fl
S
fl!  ED
IN  THE  UNITED STATES  DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEX
Ni
Q:
3
EL PASO DIVISION
CLTrY.
tN  .iLT
.  i
MANNY  MORALES
§
INDIVIDUALLY,  AND
§
D  uTT
LOURDES MORALES,
§
REPRESENTATIVE  OF  THE
§
ESTATE OF BERNIE MORALES,
§
DECEASED,
FAP4K
MONtALVO
vs.
§
CIVIL ACTION  NO._____________
§
ALBERT GOMEZ,  JOHN  DOES  1-20,
§
AND  THE CITY OF EL  PASO,
§
Defendants.
§
14  CVO
189
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL  COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Manny Morales, Individually,  and  Lourdes Morales,  as  Representative  of  the
Estate  of  Bernie Morales file  this action against Officer  Albert Gomez, John  Does  1-20,  and the
City  of  El  Paso  ("Defendants")  for the  violation  of  Plaintiffs'  civil rights.
PARTIES  AND  SERVICE
1.  Plaintiff  Manny Morales  is a  citizen  of  the United  States,  the  State  of  Texas,  and
a  resident  of  El  Paso County, Texas.
2.  Bernie Morales, Deceased,  was  a  citizen  of  the United  States,  the  State  of  Texas,
and a  resident  of  El Paso County, Texas on  the  date  of  his death.
3.  Defendant Officer Albert  Gomez, Badge No. 2076,  may be  served with process
at  his place  of  employment  at  The  El  Paso Police Department Police Headquarters,  911  N.
Raynor, El Paso, Texas 79903.
4.  Defendant City  of  El  Paso  may be  served with process  by  serving the  El  Paso
City  Manager, Joyce  A.  Wilson,  300 N.  Campbell,  El  Paso, Texas  79901.
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint  Page  1  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 40
.  .4
JURISIDCTION
5.  The action  arises  under  the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United  States  Constitution  and Title 42 U.S.C.  §
1983  and  1988.
6.  This Court  has  jurisdiction  under these claims pursuant  to  Title  28  U.S.C.  §
1331  and  1343.
VENUE
7.  Venue is proper pursuant  to  Title  28  U.S.C.  §  1391(b)(1)  in that the Defendant
resides and the cause  of  action arises  in  the Western District  of  Texas,  El  Paso Division.
NATURE OF  ACTION
8.  This is  an  action  to  recover  for violations  of  the Plaintiffs' constitutional  rights
and/or privileges or immunities guaranteed under  the Fourth  and  Fourteenth Amendments  to the
United States Constitution and Title 42 U.S.C.  §  1983  and  1988.
CONDITIONS  AND  PRECEDENTS
9.  All conditions  precedent  to  jurisdiction have  occurred  or  been complied  with.
FACTS
OFFICER  SHOOTS BERNIE MORALES  WITH  HIS  HANDS IN  THE AIR
10.  On June  15,  2012, at  about  8:01  a.m.,  Bernie Morales  was  walking along a  canal
that  runs along  the  8400 block  of  Alameda.
11.  That morning was sunny,  and  there  was clear  daylight.
12.  Bernie wanted  to  pick  or gather pecans from the trees lining the canal and in the
surrounding neighborhood, and asked for permission from resident  Larry  Davis  whose property
was nearby. Davis  readily consented, but  called  the  police,  because  officers  had been  in the
area days before looking for  an  individual suspected  of  violating his parole.
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  2  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 40
.  .
13.  Officer Albert Gomez  of  the  El  Paso Police Department was dispatched to  the
canal area.
14.  Defendant Gomez was  in  full uniform, and  drove his marked patrol unit to the
area where Bernie had been walking.
15.  Defendant  Gomez drove along  a dirt  path that that runs parallel  to the canal.
16.  Defendant Gomez located Bernie walking along the opposite side  of  the  canal.
17.  Defendant Gomez followed Bernie  up  the road.
18.  Bernie  then crossed the canal.
19.  Defendant  Gomez exited his patrol  car,  and crossed  a concrete bridge that spans
the  canal.
20.  Defendant  Gomez and Bernie were then  walking along  the same side  of  the  canal,
and traveling in the same direction.
21.  While  standing a distance  of  approximately  20  yards  or  more, Defendant yelled  to
Bernie  that he wanted  to  talk to him, and told him  to  stop.
22.  Bernie  turned around,  and  raised both  of  his hands in  the  air,  and  walked toward
Defendant  Gomez.
23.  Bernie  continues to walk toward Defendant  with his hands in the  air.
24.  Defendant Gomez then  shoots Bernie  in  the chest with  his firearm.
25.  At  the time  of  the shooting, Bernie had his hands  in  the  air,  was not  brandishing
any  weapon,  and  was surrendering  to  Defendant  Gomez.
26.  When  Bernie  is  shot,  he  falls  to the  ground.
27.  Thereafter, Bernie  does  not  receive timely medical treatment.
28.  Dr.  Juan Contin  of  the Office  of  the Medical  Examiner  and  Forensic Laboratory
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  3  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 40
.  .
for  the County  of  El  Paso ruled  that the manner  of  Bernie's  death was a homicide.
29.  Dr.  Contin  also  determined that the cause  of  death  was  "[b]leeding  due  to
gunshot wound to chest."
FAMILY MAKES COUNTLESS INQUIRIES  WITH THE POLICE
AND  THE EL  PASO COUNTY  DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' OFFICE
30.  Early  after  the  incident,  the  family inquired with Internal Affairs Division  of  the
El  Paso Police Department, and  the  El  Paso District  Attorneys'  Office.
31.  The family was  informed  that the shooting  would  be submitted to District
Attorneys'  Office, and  presented  to a  grand jury. Over the next year, nothing occurred, despite
countless phone calls  by  family members.
32.  Bernie's  brother Ramon Morales called countless times  from October, 2012 until
November, 2013. Morales  kept detailed  notes, and was told for  months that  the case was  still
under review.
33.  Ramon  was  likewise told in September,  2013  that  the  shooting matter would  be
presented  to  the grand  jury  in  October, 2013.  On  October  17,  he was then told it would be  two  to
three  weeks  later.
34.  The matter was not presented to a grand  jury  until April,  2014.
FAMILY GETS FRUSTRATED WITH  GETTING THE  RUNAROUND
AND  HIRES  AN  INDEPENDENT  INVESTIGATOR
35.  Disturbed  by  receiving no  answers  about the shooting, the family hired  a  private
investigator  to  conduct  an  independent investigation.
36.  The family hired Roy Davis,  Jr.  and  his firm Advocate Services,  Inc.
37.  Chief  Investigator Davis  is  a peace officer in good standing with  the  Texas
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  4  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 40
.  S
Commission  on  Law  Enforcement Standards and  Education.1
38.  Chief  Investigator Davis served in the  El Paso  Police Department from  1982
to
2002  where he was promoted several times  to  positions  of  high  rank.
39.  He  began  his career  as  a Police  Officer.
He was promoted to sergeant. He was
then promoted to  lieutenant. Subsequently,  the  Department  promoted him  to captain.  His last
position was  commander.
40.  Among  his  many  different assignments  as
a  captain and commander, he  was
assigned  to  review investigations  conducted  by  the  Department's  Internal Affairs Division, and
make disciplinary recommendations  for officers.
41.  Chief  Investigator Davis likewise managed the Bomb Squad, and  was also an
incident manager  of  the  Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team.
42.  Chief  Investigator
Davis holds a  private investigator certificate for the
investigations  of  death. He also  holds a certificate for apprehending bail fugitives.
43.  He further holds certificates for Master Peace Officer, Advanced Peace Officer,
Intermediate Peace Officer, and Basic Peace  Officer.  In sum,  he has  received more than  5,700  in
law enforcement training  and education.
RETIRED  COMMANDER  DAVIS  CONDUCTS  LENGTHY INVESTIGATION
44.  Upon retention,  Chief  Investigator Davis and his associates combed through the
surrounding neighborhood  of  the shooting, going house  to  house  to  interview  witnesses.2
45.  On June  9,  2013,  he  went to the address  of  Dolores Presock. According  to
Presock, she  heard  a  man yelling,  and then a gunshot.  When she opened her front  door,  she saw
Bernie fall  to  the  ground.
