No Charges Will Be Filed in Centralia Officer-Involved Shooting

The Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office has determined no charges will be filed against either the Centralia police officer or the 46-year-old Chehalis man he shot in an incident that took place the evening of Jan. 2 on South Tower Avenue.

Prosecutor Jonathan Meyer’s review of an independent investigation done by the Mason County Sheriff’s Office on the matter determines the officer’s use of deadly force was done in “good faith.” 

The officer involved in the shooting — identified as Sergeant John Dorff — was accompanied by officers Aaron Miller and officer Phil Reynolds at the time of the shooting.

The Prosecutor’s Office also issued a potential impeachment disclosure (PID) letter to Reynolds after concluding that part of his taped and written statements contradicted each other

All three officers were interviewed as part of the investigation, but Meyer noted he did not consider Reynolds’ responses because of that contradiction.

“As is the purpose of a PID letter, parties must be notified in cases involving Officer Reynolds of information that may form the basis upon which to impeach Officer Reynold if called to testify,” Meyer wrote.

Meyer’s report gives a summary of the incident. At about  7 p.m. on Jan. 2, police received a report of a trespasser at a business on South Tower Avenue. Dorff was en route to assist with locating “the suspect” when Miller said over the radio that the man was threatening himself and Reynolds.

When Dorff pulled into the parking lot, he said he saw the man holding a stick while pacing about 15 feet away from the two officers. Dorff saw Miller had his taser out but not yet deployed and indicated he would provide “lethal cover.”

The Chronicle is not identifying the subject because he has not been charged with a crime. 

Miller reported in his statement that he had initially pulled out his firearm but switched to his Taser when he saw Reynolds already had his firearm out.

Dorff also believed the man was under the influence based on his demeanor.

Dorff reported that when he got out of his car, he heard Reynolds instruct the man to drop the stick, at which point the officers reported the subject took an “aggressive posture” directed at the officers.

Dorff reported that he heard Reynolds say “now” which he took to mean Miller was instructed to deploy his taser on the man, which he did, according to Meyer’s report. After being hit with the taser, the man swiped the probes off and allegedly focused on Dorff who had his firearm out.

The officers reported the man told Dorff “just f****** do it. Just f****** do it. I’m ready.”

Dorff said the man was 12 to 15 feet away from him still holding onto the stick. The man then took an “aggressive step towards (Dorff),” officers reported to investigators. 

The investigators learned that Dorff, believing Miller would not have enough time to transition from his taser, and that the less than lethal option was ineffective, and believing he did not have time to switch from his firearm to a different method, shot the man twice.

Dorff indicated in statements to investigators that he feared he would have been killed or hospitalized.

In Meyer's analysis of the investigation, he determined that the 61-inch, 2.64-pound stick the man was wielding could be considered a weapon and that Dorff had probable cause to believe that if he was not apprehended, he would pose a threat of serious physical harm to the officers.

“Even ignoring the supporting information … upon seeing (the man), his demeanor, conduct, words and weapon, (Dorff) believed (the man) was threatening the officers,” Meyer wrote in the review.

Meyer also argued Dorff’s belief that the man posed a threat of serious physical harm was corroborated by the fact the other two police officers present had also drawn their firearms.

“This reinforces the conclusion that each officer, independent of the others, made an analysis of the situation and believed that (the man) was a threat and considered the stick a threat,” Meyer wrote.

Meyer also determined charges would not be brought against the man who was shot due to mental health issues appearing to be the driving force in his actions. Meyer wrote that the man’s  mental health issues were not relevant to Dorff’s use of deadly force, however they were relevant to the analysis of his actions.

According to Meyer’s report, the man suffered multiple traumatic brain injuries while serving in the military.

Inconsistencies in Officer’s Reports

In a taped oral statement, Reynolds told investigators that he could not identify the man who was shot until after the shooting, but in a written statement he claimed the opposite, saying he knew who the man was throughout the interaction and had dealt with him in the past. 

Reynolds’  reported in his written statement that he knew the subject to have been arrested in the past for “assault, resisting arrest, obstructing a law enforcement officer and drug crimes,” he wrote. “I had found (him) to be aggressive and confrontational.”

Meyer characterized Reynold’s written report as “one of the most unusual reports ever submitted to this office by an officer.” He added that two of the four pages of Reynolds’ report consisted of the officer objecting to having to write the report at all.

“I submit this report at Deputy Chief (Stacy) Denham’s order as a condition of my employment and upon the threat of discipline or termination,” Reynolds wrote. 

He also demanded that his statement be used only for internal purposes only, asked that he be allowed to amend the statement if needed, and asserted his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present.

“It is baffling why Officer Reynolds would think the inclusion of the information above would somehow insulate him from any wrongdoing,” Meyer wrote. “Simply put, there is no way to reconcile Officer Reynolds’ taped statement with his written report. … That is not to say Officer Reynolds is lying. … Frankly this office cannot determine what basis (there is) for the conflicting assertion.”

In 2012, Reynolds was fired from the Centralia Police Department after an investigation found he excessively used his Taser on multiple people, many who were involved in minor, non-violent offenses and was dishonest in his police reports about the circumstances of using the Taser.

After a two-year legal battle, Reynolds was given his job back in 2014 and was entitled to retroactive back pay.

Prior to Reynold’s firing in 2012, he was the subject of several internal investigations over a period of six years, according to prior Chronicle reporting.

Witnesses Give Accounts

Several witnesses reportedly saw and/or heard the incident, but none were in the parking lot where the shooting took place other than the two officers with Dorff, Miller and Reynolds.

Four witnesses from across the street where the incident took place heard the man yelling at the officers, but only two witnesses said they saw him brandishing the stick. 

The two witnesses who did not say they saw the man brandishing the stick also said they either only saw portions of the incident or had a hard time seeing the incident because of their vantage point.

One of the four witnesses, who was able to identify the man and acknowledged he only saw a portion of the incident and did not see the shooting, but saw the man on the ground after the shooting, said he assumed he had the stick because he “always walks with a walking stick.”

The other witness, who said it was hard for him to get a good visual of what happened from his vantage point, said he saw an officer use a taser on the man, at which point he started to “flail.”

“I didn’t see (the man) go down,” the witness said in a statement. “I think he started to panic and (tried) to get them off of him ... but he was approaching them in the process, but it didn’t seem like he was actually going at them.”

Washington’s RCW.10.1114.011 regarding investigation criteria for officer involved shootings requires non-law enforcement representatives were informed of the investigation, given updates and be present when the lead investigator presented the investigation to the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office. 

According to Meyer’s review, the requirements were satisfied.

The Chronicle’s public records request for the investigation report submitted to the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office has not yet been fulfilled.