USE OF FORCE OPINION

OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING
(June 30, 2023 - Clifton Forge, Virginia)
PRESS RELEASE
From Ann Gardner, Commonwealth’s Attorney for Alleghany County and the City
of Covington, Virginia
On June 30, 2023, members of the Clifton Forge Police Department and the
Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office received a lookout for a man who was reported
to be unstable, suicidal, and potentially armed with a knife. A 911 caller, who
described the man as being “out-of-control” and “causing a disturbance” requested
officers’ assistance at the Oak Hill Apartments. When officers responded, they
found Leonidas Tamanini, 38, in a volatile state attempting to inject himself with a
hypodermic needle. After Tamanini refused to follow officers’ repeated
commands to drop the needle, a Taser was deployed to prevent him from harming
himself. Despite being tased, Tamanini immediately rushed toward the officers
while still holding the syringe. Clifton Forge Police Officer Aaron Smith fired two
shots as Tamanini came at him with the syringe in a confined area. Tamanini died
from his gunshot injuries.
The Virginia State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation, led by Special Agent
W. Scott Mitchell, conducted an exhaustive and independent investigation into the
facts and circumstances surrounding this officer-involved shooting. Special Agent
Mitchell and his team of investigators represent a neutral law enforcement agency
which is not affiliated with the Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office or the Clifton
Forge Police Department. In my capacity as Commonwealth’s Attorney, I
personally went to Oak Hill Apartments shortly after the incident to view the
evidence and interact with investigators as they processed the scene. On
completion of the investigation, a comprehensive file was submitted for my review
which included use-of-force policies, officers’ body-worn camera video,
photographs, diagrams, witness interviews, 911 calls, physical evidence, and
forensic reports. Independent scientific examinations were conducted by the
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Virginia Department of Forensic
Science in Roanoke. After completing thorough examinations, those experts
provided an autopsy report and certificates of analysis needed to make factual
determinations.
As Commonwealth’s Attorney, it is my responsibility to fairly and impartially
review the officers’ actions on June 30, 2023 to determine whether their use of
Page 1 of 8
force was justified under Virginia law. The sole purpose of this report is to
determine whether the officers’ use of force against Tamanini, under the
circumstances, constitutes a crime under Virginia law. This opinion does not
address any civil remedies that may be available.
The evidence is clear that on June 30, 2023 three law enforcement officers were
confronted with Tamanini whom they had been warned was mentally unstable,
suicidal, and possibly armed with a knife. When the highly agitated man tried to
load a syringe with an unknown substance from a spoon to inject himself, officers
ordered him approximately 15 times to drop the needle. Tamanini ignored
officers’ commands and persisted frantically. In an effort to keep Tamanini from
harming himself, officers attempted to subdue him with a Taser. Pulling the Taser
prongs from his body, Tamanini, still holding the hypodermic needle, charged
directly toward Officer Smith. Fearing imminent death or serious bodily injury,
having “less than two seconds” to react, Officer Smith fired two shots at Tamanini.
A reasonable officer in Officer Smith’s position, relying on his training and
experience, would recognize the hypodermic needle as a deadly weapon in
Tamanini’s hand. Officers’ numerous verbal commands ordering Tamanini to
drop the needle were ignored. Efforts to stop Tamanini with the less than lethal
Taser failed. Officer Smith could not have confronted the armed man hands-on.
With his back against the wall in the confines of a small room, Officer Smith was
legally justified in using deadly force under these circumstances where he was
reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Consequently, it is
my opinion that the shooting of Leonidas Tamanini by Officer Smith, of the
Clifton Forge Police Department, was an act of justifiable homicide and, thus, not
subject to criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there will be no criminal charges
placed against any of the three officers involved in this incident. This report sets
forth the basis for these conclusions.
FACTS
The facts surrounding this event as developed by the Virginia State Police are as
follows:
According to Court records, at the time of this incident on June 30, 2023, Leonidas
Tamanini was awaiting a hearing for a probation violation scheduled in Alleghany
County Circuit Court on July 10, 2023. It was also confirmed that Tamanini had
recently been arrested and released on bail for new felony charges in Bath County.
His mother, Sandra Tamanini, told investigators that her son was under a lot of
stress due to these circumstances and that she suspected he might be using drugs.