'Exhibit  "A," Curriculum  Vitae  of  Roy  Davis,  Jr.
2  Exhibit  "B," Report  Summary  of  Advocate Investigations  Re:  Bernardo Morales (Deceased).
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  5  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 40
.  .
46.  When Bernie  fell  to  the ground,  he did  not have  a  knife  or  any weapon  in his
hands, according  to Ms.  Presock.
47.  Prescock further elaborated in  a sworn statement:
After the man  who died fell,  I  could see  his  legs  kicking.  I  believe
he  was dying right then and  there.  The officer  just  stood there  and
did not assist the man in any  way.
From the point where  I  saw everything,  I  did not see anything,
weapons, or anything else in the  man's  hands.  It  seemed  to  me
that that  the police officer and man were  very  far apart  and  that  it
wasn't  necessary  for the  man  to  be  killed.3
48.  On June  10,  2013, Davis  met  with  resident Rene  Torres.
Mr.  Torres said he
heard  a  loud voice,  but  was  unable  to  decipher  its content. He  then distinctly heard the voice
say,  "Come here,  I  want  to  talk  to  you."4
49.  Mr.  Torres then looked outside  his  front  door. He  stated that he then saw  "a
uniformed EPPD Officer pointing  his gun  at  another  male."  According  to  the witness, the male
was  walking forward with his hands in the  air toward  the  officer.
50.  "The male had his hands  up  just  above his head," Mr.  Tones  stated  under  oath.
"I  did  not  see  anything in the  male's  hands."
51.  Officer Gomez had commanded Morales  to  walk to him,  and then told  him  to
stop,  according to  Tones.  Despite the ambiguity  of  statements, Gomez then "fired one round"
at  the unarmed Morales, according  to Mr.  Tones.
52.  Resident Guadalupe Hernandez likewise indicated that Morales  was unarmed,
and  was being followed  by  the officer who was then about  35  yards  behind  him.5
53.  On June  14,  2013,  Chief  Investigator Davis met with resident Rosa Elvia  Cruz.
Exhibit "C," Sworn Statement  of  Dolores Presock.
Exhibit  "D,"  Sworn Statement  of  Rene  Tones
Exhibit "B," Sworn Statement  of  Guadalupe Hemandez.
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  6  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 6 of 40
S  S
According  to Ms. Cruz, she saw a  uniformed police officer  shoot an  unarmed  man.
54.  Ms. Cruz stated she  did not  see a  knife or any other  weapon  in  Bernie's  hands.
55.  On June  16,  2013,  Chief  Investigator Davis met with  Maria Guadalupe  Elias, she
stated that she  likewise  saw the  shooting  on  the  canal.
56.  Ms. Elias  likewise stated that  she  did not  see a  knife or weapons in the hands  of
the deceased.
57.  Chief  Investigator Davis interviewed several other witnesses who likewise stated
that at  and  near the time  of  the shooting, Bernie Morales was unarmed.
CHIEF  INVESTIGATOR  DAVIS  ANALYZES  THE
POLICE REPORTS  AND  WITNESS STATEMENTS
58.  According  to  Chief  Investigator Davis, "The  publically  available documents are
very general and  do  not provide enough information  to determine  whether  or not the  deadly
force  used  by  the officer  was  justified."6
59.  As  a  result,  Chief  Investigator Davis conducted his own investigation, which
yielded radically different results.
60.  The independent investigator focused on the property inventory list  in  particular.
He notes:
What  is  of  interest is that the weapon (knife) which was allegedly
in the hand(s)  of  the  deceased,  is  listed on the property/evidence
list under  6/19/13four  days after  the  date  of  the  occurrence
which raises the question  of  when and where  it  was  actually  found
and/or processes (sic) and whether  or not fingerprints belonging to
the deceased were found  on  it.7
61.  Investigator  Davis noted something else
equally disturbing  about the
Department's  assertion that Morales  was armed.  He  emphasizes  that  "none  of  the  civilian eye-
6Ebjt  "B"  at  3,  Report Summary  of  Advocate Investigations  Re:  Bernardo Morales (Deceased).
7
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  7  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 7 of 40
.
S
witnesses"  who were interviewed  or  provided  statements
said  they  saw  a  knife  "or  any other
weapon  or object  that could  be  mistaken  for or used  as  a weapon."
FORMER  EPPD  COMMANDER:
OFFICER  GOMEZ  'UNJUSTIFIABLY  USED  DEADLY  FORCE'
62.  On March 2, 2014,  Chief  Investigator  Davis prepared  his report.
63.  Relying on  decades  of  his experience  in law enforcement,  more than 5,000 hours
in training  in law enforcement,  several interviews,
and witness  statements,  the former SWAT
supervisor  expressly  concludes  that  Bernie  Morales  was  shot  uniustifiably.
2014:
64.  Specifically,  the retired  commander
concluded  in  his report signed on March  2,
Based  on the information
available  at  the time  of  this
writing:
sworn statements  provided  by  numerous  eye-witnesses  as  well
as
inconsistencies
in the  available  police  report(s),
it is the
investigator's
opinion
that  the
involved
police  officer
unjust  flably  used  deadly  force  by
discharging  his firearm
and
causing the death  of  Mr.  Morales  in the absence  of  clear  and
articulable  facts  that  the  officer  or a third party  was  in imminent
danger  of  death  or  serious  bodily  injury. (Emphasis
added.)8
65.  Chief  Investigator  Davis explains
further  that the Defendant
Gomez  was  not
confronted  with  clear  and articulable
facts that  Defendant  or any third  party  was  in "imminent
danger  of  death or serious  bodily  injury."9
66.
"Furthermore,
Mr.  Morales,
according  to witness
accounts,  was simply
attempting  to flee  the officer/area  and was not reported
to  be engaging  in  any conduct  that
would  pose  a  danger  to the  public."0
67.
"If  in  consideration  of  the aforementioned,
if  the  officer  still
believed  Mr.
Morales  to  be  a  danger,  the  officer could  have summoned  additional  officers
and,  pending their
81d.
91d.
'°Jd.
Plaintiffs'  Original  Complaint
Page  8  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 8 of 40
.  .
arrival,  maintained  a safe  watch  of  Mr.  Morales."
68.  The  retired commander  of  the  El  Paso Police Department determined that
Defendant Albert Gomez  did  precisely the wrong thing.
Instead, the involved officer created a situation where he passed
Mr.  Morales  and  then  approached  him  from the front. Versus  the
advantageous  position  of  a  rear approach  (pursuant  to  police
training  on  how to safely approach suspects), gave verbal
commands  for Morales to come  to  him,  and  then  fired  upon Mr.
Morales  when was complying with  the  officer's  commands.
(Emphasis  added).'2
OFFICER GOMEZ  HAl)  NO  REASONABLE  BASIS
TO SHOOT BERNIE MORALES
69.  At  all  times  relevant  to his  encounter with Defendant, Bernie Morales was
unarmed.
arrest.
70.  At  all  times relevant to this incident, Bernie Morales  had not been placed under
71.  At  all  times relevant  to  his encounter  with Defendant, Bernie Morales  did not
resist  arrest.
72.  At  all  times  relevant to his encounter with Defendant, Bernie Morales  did  not
evade arrest.
73.  At  all  times  relevant  to  this encounter, Bernie Morales was  not  suspected  of
committing  a  crime  of  violence.
74.  At  all  times  relevant  to this  encounter, Bernie Morales
had  not threatened
Defendant or any third  party.
75.  At  all  times relevant to this encounter, there  were no  exigent circumstances  to
threaten Bernie Morales with deadly  force.
111d.
121d.
Plaintiffs' Original Complaint
Page  9  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 9 of 40
.  .
76.  Decedent Bernie Morales complied with the  Defendant's  verbal commands.
77.  Defendant employed deadly force against Plaintiff.
78.  Defendant  was acting  under color  of  law  when  she  used  force against decedent.
79.  Defendant knew that  Plaintiff  was  unarmed,  and not  resisting because he had  his
hands  in  the  air.
air.
80.  Defendant knew that  Plaintiff  was  surrendering because  he had  his hands  in  the
81.  Defendant manifested conscious indifference firing  at  Plaintiff  when  he  had his
hands in the  air.
