0:00

What we wear can say a lot about

0:02

us. If you want to say that you believe

0:04

in the power of nonprofit investigative

0:07

journalism, buy a Reveal t-shirt.

0:09

Our new t-shirts are sweatshop free and

0:12

made by union workers. When

0:14

you wear a Reveal t-shirt, you can tell

0:16

the world you support nonprofit investigative

0:19

journalism. Just head over to our shop

0:21

at revealnews.org. Again,

0:24

that's revealnews.org.

0:29

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

0:32

Whether you love true crime or comedy, celebrity

0:35

interviews or news, you call the shots

0:37

on what's in your podcast queue. And guess what?

0:40

Now you can call them on your auto insurance too with the

0:42

Name Your Price tool from Progressive. It

0:44

works just the way it sounds. You tell Progressive

0:46

how much you want to pay for car insurance, and they'll

0:48

show you coverage options that fit your budget. Get

0:51

your quote today at Progressive.com

0:53

to join the over 28 million drivers

0:55

who trust Progressive. Progressive

0:57

Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price

0:59

and coverage match limited by state law.

1:05

From the Center for

1:07

Investigative Reporting and PRX,

1:09

this is Reveal. I'm Al Edson.

1:13

I'm going to turn it over to Bruce today, and maybe

1:15

Bruce, you can give us a few more words about yourself and

1:17

then get started. Sure. Asking

1:19

an attorney to talk about himself, this could go on for hours.

1:22

Bruce Prayett is not a household name,

1:25

but maybe it should be, especially

1:28

in California, where he's been one of the

1:30

most influential architects of policing

1:32

policies for the last two decades. Yeah,

1:35

I mean, I was a cop for 10 years and I've been defending him

1:38

for, what, 34 years now in federal

1:40

court. The last time Bruce put on

1:42

a badge was back in the 80s. He

1:44

worked as a patrol officer, was on the K-9

1:47

unit and spent time as a detective,

1:49

all in Orange County, California.

1:52

Today, his claim to fame is

1:54

the advice he gives to police departments

1:56

across the state. Start with a suspect.

1:59

Please record the

2:02

suspect and you know he's gonna lie through

2:04

his teeth. All the better. Paint

2:06

him into a corner. Make sure he can't

2:08

wiggle out later in court. Over

2:11

the years, Bruce has given a lot

2:14

of talks and a lot of advice in the form

2:16

of trainings, like these online

2:18

webinars. Because he's an attorney,

2:21

a lot of that advice is about legal issues

2:23

and how to avoid them. He often

2:25

talks in a tone that says, I've

2:28

been through it all before. And the

2:30

situations he describes are

2:32

often framed as us versus

2:34

them. How do you know if there's going to be a lawsuit?

2:37

Well,

2:37

when the bad guy says, I'm going to sue your ass,

2:40

it's usually a pretty good indication.

2:42

This audio is from a workshop Bruce

2:44

ran in 2019 on how officers

2:47

can protect themselves in court. I don't understand

2:50

why cops have this

2:53

inherent

2:54

need to take bloody photographs

2:57

of suspects after they get in a fight or

2:59

whatever with a bad guy. Stop

3:01

it. Clean them up. There's

3:04

a simple formula. You all need to

3:06

commit this to memory.

3:08

Red

3:09

turns to green at the time of trial. If

3:11

there's blood in the photo, you're going to

3:14

pay money. Clean

3:16

them up and get them smiling

3:18

for the picture. We use that in

3:20

court later. It is good stuff.

3:23

Send me copies. I'm going to publish a book. Stupid

3:26

people hurt my cops. We're all going to make a million bucks.

3:30

Back in 2021, investigative

3:32

reporter Brian Howie started watching

3:34

Bruce's webinars. And in one of

3:36

them, he heard Bruce give a piece of advice

3:39

that stood out about what to do

3:41

when an officer kills someone on the job.

3:44

What's the likelihood you're going to get food

3:46

in an officer involved shooting? Damn

3:48

close to 100 percent. Trust me, somebody

3:51

will crawl out from underneath the rock and decides

3:53

a dearly departed is finally worth something now that

3:55

he's dead. And you're going to get food. But

3:58

what do we do?

4:00

Today on the show, we're focusing on what

4:02

Bruce advises officers to do after

4:05

someone is killed by police. It's

4:08

advice that some policing experts call

4:10

inhumane. We're teaming

4:12

up with Brian and the investigative reporting

4:14

program at UC Berkeley's Graduate School

4:16

of Journalism. Brian starts with

4:18

how things should be done. After

4:24

spending a lot of time listening to Bruce's

4:26

webinars, I did a lot of research on

4:28

what's supposed to happen after an

4:30

officer kills someone. One

4:33

of those things is a death notification.

