicle, D/S Peach and D/S Deighan drew their respective firearms and aimed said weapons at Mr.
Frederick (a fact that Mr. Fredrick was keenly aware of). Mr. Fredrick was issued clear and
unambiguous instructions to keep his hands out of the window.

These deputies were also aware of the fact that this particular vehicle was suspected to have
been involved in a shooting the prior evening. Mr. Frederick, while seated in the rear of this vehicle,
had immediate access to a firearm located inches in front of him. Mr. Frederick demonstrated he was
able to hear the directions of law enforcement, as he initially complied by placing his hands out of
the rear passenger window. At the time Mr. Frederick chose to retrieve a firearm and invite lethal
consequences upon himself, he was outnumbered four to one. The significance of these facts cannot
be overstated. One must ask oneself, given the totality of the circumstances known by law
enforcement at the time of this incident what would an “objectively reasonable officer” have done?
The answer to this question is succinctly provided by D/S Joerger in his statement when he said,
“[s]o, um, obviously as soon as he grabs the gun, I'm thinking he's about to shoot me. I don't know

31
why you would grab a -- a firearm, um, without the intent to shoot at us, try to kill us, whatever --
whatever you're trying to do there.” The reasonable perception of law enforcement was that, Mr.
Frederick presented as an individual who was willing to do anything to evade law enforcement.

With these known facts in mind, consider D/S Joerger’s actions. Immediately prior to the
shooting event he gave clear verbal instructions to Mr. Frederick. D/S Joerger opened the door of S.
Jones’ vehicle and placed his right hand on Mr. Frederick’s right hand as D/S Joerger guided Mr.
Frederick out of the vehicle. It was at this point that Mr. Frederick retrieved the Ruger with his left
hand, within inches of D/S Joerger. Further, when Mr. Frederick’s left hand with the firearm came
out of the vehicle, it came directly at D/S Joerger as Mr. Frederick pushed past him and began to flee
the scene. Applying the law to these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that the “objectively reasonable
officer” in D/S Joerger’s position would have believed that he was personally in danger of imminent
death or great bodily harm and therefore his decision to discharge his firearm at Mr. Frederick was
lawful and justified.

In considering the actions of Deputies Peach and Deighan, it is important to note that this first
shooting event did not occur within a large area. All parties were roughly within the width of S.
Jones’ vehicle from one another. The windows of S. Jones’ vehicle were partially open. The
responding law enforcement officers, as evidenced by their respective statements and actions on body
camera footage and dash camera footage, were able to see within the vehicle and were able to observe
(both visually and audibly) their fellow deputies. As such, both D/S Peach, D/S Deighan, and Sgt.
Lester were able to clearly view the situation. Applying the law to these facts, it is reasonable to
conclude that the “objectively reasonable officer” in the position of both D/S Peach and D/S Deighan
would have believed that either each individually was in danger of imminent death or great bodily
harm, or that D/S Joerger was at risk of imminent death or great bodily harm and therefore each of
their individual decisions to discharge their firearm at Mr. Frederick was lawful and justified.

Therefore, State of Florida concludes that given the totality of the circumstances, as soon as
Mr. Frederick made the conscious decision to grasp the loaded Ruger with his left hand while exiting
S. Jones’ vehicle, D/S Deighan’s, D/S Peach’s, and D/S Joerger’s decision to utilize deadly force was
an “objectively reasonable” one.

(4) The second shooting event that occurred at 9:04:45 pm

This memorandum will now address the question of whether D/S Deighan, D/S Joerger, and
Sgt. Lester each possessed an objectively reasonable belief that justified their actions at the time they
discharged their firearms at Mr. Frederick during the second encounter. By way of reminder, D/S
Deighan did not discharge his firearm during the second volley. In considering this analysis, it is
important to review the facts known to both Mr. Frederick and to the involved law enforcement
officers in the eight seconds that elapsed between the first and second exchange of gunfire.

With regards to Mr. Frederick, in addition to the facts articulated above, he now knew he was
being pursued by multiple law enforcement officers. Mr. Frederick knew those law enforcement
officers had discharged firearms at him. In spite of this, Frederick made the conscious decision to
continue his flight while maintaining possession of the firearm.

32
 With respect to the objective facts know by law enforcement, in addition to the facts and
circumstances discussed above, each deputy now knew Mr. Frederick had a firearm in his actual
possession. Each deputy now knew Mr. Frederick, after having been fired upon, was not abiding by
commands given (commands to not move and get your hands up), and was actively fleeing the scene
with a firearm. Finally, each deputy now knew Mr. Frederick was not concerned with the
overwhelming odds against him and that he had clearly demonstrated that he would not follow law
enforcement’s commands and thus posed what can best be described, objectively, as an imminent
threat.

As these events developed, the reader should also consider the actions of D/S Peach. As he
observed Frederick’s flight from the scene while positioned on the north side of S. Jones’ vehicle, he
loudly exclaimed “He’s reaching” and immediately re-engaged Mr. Frederick by discharging his
firearm. Similarly, consider the actions of D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester. As each pursued Mr.
Frederick, both heard D/S Peach’s exclamations and also observed Frederick begin to raise his
firearm in their respective direction. At that point in time both D/S Joerger and Sgt. Lester discharged
their firearms. Applying the law to these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that in light of the totality
of the circumstances the “objectively reasonable officer” in the position of deputies Peach, Joerger,
and Sgt. Lester, would have believed that individually they were in danger of imminent death or great
bodily harm, or that their fellow law enforcement officers were at risk of imminent death or great
bodily harm, or that Mr. Frederick might commit any other felony which involves the use or threat
of physical force or violence against any individual. As such, the decision D/S Peach, D/S Joerger,
and Sgt. Lester to discharge each individual’s respective firearm at Frederick during this second
incident was lawful and justified as it was an objectively reasonable and justified use of deadly force.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law

As a final consideration, we should address the following hypothetical question. If the State
of Florida were to ignore the foregoing legal and factual analysis and charge these law enforcement
officers with a crime, what would result? Were any of the four to be charged criminally, pursuant to
a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court in the matter of State v. Peraza, each would be entitled
to assert his respective immunity from criminal prosecution under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground
Law.” State v. Peraza, 259 So.3d 728 at 729 (Fla. 2018).

In Peraza, the defendant shot and killed an individual while the defendant was working as a
law enforcement officer. Id. at 729. The defendant was criminally charged and filed a motion to
dismiss based on what is commonly known as the theory of “Stand Your Ground” law. The trial court
granted the defendant’s motion and the charges against him were dismissed. Id. at 730. This legal
concept of “Stand Your Ground”, is delineated in Sections 776.012(2), 776.032(1), and 776.05,
Florida Statutes 2022. Ultimately through a series of appellate machinations, the matter proceeded
to our State’s high Court, which specifically held that law enforcement officers are entitled to the
same legal protection when using deadly force as any other citizen in the State of Florida. Id. at 730
– 731.

In light of this decision, in the hypothetical situation where the Office of the State Attorney
were to bring criminal charges against any of the deputies involved in this incident, it is with a high
degree of certainly that those charges would be dismissed by the court rendering the deputies immune

33