82.  Discharging  a  firearm  at an  individual  is a  show  of  deadly  force.
83.  The use  of  deadly  force in this instance was unreasonable.
84.  Defendant knew or should  have  known that the use  of  deadly force in
this
instance was unreasonable.
85.  Defendant violated  Plaintiff's  Fourth Amendment rights.
NO REASONABLE  OFFICER  COULD POSSIBLY  BELIEVE THAT
DEFENDANT'S  USE  OF  FORCE  WAS  JUSTIFIABLE
86.  Defendant  Gomez's  actions  of  shooting
Plaintiff  Walker  were deliberate,
malicious, and exercised  with a wanton/reckless disregard  for the  Plaintiff's  constitutional  rights.
87.  Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has clearly established that police officer
cannot use deadly force upon an unarmed suspect who  is  not  showing signs  of  active resistance.
88.  The  force  utilized  by  Officer  Gomez was excessive and, thus,
constituted  an
unreasonable seizure  of  Plaintiff in  violation  of  the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
89.  Defendant's  actions constituted  an  unlawful deprivation  of  Plaintiff's
liberty
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  10  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 10 of 40
.
without due process  of  law in  violation  of  the Fourteenth  Amendment to the United  States
Constitution.
USE  OF  DEADLY  FORCE  ON  AN  UNARMED  PERSON  IS  A  CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL  VIOLATION
90.  In Tennessee  v.  Garner,  the  Supreme  Court held that, "The use  of  deadly  force to
prevent the escape  of  all  felony suspects, whatever  the  circumstances,  is  constitutionally
unreasonable."3
91.  The Court emphasized that "[T]he fact that  [Plaintiff] was  a  suspected  burglary
could not, without regard  to  other circumstances, automatically  justify  the use  of  deadly  force.'4
92.  The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly relied on  Tennessee  v.
Garner in  holding that the
use  of  deadly  force on  an  unarmed individual  is  a  clearly established violation  of  the  individual's
Fourth Amendment  rights.'5
93.  In Sanchez  v.  Fraley,  where a police officer shot a fleeing suspect in  a  double
homicide after  hearing  on  the  police radio that  the suspect had  a  gun  and  had forcibly  attempted
to  enter  somebody's  house, the Fifth Circuit looked  to Tennessee
v.  Garner  once again,  and
stated  that
[I]t was  clearly established well before that date [August  23, 2007]
that "deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment  unless  'the
officer has probable cause to believe  that  the suspect poses a threat
of  serious physical harm, either  to  the officer or to  others."6
94.  In Sanchez  v.  Fraley,  the police officer had further testified that the  suspect was
13  Tennessee  v.  Garner,  471 U.S.  1,  12  (1985) (emphasis added).
14  Tennessee  v.
Garner,  471 U.S. at 21.
15Sanchez  v.  Fraley,  376 Fed. Appx. 449, 453  (5th  Cir.
2010) (unpublished);  Hobart  v.  City  of  Stafford,  Not
Reported  in  F.Supp.2d  2010 WL 3894112 (5th  Cir.  2010) (unpublished);
15  Echols
v.  Gardiner,  No.  H-i  1-0882,
2013  WL 6243736,  slip op. (S.D. Tex.  2013) (unpublished);  Davis  v.  Montgomery  Cnty.,
F.Supp.2d  ,  No.
H:07-505, 2009 WL 1226904  (S.D. Tex. 2009)  (unpublished).
v.  Fraley,  376 Fed. Appx.  449,  453 (5th Cir. 2010)  (unpublished) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  11  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 11 of 40
.  .
digging  in his  waistband  and  pointing his hands under his  shirt,  as  though aiming  a  weapon.'7
95.  In  Davis  v.  Montgomeiy, The United States District Court for the Southern
District  of  Texas (Houston Division),  also  relied  in Tennessee  v.  Garner  in  stating:
The Supreme Court has held  that "it  is  unreasonable for  an  officer
to  "seize  an  unarmed, nondangerous suspect  by  shooting him
dead."
[T]he principle stated above, that  'a  police officer  may not seize  an
unarmed, nondangerous suspect  by shooting him dead" has long
been clearly  established.
Fifth Circuit law  is  clear  that "an exercise  of  force  that  is
reasonable  at  one moment can become unreasonable in the  next  if
the justification  for the  use  of  force has ceased.'8
96.  The Houston Court continued  to  rely on  Garner  in  Hobart  v.  City  of  Stafford, in
making decision regarding qualified immunity,  and stated  that
In  2009, when [Plaintiff's] shooting death occurred,  it  was  clearly
established that " 'deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment
unless the officer has probable  cause to  believe that the suspect
poses a threat  of  serious physical harm,  either  to the  officer or  to
others."9
CAUSES  OF ACTION  AGAINST DEFENDANT ALBERT  GOMEZ
VIOLATION  OF CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS
97.  The factual allegations contained in  all  of  the paragraphs  of  this First Amended
Complaint  are  hereby incorporated  and  re-alleged for  all  purposes  and  incorporated herein with
the same force  and effect  as  if  set forth verbatim.
98.  Defendant Gomez willfully  and  maliciously  shot  Bernie Morales with her
firearm, despite  having  no legitimate reasons for doing  so.
17
v.  Fraley,  379 Fed. Appx. 449 at 452.
Davis  v.  Montgomery  Cnty.,  F.Supp.2d
,  No. H:07-505, 2009  WL  1226904 at  *45  (S.D. Tex.  2009)
(unpublished).
19  Hobart  v.
City  of  Stafford,  F.Supp.2d
,  No. 4:09-cv-3332, 2010 WL 3894112 at  *8  (S.D.  Tex. 2010)
(unpublished).
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  12  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 12 of 40
.  .
99.  The force used  by  Defendant was recklessly excessive  and caused  Plaintiff
serious  bodily  injury.
100.  Defendant  Gomez's  exercise  of  established policies  and customs violated
Plaintiffs' clearly  established rights under the United States Constitution  to:
a.  freedom from  unreasonable  seizure;
i.  by  shooting Bernie Morales  who was  unarmed;
ii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who was  not  resisting;
iii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had committed  no criminal
offense;
iv.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had  not  evaded arrest;
v.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had surrendered  to a  show  of
lawful authority.
b.  freedom from  the use  of  unreasonable, unnecessary,  and  excessive  force;
i.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who  was  unarmed;
ii.  by shooting Bernie Morales  who was  not  resisting;
iii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales while he had his hands in the  air;
iv.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had committed  no criminal
offense;
v.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had  not  evaded arrest;
vi.  by  shooting Bernie Morales  who  had surrendered  to a show  of
lawful authority.
c.  and the  right  to  medical care for injuries received while in  custody;
i.  by not calling  911  or emergency medical services after shooting
Bernie Morales;
ii.  by delaying  contacting EMS after shooting Bernie Morales;  and
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint  Page  13  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 13 of 40
LI
.  .
iii.  by  handcuffing Bernie Morales after he had  been  shot.
101.  Alternatively, Defendant Gomez violated established policies and customs  of  the
El  Paso Police Department, and likewise  violated Plaintiffs' clearly established rights under the
United  States Constitution  to:
a.  freedom  from unreasonable  seizure;
i.  by  threatening deadly force when  the  facts did  not warrant them;
ii.  by  drawing his weapon on  a  cooperative  subject;
iii.  by  drawing his weapon on subject with his hands in the  air;
iv.  by  confronting  a  subject from the front rather than rear;
v.  by  escalating  a  conflict needlessly;
vi.  shooting Bernie Morales who was unarmed;
vii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who was  not  resisting;
viii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had committed  no criminal
offense;
ix.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who  had not  evaded arrest;
x.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had surrendered  to a  show  of
lawful authority.
b.  freedom  from  the  use  of  unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive  force;
i.  by  threatening deadly force when  the  facts did  not warrant them;
ii.  by  drawing his weapon on  a  cooperative  subject;
iii.  by  drawing his weapon on subject with his hands in the  air;
iv.  by  confronting  a  subject from the front rather than rear;
v.  by  escalating  a  conflict needlessly;
vi.  shooting Bernie Morales who was unarmed;
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint  Page  14  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 14 of 40
.  .
vii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales  who was  not  resisting;
viii.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who  had  committed no criminal
offense;
ix.  by  shooting Bernie Morales  who had  not evaded  arrest;
x.  by  shooting Bernie Morales who had surrendered  to a show  of
lawful authority.
c.  and the  right  to  medical  care  for injuries received while in custody
i.  by  not calling  911  or  for emergency  medical services  after
shooting Bernie Morales;
ii.  by  delaying calling  911  or for emergency medical services after
shooting Bernie Morales;
iii.  by  doing nothing  to aid  Bernie Morales after shooting him;  and
iv.  by delaying  contacting EMS after shooting Bernie  Morales.