4:36

Basically, notifying friends or family

4:38

that someone has died. It's

4:40

part of the job for many law enforcement officers.

4:44

A lot of training materials on how police should

4:46

do these notifications mention

4:48

two things. Delivering the

4:50

news directly and doing so

4:52

as soon as possible. You make it fast.

4:55

It's kind of like taking a band-aid off. You don't pull

4:57

one little piece at a time. It's got to be fast.

5:00

And that's the compassionate way of telling somebody that their

5:02

loved ones passed away. You don't

5:04

play games with them. I found examples

5:07

like this one. Former cops

5:09

giving interviews on how notifications

5:11

should be done. FBI

5:13

training materials say the same thing. Notifications

5:17

should be done clearly and quickly. So

5:20

that's the official advice. Bruce

5:22

Prayats' advice is different.

5:24

Here's some free advice. Put his profile

5:27

on the suspect as soon as you

5:29

can. In this age of

5:32

social media, the grapevine

5:34

has gotten lightning speed. Before

5:36

the dust settles, I want you to send

5:39

in a uniform detective I don't care. Somebody

5:42

out to their friends and family to find

5:45

out what they've been up to for the last 24 hours.

5:47

In Bruce's advice, the investigation

5:50

is centered on the person who police

5:52

killed. He's advising officers

5:54

to find out as much as possible. Who

5:57

was this person?

5:58

What were they up to?

5:59

Are they breaking any laws? In essence,

6:02

get as much dirt as quickly

6:04

as possible. Go out there and get that evasive

6:07

truth. The evasive

6:09

truth. Bruce teaches that

6:11

the truth is harder to access

6:14

after a death notification. So

6:16

Bruce recommends police start with

6:19

questions to get as much information

6:21

before telling families why they're

6:23

there. In this training, Bruce

6:26

acts out both sides of the interaction

6:28

to demonstrate his advice. Here,

6:31

he's playing an officer and listen

6:33

for how he as the officer describes

6:36

why he's there. Hi, Mr. Jones. We've

6:38

had contact with your son. We're trying to figure out what he's been up to.

6:41

Then Bruce plays the part of the mother.

6:44

He calls her Mrs. Jones. You

6:46

know what? He got laid off. His girlfriend

6:49

broke up with him. His dog died. He's

6:51

been on a drinking binge. He's

6:53

been meth all week long. See

6:55

that hole in the wall? He just punched his fist. What's

6:58

his bail? Where do we get him? At which

7:00

point, by the way, you'll get a very concerned look on your face.

7:03

Say, you know what, Mr. Jones? I regret to inform

7:06

you your son was involved in a shootout

7:08

with the officers and he didn't survive. What?

7:11

My son, the Eagle Scout? No. Sorry,

7:14

lady. You're married to that evasive concept

7:17

called the truth.

7:18

Remember for a moment

7:21

what Bruce is suggesting. Imagine

7:23

you're home and you get a knock on the door. It's

7:26

the police. You let them in and

7:28

they start asking questions about a relative

7:30

of yours. They ask about their drug

7:32

use, criminal history, mental

7:34

health. You answer the questions, but

7:37

the whole time you're wondering why they're

7:39

asking them. And only when you

7:41

ask directly do the officers reveal

7:43

that your relative is dead.

7:45

That advice that Bruce Prayett

7:48

is giving is, to my

7:51

view, at the expense

7:54

of serving the community

7:58

and recognizing the

8:00

harm and devastation

8:03

of a police-involved killing.

8:05

UCLA Law Professor Joanna

8:07

Schwartz has been looking into Bruce's influence

8:10

on policing for years. She

8:12

does research on police misconduct and accountability,

8:15

and she's the author of a recently published

8:18

book called Shielded, How the Police

8:20

Became Untouchable. Bruce Prayant

8:22

is in the circles in

8:24

which he travels an exceedingly

8:27

important figure. He

8:29

is in the center, I believe, of

8:32

the community of defenders,

8:36

of police officers in these cases,

8:39

and also at the center of

8:42

police policymaking.

8:45

Bruce isn't just shouting this advice

8:47

from a YouTube soapbox.

8:49

He co-founded a company called Lexiple.