Page 2 of 8
At approximately 1:02 p.m. on June 30, 2023 deputies from the Alleghany County
Sheriff’s Office and officers from Clifton Forge Police Department received the
following “be on the lookout” notification from the 911 dispatcher:
BOL for Leonidas Tamanini driving a white van with missing paint
on the front. Parent stated he is unstable and made threat to go to a
graveyard and kill himself. Subject is carrying a knife.
Officer Aaron Smith of the Clifton Forge Police Department responded to the
dispatch call by checking various cemeteries in Clifton Forge to no avail. Deputy
Evan Soto of the Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office radioed Officer Smith and
offered to assist him since Tamanini was believed to be armed with a knife.
Approximately an hour later at 2:11 p.m., dispatch received another 911 call
requesting officers to respond because Tamanini was at his mother’s residence at
Oak Hill Apartments “out-of-control,” having a “psychotic episode” and “causing
a disturbance.” The caller also alerted dispatch that “he may have knives.” Sandra
Tamanini told investigators that when her son finally showed up at her apartment
in an agitated state she phoned her ex-husband and asked him to call 911.
Clifton Forge Police Chief Chad Wickline arrived first at 1606 Oak Hill Avenue
Apartment 2. Body camera video showed that he was met outside the front door
by Sandra Tamanini who said, “He’s in my bathroom. He’s doing a drug.” When
Chief Wickline started to enter the apartment, Ms. Tamanini warned, “Wait, wait
you can’t go in there alone.” When asked why, Ms. Tamanini explained,
“Because, he’s big and strong. I don’t think he has a weapon but you can’t go in
there alone.” She went on to say, “Please don’t shoot him.”
Deputy Soto and Officer Smith arrived to back up Chief Wickline and the three, all
wearing body cameras, entered the apartment. They located Tamanini in a small
bathroom just off the kitchen. Drug paraphernalia including a spoon, a smoking
device and the package for a syringe lay on the vanity next to the toilet. When
Tamanini saw officers he became upset and tried to close the door. Video showed
Tamanini frantically trying to load a substance from the spoon into a hypodermic
needle in an apparent effort to inject himself. Both Chief Wickline and Deputy
Soto repeatedly ordered Tamanini to drop the needle. Together they loudly
demanded that he drop the needle approximately 15 times. Taminini ignored their
commands and continued to manipulate the syringe. He then grabbed items from
the vanity and began to put them in his mouth.
Deputy Soto, who was aware of Tamanini’s suicidal threats, finally warned
Tamanini, “Put the needle down or I’m gonna tase you.” Again, Deputy Soto
warned, “I will tase you right now.”
Page 3 of 8
Tamanini ignored the orders and sat down on the toilet still holding the needle
appearing determined to inject himself. Deputy Soto told investigators, “I made
the decision that tasing Tamanini would de-escalate the situation and be the best
way to prevent him from taking his own life.” Deputy Soto deployed his Taser
making contact with Tamanini’s torso. Tamanini immediately swiped at the Taser
probes and charged out of the bathroom toward Chief Wickline and Deputy Soto
who were in front of the doorway. When they retreated backwards, Tamanini
veered to his left toward Officer Smith who was positioned with his gun drawn in
the confined kitchen area with little room to retreat. Fearing death or serious bodily
injury, Officer Smith fired two shots as Tamanini charged at him. When Tamanini
fell to the floor he was within arm’s reach of Officer Smith. On the floor next to
Tamanini’s hand, after he fell, lay the uncapped hypodermic needle. Body camera
video and still photographs confirmed the presence of the syringe which was
collected as evidence and sent to the state lab for analysis.
In a statement to Special Agent Mitchell, Officer Smith said:
He (Tamanini) left the restroom with his fist clenched on the needle.
He turned to me and made eye contact with me before moving
towards me. I had less than two seconds to react. I did not have time
to warn him I was going to use deadly force.
Officer Smith went on to say that he was “cornered” and “did not have space to
retreat.” Specifically in this case, Officer Smith was aware that Taminini was
suicidal and threatening to kill himself. Officer Smith did not carry a Taser but had
his firearm unholstered at the time Tamanini charged toward him. In considering
the totality of the circumstances, Officer Smith explained:
I did not know what was loaded into the needle, but from training and
experience knew it could contain a lethal dose of substances such as
Fentanyl, heroin, or meth. It could also have been infected with
deadly viruses like HIV. From my training and experience, I knew a
hypodermic needle is considered a deadly weapon. I was in fear for
my life. I thought he might stab me in the face or neck with the
needle. I was also in fear for my life that he would take my
unholstered firearm and use it on myself or the other officers.
Chief Wickline and Deputy Soto both told investigators that, in their training and
experience, they considered the hypodermic needle to be a deadly weapon. Officer
Soto described Tamanini to be holding “what I believed to be a loaded/charged
needle” pointing out that Tamanini’s suicidal threats made it more likely that the
syringe contained a lethal dose of Fentanyl, heroin or “some other life-threatening