CAUSES  OF ACTION  AGAINST  JOHN  DOES
A.  CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DECEDENT'S FOURTH AMENDMENT,
SEVENTH AMENDMENT  AND  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  RIGHTS
102.  Plaintiffs specifically plead  all  actionable conspiracy claims pursuant to  42
U.S.C.  §  1985(2).
103.  Plaintiffs plead that  one  or more  of  these  additional  John  Does conspire for the
purpose  of  impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in  any  manner, the  due course  of
justice  owed  to  decedent  and  Plaintiff  through their  lawful prosecution  of  his Fourth Amendment
claims, and thus  further denying them his rights  to a civil  jury  trial  as  provided under the  Seventh
Amendment,  to  equal  protection  of  the  laws  under the Fourteenth Amendment, or  to  injure
decedent and Plaintiffs  or  their property  for  lawfully  enforcing, or attempting  to  enforce, the
right  of  any person, or  class  of  persons, to the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.
Plaintiffs' Original Complaint  Page  15  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 15 of 40
.  .
104.  In the aftermath  of  this incident, there were many unexplained  delays  that resulted
from either  (a)  falsification  of  evidence,  (b)  concealment  of  evidence, and/or  (c)  willful failure to
investigate.
105.  These  acts  would have been committed  by  one or more individuals whose
identities are  presently unknown  to Plaintiffs.
106.  Chief  Investigator Davis  has  already identified that the knife alleged  by  the  El
Paso Police Department was  not  shown to have  been booked in  by  the  Department  on  the date  of
the incident. Plaintiffs thus  expressly plea  a  cause  of  action against  all  presently unidentified
parties for impeding, obstructing  or defeating Plaintiffs'  rights who would  have falsely  asserted
that any knife  or weapon was recovered from Bernie Morales or  his  body at  the time  of  this
incident.  Plaintiffs thus expressly  plea  a  cause  of  action against  all  presently unidentified parties
for impeding, obstructing or  defeating Plaintiffs' rights  who would  have placed  the knife or  any
other weapon on or  near  the  body  of  Bernie Morales.
107.  Chief  Investigator Davis opined that  that  an  inordinate  amount  of  time has passed
for a  report  from a  report or finding  from  the  El Paso  Police  Department's  Shooting Review
Team. Based on this delay alone, Plaintiffs thus  plead that  one or more  of  these additional John
Does conspire  for  the  purpose  of  impeding, hindering, obstructing,  or  defeating,  in  any manner,
the  due course  of  justice  owed  to  decedent  and  Plaintiff  through  their  lawful  prosecution  of  his
Fourth  Amendment  claims, and  thus further denying them  to  equal  protection  of  the laws,  or to
injure decedent and Plaintiffs or  their property for  lawfully enforcing, or attempting to  enforce,
the  right  of  any person, or  class  of  persons,  to  the equal protection  of  the  laws.
108.  Chief  Investigator Davis likewise opined that  that  an inordinate amount  of  time
passed for the presentation to  the  El Paso District  Attorney's  office  for review or  presentation  to
Plaintiffs' Original Complaint
Page  16  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 16 of 40
S  S
a grand jury.  Chief  Investigator Davis opined that that  an  inordinate amount  of  time has  passed
for  a  report  from a  report or  finding  from the  El  Paso Police  Department's  Shooting Review
Team. Based  on  this delay  alone,  Plaintiffs thus plead that one  or  more  of  these additional John
Does conspire for the purpose  of  impeding, hindering, obstructing,  or  defeating, in any manner,
the due course  of  justice  owed  to  decedent and  Plaintiff  through their lawful prosecution  of  his
Fourth Amendment claims, and thus further denying  them  to equal  protection  of  the laws,  or to
injure decedent and Plaintiffs  or  their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting  to  enforce,
the right  of  any  person,  or class  of  persons,  to the equal  protection  of  the  laws.
Does.
B.  ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS
EXERCISING  THEIR  CONSTITUTIONAL  DF
109.  Plaintiffs reallege  and  incorporate  all  preceding paragraphs.
110.  Plaintiffs specifically plead  a  cause  of  action under  42  §  1986  against  all  John
111.  Plaintiffs plead that  one or more  of  these John Does had knowledge  of  the
wrongs conspired  to  be  done including  but  not limited  to  the  following:
a.  falsifying, concealing, or manufacturing evidence,
b.  obstruction, impeding, hindering, or otherwise defeating  Plaintiffs' rights
under  the Fourth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments.
CAUSES  OF ACTION THE  CITY  OF  EL  PASO
112.  Plaintiffs reallege  and  incorporate  all  preceding paragraphs.
113.  Plaintiffs would  show  that the City  of  El  Paso ratified  all  of  the Defendants  acts
as  none  of  the officers involved have been appropriately disciplined for their role  in this action.
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  17  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 17 of 40
.  .
114.  Plaintiffs would further show that the City  of  El  Paso failed to train Albert
Gomez properly in  the  use  of  firearms. This failure and this  policy proximately  caused the
death  of  Bernie Morales.
DAMAGES
115.  Decedent Bernie Morales  was  killed during  this incident.  Evidence indicates that
he bled to  death, and suffered  conscious pain for  an  extended  period  of  time that exceeded
several minutes.
116.  As  a  consequence  of  Defendants' wrongful  acts  as  described above, Plaintiffs
have suffered actual  and consequential damages  exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits  of
this Court.
117.  As  a  direct  and  proximate result  of  Defendants'  acts  and omissions  as  heretofore
alleged,  Bernie Morales suffered physical impairment, excruciating pain, mental
anguish,
medical  treatments  and death.  The estate  is  therefore entitled  to  recover  all  reasonable  and
necessary medical and  funeral  expenses incurred for the  care,  treatment  and  burial  of  Ruddy
Elizondo that  resulted  from the  tortious  acts  of  Defendants.  In  addition, the Estate  of  Ruddy
Elizondo  has an  action  for  the injuries  suffered,  including but not limited  to  the disfigurement,
humiliation,  past pain  and suffering,  mental anguish  and  physical capacity suffered  as  a  result  of
the incident.
118.  Furthermore,  as  the only son  of  decedent,  Plaintiff  Manny Morales, has  suffered
wrongful death  damages  for his  individual  (1)  pecuniary  loss,  (2)  mental  anguish,  (3)  loss  of
companionship and society  and (4)  loss  of  inheritance.  Such damages include  but  are  not
limited to  past and  future lost earnings, past and future mental anguish damages, and other
actual and consequential damages  that are determined under trial  of  the  merits.
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  18  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 18 of 40
S  S
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
119.  Plaintiff  expressly incorporates  and  realleges  the  facts and  statements previously
made in  all  foregoing paragraphs.
120.  Plaintiff  would further show that the  acts and
omissions  of  Defendants
complained  of  herein  were committed  with malice  or  reckless indifference to the protected
rights  of  the  Plaintiff
121.  The law  is  absolutely clear that deadly force  is  not  to  be  employed simply
because  a  felon  is  fleeing.
122.  In  order  to  punish  said  Defendants  for  engaging in unlawful vicious attacks,  and
to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future,  Plaintiff  also seeks  recovery  of  exemplary
damages from Defendant.
123.  Furthermore, one or more  of  the Defendants delayed, or otherwise impeded the
lawful investigation  of  this matter, and impaired  Plaintiffs'  rights. To  punish  said  Defendants
for  engaging in unlawful vicious attacks, and  to  deter such actions and/or omissions in the
future,  Plaintiff  also  seeks  recovery  of  exemplary damages  from such Defendants.
