Sitting alone in her car, Jen Dold was overwhelmed with emotion and unable to drive. She had just received a manila envelope containing her brother’s autopsy report. Within it, she found a single, devastating word: “accident.” Her hands trembled as she held the papers.
Their mother had dialed 911 seeking help for Dold’s 29-year-old brother, Alex, who was experiencing a mental health crisis. Tragically, after encountering law enforcement officers, Alex was subjected to Tasers, physical violence, and neglect which ultimately led to his death. Despite the official ruling of “accident,” Dold could not accept this explanation and believed her brother’s death was a homicide.
In a state of anger and grief, Jen sat in the parking lot outside the county medical examiner’s office just north of Seattle, determined to seek justice for her brother. She vowed to no longer stay silent or turn a blind eye to what had happened.
In the United States, cases where civilians die following encounters with law enforcement often result in no criminal charges against the officers involved. The determination of how and why a person died falls upon medical examiners and coroners, who assess the manner and cause of death.
Contrary to popular TV dramas, where forensic evidence dictates the nature of a death, real-life investigations into deaths involving police restraint can be plagued by inconsistencies, questionable science, and conflicts of interest. An investigation conducted by The Associated Press revealed 1,036 deaths over a decade linked to police use of force other than firearms, such as physical violence or Tasers.
Many of these deaths occurred under circumstances where individuals posed minimal threat or were engaged in criminal activity. Factors contributing to these fatalities included officers failing to follow safety protocols, administering powerful sedatives, or relying on discredited diagnoses like “excited delirium.”
The majority of these cases were deemed accidents by medical examiners, often attributing the deaths to preexisting conditions, drug use, or outdated medical theories. Some decisions were influenced by the belief that officers did not intend to cause harm, rather than on concrete evidence.
The proximity between medical officials and law enforcement agencies appeared to impact the rulings, with accidents being more commonly declared when examiners had close ties to the departments under scrutiny. The lack of standardized procedures across states and varied qualifications of those determining cause of death further complicated the issue.
The system surrounding death investigations following police encounters is intricate and subject to influence, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
Concerned about the lack of independence of medical examiners in cases of police-involved deaths, he proposes that state health departments should take the lead. In instances where deaths are deemed accidental, prosecutions of officers are extremely rare – out of the 443 cases identified by the AP, only two led to criminal charges. This diminishes the likelihood of families succeeding in wrongful death lawsuits.
Jen Dold expressed disappointment in the justice system, believing that victims would receive justice and perpetrators, whether police officers or not, would be held accountable. However, her perception changed when faced with her own family tragedy.
Jen Dold, 11 years older than her brother Alex, took on a maternal role for him as he battled schizophrenia. Despite her efforts, Alex’s condition worsened, leading to a tragic event in 2017. Following an altercation between Alex and his mother, law enforcement was called to the scene. The situation escalated, resulting in a violent confrontation between Alex and multiple officers. Despite pleas from his mother about his mental health condition, the incident ended with Alex’s tragic death.
Jen Dold was dissatisfied with the investigation, feeling that the focus was shifted away from the officers’ actions. However, when she sought answers from the county’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Daniel Selove, she was disappointed to learn that Alex’s death was ruled as accidental. Dr. Selove cited an irregular heartbeat as the cause of death and stated that the officers did not intend to kill Alex, thus categorizing it as an accident.
The case of Alex Dold highlights the differing interpretations of intent among forensic experts. Dr. Selove’s ruling on Alex’s death exemplifies the inconsistency in applying the concept of intent in such cases. Despite the significant role of police force in Alex’s demise, the lack of intent to kill led to the classification of his death as accidental, leaving his family grappling with unanswered questions.
Guidelines from the National Association of Medical Examiners state that while intent is a valid factor, restraint deaths can be classified as homicide even without it, which can be beneficial in preventing any perception of a cover-up. Dr. J. Keith Pinckard, the organization’s president, emphasized that the manner of death is an opinion used for vital statistics and public health, rather than a legal determination, but it still carries weight in court.
The significance of an accidental ruling became evident when local prosecutors used it to clear deputies and officers of any wrongdoing. This was one of many instances where autopsy findings were used by prosecutors to conclude investigations, even in cases involving excessive force.