Page 4 of 8
substance.” Chief Wickline pointed out that a recent murder case in Clifton Forge
involved a victim who died from injection with a hypodermic needle containing
lethal substances.
In a certificate of analysis dated, August 24, 2023, the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Forensic Science determined that the syringe found next to
Tamanini’s body on the floor contained methamphetamine (schedule II) residue.
An autopsy report was received October 23, 2023 in which Assistant Chief
Medical Examiner, Amy M. Tharp, determined Tamanini’s cause of death to be a
gunshot wound to the head. A second gunshot wound to the left thigh was not
lethal. A toxicology report analyzing Tamanini’s blood taken at the time of
autopsy confirmed that his blood contained methamphetamine, amphetamine, and
THC. Tamanini’s methamphetamine level at the time of this incident was
determined to be 0.64 mg/L which is approximately six times the presumptive
level listed in the Virginia Code for driving under the influence.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Virginia General Assembly has recently enacted a law outlining the
circumstances under which a law enforcement officer may use deadly force and
listing the criteria under which the appropriateness of an officer’s use of deadly
force should be evaluated. Specifically, Section 19.2-83.5 of the Code of Virginia
provides as follows:
A. A law-enforcement officer shall not use deadly force against a person
unless:
1. The law-enforcement officer reasonably believes that deadly force is
immediately necessary to protect the law-enforcement officer or
another person, other than the subject of the use of deadly force, from
the threat of serious bodily injury or death;
2. If feasible, the law-enforcement officer has provided a warning to the
subject of the deadly force that he will use deadly force;
3. The law-enforcement officer’s actions are reasonable, given the
totality of the circumstances; and
4. All other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend
themselves to the circumstances.
B. In determining if a law-enforcement officer’s use of deadly force is
proper, the following factors shall be considered:
1. The reasonableness of the law-enforcement officer’s belief and actions
from the perspective of a reasonable law-enforcement officer on the
scene at the time of the incident; and

Page 5 of 8
 2. The totality of the circumstances, including (i) the amount of time
available to the law-enforcement officer to make a decision; (ii) whether
the subject of the use of deadly force (a) possessed or appeared to possess
a deadly weapon and (b) refused to comply with the law-enforcement
officer’s lawful order to surrender an object believed to be a deadly
weapon prior to the law officer using deadly force; (iii) whether the law-
enforcement officer engaged in de-escalation measures prior to the use of
deadly force, including taking cover, waiting for backup, trying to calm
the subject prior to the use of force, or using non-deadly force prior to the
use of deadly force; (iv) whether any conduct by the law-enforcement
officer prior to the use of deadly force intentionally increased the risk of
a confrontation resulting in deadly force being used; and (v) the
seriousness of the suspected crime.
The general law of self-defense, applicable to all persons, also applies to an
officer’s use of deadly force when one reasonably perceives an “imminent threat of
death or serious bodily harm.” McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248
S.E. 2d 808, 810 (1978). A law enforcement officer who reasonably believes that
a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to that officer
or others may legally use deadly force to “prevent harm to one’s self or others and
to prevent escape.” Couture v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 239, 244, 656 S.E. 2d
425, 427 (2008).
The “reasonableness” of an officer’s “use of force must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vison of
hindsight.” Graham v. Conner, 490 US 386, 396 (1989). The Graham court
acknowledged 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 397.
Prior to arriving at 1606 Oak Hill Avenue on June 30 2023, all of the law
enforcement officers involved had been forewarned by their dispatcher that
Tamanini had voiced his intention to commit suicide and that he was armed with a
knife. When officers arrived at Sandra Tamanini’s apartment, after the second 911
call, she stopped Chief Wickline from opening the door and warned him, “You
should not go in there alone.” After Chief Wickline was advised by Ms. Tamanini
that her son was in the bathroom “doing a drug” he entered the apartment with
Deputy Soto and Officer Smith. They found Tamanini in the bathroom in what
officers described as a “manic” state frantically trying to load a syringe and inject
himself. Based on his behavior and the recent suicidal threats, it is reasonable to