ATTORNEYS'  FEES
124.  Plaintiffs  are  further entitled  to  receive  their reasonable attorneys'  and expert
witness fees  pursuant  to 42  U.S.C.  §  1988.
JURY  DEMAND
125.  Plaintiffs respectfully demands that this action  be  tried before  a  jury.
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  19  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 19 of 40
.
CONCLUSION
S
126.  Plaintiffs respectfully urge that the Defendants be  cited  to  appear  and answer
herein, and that  upon  a final  hearing  of  the cause,  judgment  be entered for the Plaintiffs against
the Defendants for damages in  an  amount within the  jurisdictional limits  of  the Court; exemplary
damages,  attorneys'  fees;  together with pre-  and  post-judgment interest  as  allowed  by  law; costs
of  court; and such  other  further  relief  to  which the Plaintiffs may  be  entitled  at  law or in  equity.
Respectfully  submitted,
r1addison(henleylawpc.  corn
HENLEY  &  HENLEY,  P.C.
3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas,  Texas  75219
Telephone#:  (214)  821-0222
Facsimile  #:  (214)  821-0124
ATTORNEYS  FOR  PLAINTIFFS
MANNY  MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND  LOURDES MORALES,
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
OF BERNIE MORALES
Plaintiffs'  Original Complaint
Page  20  of  20
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 20 of 40
1
(S
4  j;.%c;
A
4
"
*
;-
'e-
Curriculum  Vitae
(Criminal  Justice)
Roy  Davis,  Jr.
Email:  advocateinvestigativesvcsya  hoo.com
Place  of  Birth:  Fairbanks,  Alaska
Citizenship:  US  Citizen
Gender:  Male
Roy Davis, Jr.  is  the  President/CEO  and  Chief  Investigator of Advocate Investigations.  A  certified Peace
Officer  in  good/current  standing  and retired  Police  Commander of  a  large municipal police agency,  he
brings  a  wealth of experience from  all  levels  of  police  and investigative services from  line-level  to top
management-level.  Roy  Davis,  Jr. is  an accomplished police  practitioner who  can provide  detailed  insight
into: law-enforcement reasoning;  policies;  practices; training; and  methods  as  it  applies  to  criminal
allegations or law-enforcement misconduct.  Having  presented  evidence and  testimony  in  civil  and
criminal  cases  at  Justice of  the  Peace, County,State/District, and Federal Court  levels,  he  is  no  stranger
to  the  court  room.  Roy  Davis,  Jr. is  also  a  team-builder  and  team- coordinator  with  the attributes to
accomplish large-scaled  projects/plans development  and  management.  Evidenced  during  his  tenureas  a
member  of  Dignitary  Protection  entrusted  with  the  protection  of  dignitaries  from Mayors  to  the  Vice
President of the  United  States,  he  successfully  executed presidential security  plans, as  well  as  other
numerous  city-wide  community  action  plans.
1
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 21 of 40
H
1
Employment History:
Advocate  Services,  Inc.
Tenure:  2008-Present
Subsidiaries:  Advocate Investigations  TXDPS  Lic#A15096 and Advocate Process Services
Position(s):  President/CEO/Chief  Investigator
Duties:  Manage Operations, Personnel, and Budgets.  Assist Field  Investigators  with  cases and
surveillance  and  testify  in  Court proceedings.
History:  Advocate  Services, Inc. was  founded  in 2008  by sole  proprietor,  Roy Davis Jr.,  to meet
the industry  demands  for investigations  and  civil  process  service.  After  lengthy  research
via  observation  and surveys,  it  was  determined  that  the industry  was  comprised  of
several small companies,  employing only  a  few  people  who  easily  became  overwhelmed
under  large  volume  demands.  Roy Davis Jr.  applied  a  different yet  weiRnown
philosophy when creating Advocate  Services,  Inc.  by  employing  a  very large  team  of
individuals whereby developing  a  firm  capable  of  handling large  volume  demands  with
minimal  delays and errors.  Advocate  Services,  Inc. has  rapidly  earned the  reputation  as a
very  capable  firm  as  evIdenced by being  sought  out to complete  assignments  for the
County  of  El  Paso, Texas  and  the West  Texas Federal  Courts  as  appointees,  as  well  as,
being  retained  by several  private independent attorneys  and large  well-known  Law
firms.  Advocate  Services, Inc.  performs  general investigations  for  both criminal  and  civil
type  cases  but  has  expertise in  the  areas  of  Juvenile  Investigations  (Status  offenses and
children  in  need  of  supervision)  and  Traffic  Investigations  (collision
investigations/reconstruction, safety  studies,  DWI  defense).  Ray Davis  Jr. has  been
qualified  as  an  expert  witness in several  trial  cases  in  County, State,  and Federal Courts.
Associations/Memberships:  TALl:  Voting member  of  Texas  Association  of  Licensed
Investigators
NAIS:  Member  of  National Association  of  Investigative
Specialists
El  Paso  Police  Department
Tenure:  1982-2002
Positions:  Police  Officer, Detective, Sergeant, Lieutenant,  Captain, and  Commander
Duties:  Public Safety,  Investigations, Manage  Operations,  Personnel, and Budgets (General
Funds,  Confiscated  Funds,  and Grants).
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 22 of 40
History:  Conmander/CaptQin:  Managed  general budget, confiscated funds  budget,  and  grants
assigned  to  my  division,  as  well  as  personnel,  and  operations of:
Traffic Enforcement  Freeway  Patrol  (11-110,  USS4,  Loop  375  Corridors),  DWI  Task  Force
(citywide)  and  Sit  (Special  Traffic  Investigations). Created Aggressive Driving  Task  Force
(Road Rage)  by:  authoring  the curriculum/lesson  plan and  conducting  the  training;
designing  the  task  force  vehicles  (equipment  and  markings); and  evaluating  and  the  pilot
program  prior to  full  implementation.
Airport  Security and  Aviation/Air  Support  -  Managed  El  Paso  International Airport
Security.  Ensured  patrol  coverage  of  airport  property  by  patrol officers  in  accordance
with  FAA  regulations.  I  managed  the Aviation/Air  Support  Unit which  consisted of:
pilots; spotters; and supervisors.  I  was also  responsible  for  purchasing  and  maintenance
of  fixed-winged  air  planes and  helicopters.
Canine  (K9)  -  Managed  Canine  Section  which provided  K9  services  for  entire  city  and  El
Paso  International  Airport.  I  was responsible  for  training, purchasing, certiflcations,  etc.
of  the  officers  and animals  of  this unit.
Bomb  Squad  Managed personnel,  training,  and  equipment.
Mountain  Rescue  Team  -  Managed personal,  training,  and  equipment.
SWAT/CMT  Managed personnel,  training,  and  equipment,  I  was also  the Incident
Commander  and  managed  the  Command  Post  during SWAT/CMT  scenes.
Training Academy  -  Managed personnel,  equipment,  and  facilities  and ensured  current
in-service  training status/records  were maintained  for  1100+  sworn officers,  as  well  as,
recruitment  and  pre-service  training  needs  for  new  officers were being met.
Discipline  ReviewAssigned to  review investigations completed  by  Internal  Affairs
Division  and make  a  discipline  recommendation to the  Chief  of  Police,
Chaplain  Corp  -  Managed  Volunteer  Chaplain Program  with  consisted  of  twelve  area
clergy. Created  a  policy  manual  and designed  their  uniforms.
Liaisons  -  Mayor/City  Council:  Attended weekly meetings  and  served  as-
representative  in  all  agency-related  matters.
Pride  Day:  Organized annual  citywide community cleanup  day  with
citizens, vendors, groups,  and  other city government departments.
TMRA:  Served  as  liaison  between the  agency and  the  Texas  Motorcycle
Rights Association.
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 23 of 40
(a
MPO: Served  as  voting member  on  the  Metropolitan  Planning
Organization  Committee.
Lieutenant:  Managed federal and  state grants, personnel,  and  operations of:
Traffic  Enforcement  -  Freeway  Patrol  (IH1O, US54,  Loop 375), DWI  Task Force,  and  STI
(Special  traffic  Investigations)
Special  Operations  Regional  Command Lieutenant managing: regional  traffic
enforcement/complaints; community  services;  Police  Area  Representatives  (PAR)  to
address regional  quality  of  life  issues.