Jen Dold believed that the only way to hold the deputies accountable for her brother’s death was through a lawsuit. After finding a lawyer with a promising track record, the family learned about Deputy McGee’s involvement in a previous fatal incident while on duty. Despite the challenges posed by qualified immunity protections for officers, the accidental ruling on her brother’s death did not help their case.
During the lawsuit proceedings, it was revealed that Dr. Stanley Adams, the original pathologist who conducted the autopsy, was fired by Selove, the medical examiner, and subsequently replaced his initial conclusion of homicide with an accident. This revelation provided a glimmer of hope for the Dold family.
After a long legal battle, the county offered the Dold family a settlement of approximately $1.5 million in 2023. Jen Dold initially wanted the settlement to include a change to the ruling of homicide, but ultimately accepted the offer due to the exhausting nature of the process.
When contacted by a reporter, Deputy McGee, who resigned shortly after Alex Dold’s death, refused to take any further calls and abruptly ended the conversation. The deputy who had partnered with McGee also resigned in 2019 due to allegations of engaging in sexual activity while on duty, according to police records of disciplinary actions. Jen Dold continues to be troubled by the use of force surrounding her brother’s death and the pain and fear he might have experienced while struggling to breathe. She is haunted by a simple question: What if the medical examiner’s report had used the word “homicide”?
While individuals like Jen Dold advocate for a homicide determination, powerful establishments may have conflicting interests. The Associated Press discovered instances of officials attempting to influence medical examiners in various cases, including elected and appointed figures like police chiefs, sheriffs, and mayors, as well as external entities such as Axon Enterprise Inc., the manufacturer of Tasers.
In November 2021, the chief medical examiner in North Dakota was deliberating on how to classify the death of a 43-year-old man encountered by police in a Bismarck neighborhood. The man, who was under the influence of methamphetamine and distressed over his daughter’s safety, resisted arrest when officers attempted to handcuff him. Subsequently, three officers discharged their Tasers almost simultaneously, with one successfully making contact.
A neighbor captured video footage of police restraining the man face down under a streetlight, prompting remarks likening the incident to George Floyd’s death. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Barrie Miller, the state’s chief medical examiner, who was later found to have communicated with Michael Brave, a longtime attorney for Axon, regarding the case. Brave shared numerous documents with Miller over the weekend, including materials minimizing the risks associated with Tasers.
Despite the evidence suggesting possible adverse effects of prone restraint, Miller ruled the man’s death as a result of methamphetamine-induced agitation and exertion, with no mention of Tasers or the involvement of officers. The manner of death was left as undetermined, one of five possible classifications including accident, homicide, natural, and suicide.
Dr. Miller was dismissed from her position following a police visit to her office, and Brave, now working at a law firm in Phoenix, stated that Miller had reached out to him seeking information about Tasers.
He said he wasn’t trying to influence her — he simply wanted her to have accurate information. A representative from Axon did not reply to messages. Checklists, similar to the one Brave had sent to Miller, have been a longstanding strategy employed by Axon. In a 2018 online presentation titled “Managing Your Medical Examiner,” Mark Kroll, a long-time member of the company’s board of directors, advised law enforcement and prosecutors to utilize a checklist created by the company. The underlying message was to shape the ruling on the manner of death. The strategy included controlling the narrative by obtaining the deceased person’s criminal and medical history, engaging with the forensic pathologist to discuss cases, and if necessary, enlisting police-friendly experts to counter any opposition.
Kroll parted ways with Axon this year. In an email to AP, he questioned the methods used by medical examiners to determine the manner of death, suggesting that their opinions are not infallible truths but influenced by personal biases, local politics, gender, religion, and experience. He highlighted the impact of drugs and preexisting conditions, referring to some individuals who pass away as “walking time bombs.”
Axon has wielded its influence in various ways. In some autopsy reports, medical professionals have shifted blame by referencing research funded by the company. Additionally, in the early 2000s, Axon caused concern within the field of forensic pathology by challenging rulings that Tasers were responsible for or contributed to deaths, particularly when faced with product liability lawsuits.
One notable instance involved a legal battle with a medical examiner in Ohio who had linked the device to three fatal incidents. As a result of the lawsuit, the examiner was mandated by a judge to amend the manner of death classification from homicide and eliminate any mention of Tasers as a contributing factor. The president of the National Association of Medical Examiners at the time described this as “dangerously close to intimidation.”
Pressuring forensic pathologists is a prevalent issue within the field. In a 2011 survey conducted by the association, 22% of respondents reported facing pressure from elected or appointed officials to alter the cause or manner of death. Of those who resisted, 25% experienced repercussions, including termination.