Page 6 of 8
believe Tamanini may have been trying to inject himself with a lethal dose of some
substance.
First, Chief Wickline and Officer Soto attempted to de-escalate the volatile
situation with repeated verbal commands to Tamanini ordering him to drop the
needle with which they believed he was trying to harm himself. Approximately 15
verbal commands to drop the needle were audible on body camera recordings.
Tamanini ignored the verbal commands and became increasingly more agitated
appearing determined to use the needle on himself. Second, in further compliance
with the guidelines set out in Virginia Code Section 19.2-83.5, Deputy Soto took
the next available step to de-escalate the situation by warning Tamanini twice that
he would deploy his Taser. Despite Deputy Soto’s warnings, Tamanini still
refused to drop the needle. Third, Deputy Soto then deployed his Taser believing it
to be “the only less than lethal option he had” to prevent Tamanini from
committing suicide or harming himself. The Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office
Taser policy identifies the Taser as a “less lethal” force option which may be used
by a deputy for subjects that are threatening harm to themselves or others.
The use of a Taser by Deputy Soto was not effective. After being tased, Tamanini
escalated the situation by pulling the Taser barbs off and charging out of the
bathroom toward the officers with the deadly weapon in his hand. Tamanini
veered left and rushed toward Officer Smith who stood in a confined area with
what he described as “no space to retreat.” Officer Smith did not have a Taser.
Less than lethal force had been ineffective against Tamanini leaving lethal force
Officer Smith’s only viable option. Having “less than two seconds to react,”
Officer Smith discharged his firearm at the coming threat believing he was in
imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Applying the standards set out
in Virginia Code Section 19.2-83.5, Officer Smith’s use of deadly force, under the
totality of the circumstances, was reasonable. All other options had been exhausted
or did not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances. Verbal commands had
failed. Less than lethal force had failed. Officers are not trained to go hands-on
with a manic individual charging at them while armed with a deadly weapon. As
Deputy Soto explained to Special Agent Mitchell, “based on the suicide lookout”
he believed Tamanini’s attempt to stick the needle in his arm was not to get high
but “an attempt to end his life.” Consequently, from the perspective of a
reasonable law enforcement officer on the scene at the time of this incident,
Tamanini was wielding a deadly weapon potentially loaded with a lethal dose of an
unknown substance. Officer Smith had no room to retreat. He had less than two
seconds to react. Officer Smith was not required to wait and see if Tamanini
would plunge the needle into his flesh or wait to see if the syringe contained a

Page 7 of 8
lethal dose of some substance before he employed deadly force to protect himself
under the totality of these circumstances.
CONCLUSION
Chief Wickline issued repeated verbal commands to Tamanini in an effort to de-
escalate the volatile situation at 1606 Oak Hill Avenue Apartment 2 on June 30,
2023; however, he used no physical force. When the verbal commands failed,
Deputy Soto warned Taminini twice that he would use the less than lethal Taser.
When his warnings failed, Deputy Soto deployed his Taser making contact with
Taminini. When the Taser failed, Officer Smith was in reasonable fear of
imminent death or serious bodily injury as Taminini charged at him with what he
believed to be a loaded hypodermic needle. Officer Smith fired two shots at
Tamanini in self-defense. Tamanini died from a gunshot wound to the head. Under
the totality of the circumstances this was an act of justifiable homicide. Therefore,
no criminal charges will be filed against any of the three law enforcement officers
involved.

Page 8 of 8