8:52

Thousands of agencies across the country

8:54

trust Lexiple. Lexiple has

8:56

been serving police departments since it was

8:59

founded in the early 2000s. The

9:01

company offers trainings, like Bruce's

9:04

webinars, and policy. That's

9:06

Lexiple's bread and butter. In

9:11

the US, police departments

9:13

are responsible for writing their own policy

9:15

manuals, the rules for how police

9:18

officers are supposed to do their jobs.

9:21

Large police departments in major cities

9:23

usually can afford an in-house

9:26

team of policy writers who keep

9:28

the manuals up to date on the latest

9:30

local, state, and federal laws. But

9:33

for smaller departments without all those

9:35

lawyers, it can be hard to keep up.

9:38

That's where Lexiple comes in. The company

9:41

has a kind of policy buffet with

9:43

ready-made language that police departments can

9:45

put into their manuals.

9:47

And the goal of

9:49

Lexiple, if you look at their

9:52

materials, their goal is to manage risk, they

9:54

say, which

9:56

really means to reduce the risk. liability.

10:02

Joanna and other critics like the American

10:04

Civil Liberties Union say Lexapel's

10:06

policies are vaguely worded so

10:08

it's hard to tell when an officer violates them.

10:11

And they're cookie-cutter. You can find the

10:13

same language over and over in manuals

10:16

from different departments. Agencies

10:18

are allowed to edit the policies they

10:20

get from Lexapel if they choose to,

10:23

but it's unclear how many actually

10:25

do. And Lexapel's reach

10:28

is far and wide.

10:30

How big is Lexapel?

10:32

Lexapel writes the policies

10:34

for more than 95% of

10:36

California's law enforcement agencies and

10:39

at last count they provided

10:42

policies for upwards of 3,500 law enforcement

10:47

agencies across the country. And

10:49

I am aware of no other

10:52

private or government entity

10:55

that comes close to writing

10:58

policies for that volume

11:00

of agencies. 3,500

11:02

agencies

11:05

across the country, that means

11:07

nearly one-fifth of all police

11:09

departments in the U.S. subscribe

11:11

to Lexapel.

11:13

When Lexapel provides

11:16

policies and trainings, and Bruce Prayett

11:19

is a founder of Lexapel, and Bruce Prayett

11:22

gets on a webinar

11:24

and gives advice about how

11:27

to undertake an investigation, you have

11:30

to assume that officers and their

11:32

supervisors and the administrators

11:36

and executives within law enforcement agencies

11:38

are listening.

11:40

I wanted to see if Bruce's advice

11:43

was just advice or if

11:45

police departments are actually using this

11:48

tactic after they kill someone, turning

11:51

death notifications into interviews, and

11:54

then using the information police get

11:56

to protect themselves in court.

11:59

I focused where Alexa pull got its start

12:02

California. I called civil

12:05

rights attorneys all over the state to ask if

12:07

they'd ever heard of this. I reviewed dozens

12:09

of court cases and I filed a bunch

12:12

of public records requests. And

12:14

after a few months, I got some

12:16

answers. Police departments

12:19

have been conducting death notifications

12:21

just like Bruce advises all

12:23

over the state. You can hear

12:26

it for yourself in these scratchy

12:28

police recordings where instead of

12:30

opening with what happened,

12:32

police went into interrogation mode.

12:34

Does your husband own a gun? So was

12:36

he using drugs or selling drugs or

12:39

what was your husband upset about? Do you

12:41

know if he's married, if he has a wife,

12:43

kids?

12:44

These clips are some of the 20 instances

12:47

I found across 15 different

12:49

police agencies. In each

12:51

of these interactions, officers spent

12:53

those crucial first minutes with families

12:55

peppering them with questions instead

12:58

of telling them someone they know was

13:00

killed or seriously hurt by police.

13:03

When were you guys married? We were married

13:06

and I got a divorce two years ago.

13:09

What was the reason? I just need to know what

13:11

really happens. I just I'm trying to figure out the

13:13

whole picture. So I need your honesty. Has

13:15

he hit you before? You hear him saying like unusual

13:18

where you think he might be having like a mental health issue?

13:21

Nothing at all. Has he ever been diagnosed

13:24

with any mental issues? No. Did he

13:26

take any medications? No. In 14 of those cases,

13:29

the

13:31

departments that used this interview tactic

13:34

had been or still were flexible

13:36

customers. And that's just

13:38

what I found from the small percentage of

13:40

California police departments that I requested

13:43

records from. Multiple

13:45

civil rights attorneys told me I've only

13:47

discovered a fraction of what they say

13:50

is a routine policing practice.