Patrol Shift  Commander  Regional  Command  Lieutenant  managing  three  Sergeants and
patrol  squads  to  answer radio  calls.
Liaisons  -  EPLRA:  Attended  monthly  meetings  with  El  Paso  Low Riders  Assoc.
TCAB:  Ca-chair  of  Traffic  Citizens  Advisory  Board
WSRCCAB;  Attended monthly  meetings  of  West  Side Regional
Command Citizens Advisory Board.
Sergeant:  Supervised personnel and  operations of:
Community  Services  DARE  and  other  educational  programs,  SRO  (School Resource
Officer), program  designed  to target  under-privileged/at-risk youth.
PAR  (Police Area  Representatives  )-A  section  of  officers who  respond  to  neighborhood
complaints  and  other quality-of-life  issues  and  work with  the involved  parties  to  reach
long-term/permanent  solutions.
Patrol Shift Supervisor  Supervised  a  shift  of  patrol officers who  responded  to  general
calls  for  service and  conduct  preliminary  investigations.
Detective:  Conduct Investigations,  serve  as  lead  investigator, complete  cases,  present
cases  to appropriate  agency:  District Attorney,  County  Attorney,  Juvenile  Probation
Dept., etc.
-  Crimes  Against  Persons.  Assigned  primarily to  Robberies  but  also assisted  in
sexual  assault,  familyviolence,  and  homicide investigations.
-  Conducted  administrative  and  criminal investigations  for  Internal Affairs  Division
involving complaints  against  police personnel. Investigations included locating  and
interviewing witnesses-obtaining statements, locating  and  collecting/photographing
ri
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 24 of 40
evidence, and  completing  case  summaries.
-  Youth  Services  Division Conducted  investigations  regarding crimes involving
juvenile offenders  and  victims investigated  all offenses assaultive,  sex,  robbery,
property,
abuse1 etc Worked  with  Texas  Youth  Commission, Juvenile  Probation
Department,  and  Child  Protective  Services
Police  Officer:  Respond  to  calls  for  service,  conduct  preliminary  investigations.
YSD  -  Youth  Services  Division. Responded  to  calls  involving juveniles  and  conducted
preliminary  investigations which could lead  to  a  custodial  referral to  Juvenile Probation
Department  or  a  request  for further  investigation by  a  Detective.  Also  investigated
Runaways/missing juveniles.
Traffic Enforcement Worked freeway  patrol  by  enforcing movement  and speed  laws.
Po  to  free  a  assig'r'ei,
torued  as  a  DW1  Tas¼  orce  ocer  wio  soug  aid
apprehended suspected impaired drivers Obtained  certifications  in  Standardized  Field
Sobriety  Testing  and  Traffic  Radar  Investigated  traffic  collisions involving  no  or  minor
injuries to  serious  injuries  or  death.
Patrolman  -  Responded  to  general  calls  for  service and  conducted  preliminary
investigations.
Professional  Certifications:
Death  Investigation  for  the  Private  investigator Certificate
Apprehending  Bail  Fugitives  Certificate
Certified  Radar  OperatorCertificate
Standardized  Field  Sobriety  Tests  -  Certificate
Traffic  Investigations  -  Intermediate Certificate
Traffic  Accident Reporting Certificate  issued by  Texas  Traffic  Safety  Institute  (Texas  A  &  M  University)
Child  Abuse  Prevention & Investigation  -  Certificate
Certified  InstructorCertificate  issued  by Federal Bureau  of  Investigations
Master  Peace  Officer  -  Certificate  issued  by  TCLEOSE
Advanced  Peace  Officer  -  Certificate  issued  by  TCLEOSE
5
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 25 of 40
(S
Intermediate  Peace  Officer  -  Certificate  issued  by  TCLEOSE
Basic Peace  Officer  -  Certificate  issued  by  ICLEOSE
Publications:
Police Radar  Article  in  "Beacon"  Public Safety  Publication
#Aggressive  Driving  Enforcement"  training  and  policies manual
Education and Professional  Training:
Roy Davis,  Jr.  amasses  more than 5,700  training  hours in law  and  law  enforcement  and 192  cumulative
college  hours  from:
University  of  Phoenix
Park  College/University
University  of  Texas  at  El  Paso
El  Paso  Community  College
Leadership and  Development (1-year  series) by:  IACP  (International  Association  of  Chiefs  of  Police
Command  Staff  Leadership  Series by: LEMIT  (Law  Enforcement  Management  Institute  of  Texas)
Critical  Incident  Stress  Management TraIning  by: Texas Bureau  of  Emergency  Management
Incident  Command  System  by: Emergency  Response  Institute,  Inc.
Family Violence Concepts by:  El  Paso  Police  Training  Division
Ethics  for  Peace  Officer  by:  Office  of  the  Texas  Attorney  General
/
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 26 of 40
(o
I
'
S
Advocate  Investigations
and  Process  Serving,  Inc.
P0.  Box  640536  El Paso,  Texas 79904
Telephone/Fax  (915)  757-6626
TXDPS#  A15096
Summary
Re:  Bernardo Morales (Deceased
Alleged Offense: Homicide (Law Enforcement Related)
The undersigned atriant,  Chief  Investigator  Roy  Davis, licensed  under  Texas Department  of
Public Safety Private  Security Bureau, License  #A  15096,  was  retained for  the  purpose  of  fact-
finding regarding the reported events in  the above referenced  case.  The investigation was
conducted as  chronicled:
June  9,  2013 at 7:30 PM at  the  address  of  8479  Alameda  #407, a face-to-face  interview with
Dolores Presock was conducted.  Ms.  Presock  stated that  with regards  to the above-referenced
incident, she heard  a male  yelling "get down, get down"  and  then immediately  followed by  a
single gunshot. She openedher  front  door, looked  towards  the  canal,  and  observed the deceased
fall  to  the ground. She stated  that  she  did  not see  a  knife or  any  other weapon  in the  hands  of  the
deceased. She submitted  a  sworn written statement  which  accompanies  this  summary.
June  10,  2013  at  10:25  AM  at  the  address  of  8479  Alameda  #30!,  a face-to-face interview  with
Rene  Torres was  conducted. Mr. Torres stated  that with  regards to  the above-referenced incident,
he  heard  a  male  yelling but  was unable  to  decipher  what  was  being  said. He  then  heard  the  male
say  "come here, I  want  to  talk  to you." Mr.  Tones  advised  that  he looked  out  his  front  door
towards  the  canal and observed  a  uniformed EPPD Officer pointing  his gun  at  another  male.  The
male was  walking  towards the  officer with his hands  in the  air.  Mr.  Torres stated  that  he  did  not
see  a  knife or any other  weapon in  the  hands  of  the  deceased. The  officer yelled "stop, stop"  and
then fired a single  gunshot  which struck  the  male.  I-Ic  submitted  a  sworn  written  statement which
accompanies this  summary.
June  10,  2013 at  11:45  AM  at  the  address  of  8479  Alameda #310,  a  face-to-face interview with
Guadalupe  I-Ternandez  was  conducted  in  Spanish. Ms. Hernandez  stated  that  with regards  to  the
above-referenced  incident,  she  looked out  of  her  bedroom  window and  saw  a  male walking
northbound  on  the  canal  with  a  marked EPPD car following  behind him. When  Ms. Flernandez
observed  the  deceased,  he  was  walking  with  his hands  down by his  side and  she did  not see  a
knife  or  any other  weapon in  the hands  of  the  deceased.  She  submitted  a  sworn  written statement
which accompanies this  summary,
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 27 of 40
I
June  14,  2013 at 6:55  PM  AM  at the address  of  194  Prado Road,  a  face-to-face interview with
Rosa Elvia  Cruz was conducted. Ms. Cruz used  to  reside  at 8479  Alameda  #301. Ms. Cruz  stated
that  with regards  to the  above-referenced incident, she saw a  uniformed policeman shoot  the
deceased  on the canal. She  stated that she did not see  a  knife  or any other weapons in  the  hands
of  the deceased. She  submitted  a  sworn written  statement which accompanies this summary.
