Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Shawn Vestal: Absence of body-cam footage leaves questions about January police shooting

An important question looms following last week’s decision by Prosecutor Larry Haskell that the shooting of David Novak by Spokane police was justified: Where is the body-cam support?

Not just where is the footage itself, but where is the apparatus of accountability that the body-cam program was supposed to help bolster?

The shooting of David M. Novak by Officer Brandon Rankin is the kind of case Spokane’s supposedly improved system of police accountability is meant to address. Novak was shot in January after police came to the mistaken conclusion that he had been firing a weapon toward neighbors, when in fact he had been banging on a pickup truck with a baseball bat.

The family disputes many details of the police reports, and plans to pursue a lawsuit. Such uncertainties and subjective decisions by law enforcement and prosecutors are the basis on which the body-camera project – as well as the ombudsman’s office – is intended to add accountability and build trust with the public.

In the Novak shooting, though, body-cam footage is MIA thus far. Haskell didn’t mention it once in his 48-page report justifying the shooting, nor did he provide it publicly as part of his press conference announcing his decision. If people want to see the footage, he’s making them jump through the bureaucratic hoops of a public records request and not putting it front and center as part of his explanation.

Worse still is the fact that two officers did not turn on their cameras at all the night of the shooting, as they are required to do under city policy. An internal affairs investigation is ongoing, and it’s possible that the officers will face discipline, Chief Craig Meidl said.

Now, it’s not clear that the video would answer all the questions. Police assert it was dark and hard to see the January night when the shooting occurred, which suggests the video quality might not be revealing. The family has claimed it was well-lit enough to see plenty, though. Their attorney did not return a call seeking comment, but one family member told The S-R last week that at least one officer can be heard saying, “Drop the bat,” on the video. If that’s the case, it would seriously undercut the police account of events.

The video would presumably confirm or reject that claim. The Spokesman-Review has requested a copy of the footage, and it should be released eventually. It’s clear, however, that in this case the body-cams were an afterthought, from the officers who didn’t turn them on to the prosecutor who presented his case to the public as if they didn’t exist as a relevant source of information regarding his decision.

Novak was shot Jan. 7, 2019. Officers answered a call at about 10:30 that night that a man had shot several times at a neighbor’s house across the street in the 600 block of West Montgomery. The complainant later told police that Novak had acted intoxicated and threatening, and said that he had been shouting at them and using racial epithets. The complainant is African American, and Novak was white.

The first officer on scene reported hearing what he believed was a shotgun blast. Another officer also thought he heard gunfire, saying, “He’s shooting at us! He’s shooting at us!” Rankin said he heard three gunshots, which he thought sounded like a semi-automatic pistol.

“Due to the darkness and general lack of ambient lighting in the area,” Haskell’s report said, “it was difficult for most of the officers to see the subject … clearly or to determine exactly what Novak was armed with.”

Novak was standing in his driveway during the brief interaction with officers, though they did not know it was his home. Officers said they thought Novak was holding a long skinny object, like a rifle or shotgun. It was a bat. He repeatedly refused their orders to get on the ground and “Drop the gun.”

There was a lot of confusion and uncertainty, as reported by officers, and their sense of urgency in the moment is wholly understandable; Meidl talked about it as a “hot call,” in which officers understandably believe they are arriving right in the middle of a life-or-death emergency.

Instead of getting onto the ground as ordered, officers said, Novak walked toward officers and then toward the front door of his house – though officers did not know it was his house – and Rankin shot him as he reached the porch. Novak died just inside the door.

Was Novak still holding the bat at the moment he was shot? It’s not clear in the report. A video might illuminate that question. Did Rankin shoot too quickly, without a more measured, gradual attempt to bring the situation to an end? Haskell said no; a video seconding that impression would be of great value. Was the impression of the officers that Novak moved his hand toward his waistband in a threatening fashion correct? A video could help answer.

All in all, the way Rankin was cleared by Haskell seems like something that would have happened back in the days before SPD undertook reform efforts in the wake of the Otto Zehm debacle. The absence of body-cam footage is just one example – another is the lack of true involvement from the ombudsman’s office. Because that process is driven by complaints, and there has not been one filed in this matter, Ombudsman Bart Logue will not have an official capacity in reviewing the case.

Both Logue and Meidl said Logue could shadow the IA investigation if he chooses – or if the SPD invites him to. But the bad blood from the department toward Logue has intensified to such a point that one hesitates to place much hope in any endeavor that relies upon cooperation.

It may be that Haskell’s judgment is correct. The officers say they feared for their own lives and the lives of others, and there’s plenty of reason to believe they did. The judgments we are second-guessing here are the judgments that they had to make under extremely uncertain and frightening circumstances.

But the city has spent years trying to establish safeguards that go beyond “take our word for it” when police use fatal force. It builds trust when the community can see other sources of information beyond the statements of police and prosecutors that back up what they say.

We should try harder to use them.