13:53

In the incidents I found, officers

13:55

continue asking questions for several

13:58

minutes as confused and angry.

13:59

anxious families wait to learn why

14:02

the police are at their door. Well,

14:04

I don't, yeah, it seems like I have an lawyer

14:06

present, so I just... No, no, Josh. I

14:10

hope he's not in big trouble and I wish you guys would

14:12

get the pipeline.

14:17

Once Brian confirmed that this is

14:19

happening across California, he

14:21

started looking into how police departments

14:23

use the information they get from families during

14:26

death notifications.

14:29

When we come back, Brian meets with

14:31

people who have experienced this tactic firsthand. As

14:33

I look back, I sang like

14:36

a canary. If you haven't

14:39

really been involved

14:41

with law enforcement, you think they're your friends. And

14:43

so I told them more than I should have. That's

14:49

coming up next on Reveal.

15:00

Maybe you've heard that there's a civil war coming.

15:03

That with more than 100 gun deaths a day

15:05

in America, the powers that be

15:07

are going to have to do something. You've

15:09

heard that the government has always hated an

15:11

armed populace. But in my eight

15:13

years of gun reporting, the

15:16

game is rigged. My

15:18

name is Alon Stevens and I'm an investigative

15:21

reporter. What if I told you that when

15:23

it comes to the US government, we're the biggest

15:25

gun dealers on the block? That the halls

15:27

of American power know exactly

15:29

what I know. That guns aren't just who we

15:32

are, they're what we do best. This

15:35

is the Gun Machine, how America was forged

15:37

by the gun industry. A new podcast

15:39

from WBUR and The Trace. Search

15:42

and follow the Gun Machine in your podcast

15:44

app. From

15:48

the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX,

15:51

this is Reveal. I'm Al Ledson.

15:54

One of the first things you'll notice about attorney

15:56

Umberto Guizar's office is

15:59

the Los Angeles. sports memorabilia. Humberto's

16:02

commitment to LA teams is even

16:05

painted on his office walls. Dodger

16:07

Blue, can't you tell? I'm a Dodger Fett. It's

16:09

Dodger Blue. This

16:12

fall, investigative reporter Brian

16:15

Howie went to his office in the Sunbake

16:17

City of Montebello, just outside

16:20

of Los Angeles. It's not just

16:22

decorated with sports souvenirs. Humberto

16:26

also has a figurine collection, a

16:28

diorama of toys he

16:29

bought from a gumball machine at the car

16:32

wash. It looks like you have a whole scene

16:34

going on. Tell me the story behind this.

16:36

The little homies, I like them. You know that's the

16:42

environment I grew up in. So symbolic.

16:45

Right here you have a car

16:47

with three guys sitting in there like just chilling.

16:50

Then you have this guy flirting with the little chola girl.

16:52

This one shows a guy surrendering

16:54

right with an LAPD officer aiming a gun at him

16:57

with a dog, a canine dog. And

16:59

this guy on the bike like, oh shit, I'm out of here.

17:02

But there's no figurine for Humberto. If

17:05

there was, it'd be one with a stocky

17:07

build, salt and pepper hair, a

17:09

goatee, a few tattoos, and a few rings.

17:12

And maybe there ought to be one because

17:15

this is a familiar scene to Humberto.

17:18

He spent nearly 30 years representing

17:20

more than a hundred families of people who died

17:23

in encounters with police. The angle

17:25

for us is to get you as much compensation. And

17:28

that's a vindication of the truth. When you get a big

17:30

resolution and you get paid a lot of money

17:33

for the loss of a loved one, that is acknowledging

17:36

that they did wrong because they don't just pay a lot of money

17:38

for nothing. Right. So it

17:40

does bring a sense of justice

17:42

to the family. Brian met with

17:45

Humberto to ask if he'd ever heard of

17:47

a policing tactic, one where

17:49

officers question the next of kin before

17:52

notifying them that someone they know has

17:54

been killed by police. This

17:56

has been the case for many years. Just

18:00

turn into a weapon to

18:02

hide the truth and to get the truth modified

18:05

in a way that benefits them To

18:07

justify the use of deadly force into your justified

18:10

or bad behavior

18:12

Simple as that why

18:15

they use that information to minimize the value of

18:17

the case obviously

18:19

Brian along with our partners at UC

18:22

Berkeley's investigative reporting program

18:24

have been looking into why law enforcement officers

18:27

are questioning families before

18:29

notifying them that a relative has

18:31

been killed by police and A

18:34

quick warning this story contains

18:36

audio clips of actual death notifications

18:39

that could be difficult for some listeners Umberto

18:44

is one of about a dozen attorneys. I

18:46

talked to for this story Many

18:49

say they've seen this tactic so often they

18:51

see it as standard practice and Many

18:54

put me in touch with families who say

18:56

they experienced it in real life This

18:59

led me to Tina Slater.