July  16,  2013  at 8:00 PM at  the  address  of  8479  Alameda #301,  a  face-to-face interview  with
Maria  Guadalupe Elias was conducted in Spanish. Ms. Elias  stated  that  with  regards  to  the
above-referenced incident, she saw  a police  officer  shoot  a  male on the canal. She stated that she
did not  see  a  knife or any  other  weapons  in the hands  of  the deceased. She submitted  a sworn
written statement which accompanies  this summary.
July  17,  2013 at  6:30 PM at the address  of  8479  Alameda  #405,  a face-to-face interview  with
Josefina Hernandez was conducted  in Spanish.  Ms. Hernandez stated  that with regards to  the
above-referenced  incident, she was standing outside  of  her  home  along  with her  daughter-in-law;
Hermina Hernandez, when she saw  a  marked EPPD car driving along  the  canal, following a  male.
The  police  car stopped and then the officer  positioned himself in  front  of  the male. She  stated
that  the male was  walking towards  the  officer  and  did  not have  a  knife  or  any  other  weapons  in
his hands. Ms.  Josefina Hernandez then stated that she heard  the officer say  "stop"  several  times
and then the  single gunshot.  That is  when she  observed  the  male fall to  the ground  Ms.  Joseima
Hemandez  did  not wish to provide  a  written  statement.  Investigator George Martinez, who
conducted the interview, submitted  a  sworn statement to  the  aforementioned which accompanies
this  summary. Ms.  Josefina advised that  her  son and  daughter-inlaw: Alfonso  Hernandez and
Hermina Hernandez reside in California and  were  visiting when this incident occurred.According
to Ms.  Josefina Hernandez, Alfonso  was  inside  and did  not  witness event,  however, Hermina was
outside when  it  happened.  Josefina Hemandez verified  the telephone  number  for  Herniina.
August  5, 2013 at 10:30  AM  at  the address  of  8479  Alameda #409,  a  face-to-face interview with
Manuel  Lucero was  conducted.  Mr.  Lucero stated  that with  regards  to  the above-referenced
incident,  he  saw  the  male walking  on the  canal with  a marked EPPD  car  following. The  police
car sped ahead and  stopped.  The  officer  exited  the  car  and  told the male that he  only wanted to
talk.  The  male  turned  around  and proceeded  to  walk  away from  the officer, The officer  then
crossed over  the canal at a  point  he  was able  to,  and followed  behind the male on  foot.  The
officer repeated that he only wanted  to  talk. The male  then turned  around and walked towards the
officer  at  a  face  pace. The  male  had  his hands  in  the  air. Mr.  Lucero  stated  that  he  heard the
officer say "drop the  gun,  put down, drop  the  knife."  Mr. Lucero stated  that  it  appeared  as  if  the
male had something in his left  hand,  but  he could  not  say  for  certtin  what  it was.
Mr.  Lucero
stated  that  when the male was about  ten  feet away from  the  officer, the  officer  fired  a  single shot.
He  submitted  a sworn  written statement which accompanies this  summary.
September  8,  2013  at  8:08  PM, after several failed attempts  to  reach  Hermina  Hernandez,  Chief
Investigator  Roy  Davis made telephone contact with her via  (661)
823-8319.  Hermina
Hernandez  advised  that  she  had already  provided  a  statement to  the  police on  the day it  happened
and did not  wish to give  another  interview/statement.
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 28 of 40
Chief  Investigator Roy  Davis  made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Larry Davis  at
8536  Winchester  (listed  in  the EPPD  report  as  a  witness). It  is  believed that he may  be  the  person
who made  the initial call  to  summon  the police. Access to  the front door  of  the  single-family
dwelling  is  restricted  by a fence and  secured  gate. Several  business cards were  left  on the  gate
but none resulted in  a  call back.
October  4, 2013 at  2:15  PM  at the  address  of  8536 Winchester, the investigator attempted  to
contact  Mr.  Larry  Davis  (listed in the EPPD report  as a  witness).  The  investigator was  still
unable to gain access  to the  front door but left his business card on the windshield  %viper  of  a
vehicle parked  in front  of  the  address.
October  6, 2013  at  7:15  PM,  the investigator received a phone call/voice message from  Mr.
Larry  Davis in reference  to  the  card left on  his vehicle. The investigator called  Mr. Davis  back
and, during the phone conversation,  Mr. Davis  advised that  he was the  individual  who  called  the
police  on the  date  of  occurrence  after  seeing the male hanging around the  canal.  According  to
Mr. Davis, he  was  close enough  to the  male  to  have  a brief  conversation.  Mr. Davis  stated  that
the  male asked  if  it  were okay to  pick  some  pecans  to  which  Mr. Davis told  him  to go  ahead.  Mr.
Davis stated  that  he did not see  a  knife or any other weapon in the  male's  possession  at  that  time.
The last  time Mr. Davis  saw  the  male  was when the marled police  car arrived  inthe  area and  the
male took  off  up the alley  in  a  manner  described  by  Mr. Davis  as  an attempt  to avoid the  officer.
The investigator  requested  a  written statement  from  Mr.  Davis and he agreed  to  meet with  the
investigator  on  Monday  at  his  place  of  employment.
October  7, 2013  at  9:25  AM  at  the  address  of  8479  Alameda #405,  the  investigator met  again
with Josefina  Hernandez and asked tbr her assistance  with  contacting  her daughter-in-law
Hermina Hemandez  to  see  if  she would agree  to  an interview, The investigator observed  Josefina
Hernandez telephone her daughter-in-law and  leave  a voice  message for her  to  call  the
investigator.
October  7,  2013  at  10:00  AM  at the address  of  8485  Alameda  #A, Beto Motors, which  is  located
in  front  of  the address  of  occurrence, the investigator  met  with Mr. J.  Sanchez  and asked  if  he
had seen  or  heard anything  regarding this  case. Mr.  Sanchez stated that he had not seen nor  heard
anything.  Mr.  Sanchez went to the rear  of  his lot and  asked  a  male employee  if  he  happened  to
see  or hear  anything regarding the  police-involved  shooting. The  employee replied  no,  Mr.
Sanchez was asked about a young man who  was  working  at the  rear  of  the  business during  the
incident and may also  be  a  witness.  Mr.  Sanchez described the young man as an adolescent  from
Mexico who would show  up  occasionally  and wash cars for money. The young man, whom  Mr.
Sanchez claimed to not  know  his  name, did  not show  up on  a  regular schedule  and was  not  on
the payroll. According  to Mr.  Sanchez, the young man showed  a  few  times after  the  incident  but
has  not been seen for  more  than a  year.  Mr. Sanchez does not  know how  to contact  th  young
man.
October  7,  2013  at  10:10  AM at the address  of  8485  Alameda,  U &  S  Motors, also located  in
front  of  the address  of  occurrence,  the  investigator met  with Mr.  3.  Perez and  asked  if  he  had
seen or heard anything regarding this case.  Mr.  Perez stated that he arrived  at  work that  morning
at  around  10:00  AM, after  the  time  of  occurrence.
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 29 of 40
a  .
October  7,  2013  at  1  0  15  AM at the address  of  8481  Alameda,  Alverdy'  s  Auto  Sales,  also
located  in front  of  the address  of  occurrence,  the  investigator met with  Mr.  Antonio Alverdy  and
asked  if  he had seen  or heard  anything regarding this  case. Mr.  Alverdy stated  that  he  arrived  at
his  business that morning  at  around  9:30 AM,  after the time  of  occurrence.
October  7, 2013  at 11:10 AM  at  the  address  of  1875  Saul Kleinfeld (Goodwill drop  off  center),
the investigator met with  Mr.  Larry Davis provided  a  written statement  of  the accounts  he  shared
during  the  October  6, 2013  telephone call between him and the investigator. That statement
accompanies this  summary.
October  16,  2013,  in  an attempt to identify,  locate,  and interview  a  witness listed  on the  EPPD
report, identified as Virginia Tullius,  the investigator conducted an investigative search  using
public and subscribed open-source databases and  found  that  individual  to  be deceased. El  Paso
County records reports  her  date  of  death as 01/18/2011, approximately eighteen months prior  to
the date  of  occurrence.