A subsequent publication by the association emphasized the importance of maintaining independence in death investigations, free from influence by law enforcement or prosecutors, and guided by scientific evidence and research. Cases in North Carolina and Vermont shed light on the behind-the-scenes dynamics and challenges faced in the field of forensic pathology.
Days after his passing, a doctor from the Vermont Health Department determined the death to be a homicide. However, Burlington’s police chief expressed doubts about this conclusion in an email to the state health commissioner, mentioning that he had discussed the matter with the mayor. Brandon del Pozo, the former police chief now working as an assistant professor at Brown University, stated that he reached out to the commissioner after receiving unsatisfactory responses from the medical examiner regarding the certainty of the homicide ruling, suggesting it could have been labeled as undetermined. Former Mayor Miro Weinberger also questioned the findings, describing the medical examiner’s report as confusing and contradictory.
Despite these concerns, the state maintained its ruling of homicide. No charges were filed against any officers involved, but legal actions resulted in settlements of $2.5 million in North Carolina and $45,000 in Vermont. An investigation by AP revealed discrepancies in death classifications, with state offices like those in Vermont and North Carolina labeling around 30% of deaths as accidents, while local agencies, particularly those affiliated with law enforcement, categorized nearly 50% of deaths as accidents.
The importance of jurisdiction in determining the outcome of cases was highlighted in the tragic death of Kyle Briones in California. After a fatal car accident in San Bernardino County, where law enforcement officers used a Taser on him, Briones passed away. Had the incident occurred just a short distance away in Riverside County, the outcome might have been different, as each county’s coroner’s office had contrasting approaches in classifying deaths. The disparities in how these cases were handled underscore the impact of geographical boundaries on the determination of causes of death.
Attorney Jones enlisted the expertise of a former medical examiner who had previously served in Ventura County, situated on the opposite side of Los Angeles. This expert witness asserted that Briones met his demise as a result of the officers applying pressure to his back, which impeded his ability to breathe, leading to the conclusion that his death should be classified as a homicide. The subsequent legal proceedings culminated in a settlement of $2.75 million. Despite numerous requests for comment, Sheridan remained silent on the matter.
Among the various law enforcement agencies across the United States, San Bernardino stood out as one of 19 agencies that recorded four or more deaths, yet none were officially categorized as homicides based on data compiled by the Associated Press. A stark contrast could be seen in Miami-Dade County, where all deaths involving Tasers, as indicated in the AP’s data, were deemed accidents. The sole exception was a tragic case where a man who had been subjected to a Taser in Miami-Dade passed away six years later in Broward County. In this instance, the medical examiner classified the death of Derrick Blake as a homicide linked to the use of a Taser. Interestingly, of the 16 recorded deaths in Miami-Dade over a decade-long period analyzed by the AP, all were classified as accidents. In Broward County, only one out of the four deaths met the same fate. The chief medical examiner in Miami declined to provide any commentary on the matter.
The report further highlighted the 19 law enforcement agencies that reported four or more deaths without any being labeled as homicides, collectively accounting for around 17 million individuals. One such agency was the medical examiner’s office in Snohomish County, Washington, which incidentally was the very place where Jen Dold had tirelessly advocated, albeit unsuccessfully, for the reclassification of her brother’s death.
Various journalists contributed to this report from different parts of the country, with Weiss reporting from Greenville, South Carolina; Mohr from Jackson, Mississippi; Dunklin from Dallas; Pritchard from Los Angeles and Kirkland, Washington. Additional contributions came from Ryan J. Foley in Iowa City, Iowa; Martha Bellisle in Seattle; Rhonda Shafner in New York; Sean Mussenden in College Park, Maryland; Roxana Hegeman in Belle Plaine, Kansas; Jeff Martin in Atlanta; and Jennifer McDermott in Providence, Rhode Island.
This narrative forms part of the comprehensive investigation titled “Lethal Restraint,” spearheaded by The Associated Press in collaboration with the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism programs and FRONTLINE (PBS). The investigation encompasses an interactive story, database, and the documentary film “Documenting Police Use Of Force.”
The Associated Press acknowledges the support received from the Public Welfare Foundation for reporting centered around criminal justice. Furthermore, this report was made possible through backing from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights in partnership with Arnold Ventures.