February  13,  2013  at  11:15  AM at  the address  of  8485  Alameda #A, the investigator  returned
and inquired  if  the young man  who  was  being sought  had ever returned.  Mr. Sanchez  advised
that  the young man had not.
Investigator's  Opinion:
The publicaily available documents are very general and  do  not provide enough information to
determine whether  or not  the  deadly  forcer  used  by the  police officer was  justified.What  is  of
interest  is  that the weapon  (knife)  which was  allegedly in  the  hand(s)  of  the deceased, is  listed  on
the  property/evidence  list  under 6/19/13
four  days  after  the  date  of  occurrence  which raises  the
question  of  when and where it  was actually  found andior  processes and whether or  not
fingerprints belonging  to  the  deceased were  found  on  it.  Furthermore, the probative value  of  a
knife  or  any other  weapon is definitely questionable  as  none  of  the civilian eye-witnesses
interviewed provided  a statement  that  they saw  it  or  any  other weapon or object that could  have
been mistaken for or used  as  a  weapon.  It  should be noted  that all but one  of  the  witnesses
interviewed, were also interviewed by  the police department during  their  initial  investigation.
Based information available at the  time  of  this writing: sworn  statements provided by  numerous
eye-witnesses  as  well as inconsistencies in  the available police report(s), it  is  the  investigator's
opinion that the involved police  officer unjustifiably used deadly  force by  discharging  his
firearm and causing the death  of  Mr.  Morales  in the  absenceof  clear  and  articulable  facts  that the
officer  or  a  third party was  in  imminent danger  of  death  or  serious  bodily  injury. Furthermore,
Mr. Morales,  according  to  witness accounts, was  simply attempting  to  flee the officer/area and
was  not reported  to  be  engaging in any conduct  that  would pose  a  danger to the public. In
consideration  of  the  aforementioned,  if  the  officer  still  believed  Mr.  Morales to  be  danger,  the
officer could have summoned additional officers and, pending their arrival, maintained  a  safe
watch  of  Mr.  Morales. Instead, the  involved  officer created a situation where he passed Mr.
Morales and then approached him from the  front,  verses  the  advantageous position  of  a  rear
approach (pursuant  to police  training on how  to  safely approach suspects), gave verbal
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 30 of 40
commands for Mr. Morales to come to him, and  then  fired  upon  ?vfr.  Morales when  he was
complying with  the  officer's  commands.
In  closing, the extremely lengthy amount  of  time  that  has  passed pending:  a  finding/report by the
EPPD  SRI  (shooting review team); presentation  of  the case to  the  District Attorney for review;
and/or presentation  to  the  Grand Jury for review brings  into  question, the  justification  of  the use
of  deadly force  in  this  case.
Based on the eye-witness statements obtained during this, it is believed that  entry  and subsequent
discovery  in  this case  is  warranted.
Prepared  by:
oy  D  is,  Chief  Investigator
Advocate investigations
(TXDPS License #A15096)
/  Date
Information contained in  this  report includes personal data with regards to the subjects  and  is  considered sensitive
and  confidential and should  be  treated  accordingly. Advocate Investigations has  been  retained  to conduct  research
and provide  the  findings for  the  purposes  of  legal use  of  this  information for a pending  or  future  litigation for Court
Cause  number N/A and any  other  use  or dissemination  is  strictly  prohibited.
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 31 of 40
(
.
Advocate  Investigations
and  Process  Serving,  Inc.
LV
\
P.O.  Box  640536  El  Paso Texas 79904
.  Telephone/Fax  (915)  757-6626
TXIPS#  A15096
Statement  of  Facts
Roy Davis, a Texas  State Licensed  Private Investigator  (LicA1  5096)  on  my  own  free will.
understand  that  this statement may  be  used  as  any  part  of  an  investigative or  judicial proceeding
pertaining  to this case and  that  I  may  be  called  to  provide testimony regarding  the  facts provided.
/.p'I  have not been threatened, coerced, or promised anything  to  include,  but not  limited  to:  anything  of
xnetary  value, special favors,  etc.  in exchange for me giving  this  statement.  My  account(s)  of  my  personal
owledge  of  the person/incident  in  question  is/are as follows:
/Ac7  umm  ?ooJc-  Thc  /vw,,Jrr  412Jn41  'r()  fi
PageJof'-pages.
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 32 of 40
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 33 of 40
______I  have  read  the aforementioned  statement consisting  of  3  pages  and  attest under oath that it  is  true  and
correct to the  best  of  my knowledge.
Subscribed  and  sworn to before me  on  this  9  day  of________________________  20
Not  Seal  /
/  Not  Public, State  of  Texas
Mi
L1
My9,  016
ag3oi3pages
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 34 of 40
Advocate  Investigations
and  Process  Serving,  Inc.
P.O.  Box  640536  El  Paso,  Texas  79904
Telephone/Fax  (915)  757-6626
TXDPS#  A15096
Statement  of  Facts
Roy  Davis,  a  Texas State Licensed Private Investigator (Lic#A  15096) on  my  own free will.
J(
I  understand that this statement may be  used as any  part  of  an  investigative
or  judicial  proceeding
pertaining to  this  case and that  I  may be called to provide testimony regarding  the facts provided.
have  not  been threatened, coerced,  or  promised anything  to  include,  but not limited  to:  anything  of
monetary  value, special favors,  etc.  in exchange for me giving this statement.
My account(s)  of  my personal
knvledge  of  the person/incident  in  question is/are  as follows:
rageLoi3  pages.
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 35 of 40
Statement_____________________________
Daterrime  //(3  (,/O  1SAw
'It,',
JMJL
Page  2_ot3pages
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 36 of 40
'S
Statement  of______________________________
DatePflmec  /t  o/R  /0  21
Continued..
_____I have read  the aforementioned  statement consisting  of3
correct to the best  of  my knowledge.
Signature
5
Printed Name
Subscribed and sworn  to  before me  on  this______  day  o
Notary  Seal
pages and attest under oath  that  it is true  and
Date
Page3jf3  pages
J.  tiIL,  UI
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 37 of 40
My name is  (-  0,
1.
Advocate  Investigations
and  Process  Serving,  Inc.
P.O.  Box  640536 El  Paso,  Texas  79904
Telephone/Fax  (915)  757-6626
TXDPS#  A15096
Statement  of  Facts
and  I  am__years  of  age
Roy Davis.  a  Texas  State Licensed  Private Invcstigator (Lic#A  15096)  on  my  own  free  will.
I  understand that this statement  may be  used  as any  part  of  an  investigative
or judicial proceeding
pertaining  to  this case  and  that  I  may be  called  to  provide testimony  regarding the facts provided.
____I have not been threatened, coerced,  or  promised anything to  include,  but not limited to: anything  of
monetary  value, special favors, etc. in  exchange for me  giving  this statement.
My account(s)  of  my  personal
kn  wiedge  of  the  person/incident  in  question  is/are as  follows:
y
Lm  42
71fr
&r
,..  -  A.
r.  -
(1
Page.of2..pages.
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 38 of 40
_____I  have read the aforementioned  statement consisting  of
2  pages and  attest under  oath  that  it  is  true  and
correct  to  the best  of  my knowledge.
,,/,y/,
LLL4
L46
S(iture
udaLoPp  /vUe
Printed Name
Subscribed and  sworn to  before  me  on
this/'cO  day  of
Notary  Seal
F
NOfr/PLhC
Mj  Crrmswj'  Ep;
-I-  /3
Date
Notry  Public, State  of  Texas
Pagepfpages
2O/
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 39 of 40
Court  Name:  TEXAS WESTERN
Division:  3
Receipt Number: 300019514
Cashier  ID:  vmedina
Transaction  Date:  05/22/2014
Payer  Name:  HENLY AND HENLY  PC
CIVIL FILING FEE
For:  MANNY MORALES,  et  al
Amount:  $400.00
PAPER CHECK
Amt Tendered:  $40000
Total Due:  $400.00
Total  Tendered: $400.00
Change  Amt:  $0.00
CIVIL FILING
FEE  ,DTXW31  4C V000l 89-001
NANNY MORALES,  et  a] v.  OFFICER  A.
GOMEZ,  et  al
FM  /  MAT
Case 3:14-cv-00189-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 40 of 40