19:00

We spoke over the phone last year. Okay,

19:03

um, I had just got off work cuz I worked 2 a.m.

19:06

To 10 a.m. Shift at work. So

19:09

I had just got home

19:11

It's a spring morning in 2015 Tina

19:13

had just wrapped up an overnight shift at Joanne

19:16

fabrics and finished a meal with her brother

19:18

and mom Kathleen Neither

19:21

of them expected to San Bernardino

19:23

County Sheriff's deputies to knock on their

19:25

door April 15 2015

19:31

at approximately 11 42 hours Be

19:35

attempting to make family notification

19:38

You do myself and detective

19:40

Troy Meridian Tina's

19:43

lawyers gave me this tape the deputies recorded

19:45

that day I Wore

19:50

the check just from the shift for me. Come

19:52

in The

19:55

deputies are there to tell Tina that

19:57

her 28 year old son Joseph has

19:59

been killed. Inside

20:02

the house, it's the five of them.

20:04

Tina, her brother, her mom Kathleen,

20:13

and the two sheriff's detectives. Instead

20:16

of opening with the actual death notification,

20:19

one detective asks a question. Kathleen

20:48

is a little hard

20:51

to hear, but she says her grandson

20:53

Joseph was there the night before, that

20:55

she thinks he was on meth because he

20:57

was acting out of hand and that he's done

21:00

this before. The detectives

21:02

keep the questions coming for nearly 10 minutes.

21:24

All of these questions get into Joseph's

21:26

past. His issues with substance

21:29

abuse, mental health challenges, times

21:31

where he'd been arrested before, plus more

21:34

details about his behavior that night. All

21:37

the while delaying the main reason

21:39

why detectives are there, to tell

21:41

the family Joseph is dead. The

21:45

questions stop when Kathleen asks

21:47

one of her own.

21:53

I'm

22:01

sorry to have to tell you.

22:02

Oh, my God. I

22:05

know you feel guilty. I know you

22:07

feel guilty. I

22:13

know my mom always felt guilty. She

22:15

kept saying, oh God, you know, here I went and told

22:17

them all this stuff. I feel so bad. I feel so

22:19

guilty. So, yeah. Yeah,

22:21

she had told me not that long before she passed, so

22:24

she would always feel guilty for that. So... And

22:28

did you, after they notified you that

22:30

Joseph had died, did you have a sense as

22:32

to why they were asking those questions?

22:34

At the beginning,

22:36

no. Yeah. No,

22:39

at the beginning, you know, because I didn't realize how he

22:41

had died. They had just said, you

22:43

know, that he was dead, and then I had found

22:45

out later, hearing on the news and stuff, actually,

22:48

you know, what exactly, you know, he died. They

22:50

just said that his death was being investigated.

22:54

The detectives who met with Tina and her family

22:56

gave few details about what happened.

22:59

Here's what they shared that day. That's

23:01

one thing we're investigating is what caused it. He

23:05

was at the Valero gas

23:07

station, and

23:09

started doing some things

23:11

there which caused them to call the police.

23:15

The police got there. He

23:17

was handcuffed, but then he started

23:19

having some medical problems, and they called them ambulance.

23:22

But before he died.

23:25

All of that is technically true, but

23:27

news reports, records from the sheriff's

23:29

department, and the court records paint

23:32

a fuller picture. The

23:34

night Joseph died, San Bernardino County

23:37

Sheriff's deputies arrested him at a Valero

23:39

gas station. The deputies

23:41

restrained Joseph using a hog tie. It's

23:44

a controversial technique that involves binding

23:46

someone's wrists to their ankles while

23:49

that person is lying on their stomach. And

23:51

it's controversial because it's known to be deadly.

23:55

Deputies put Joseph in a patrol car while

23:57

he was hog tied, and after a few minutes,

24:00

She stopped breathing. Tina

24:03

and her family sued the sheriff's department

24:05

in civil court. They accused

24:07

deputies of killing Joseph with excessive

24:10

force. The department's lawyers

24:12

argued that Joseph died from a methamphetamine

24:15

overdose. That's how the coroner ruled

24:17

Joseph's death. And to bolster

24:19

their point, during a deposition, they

24:22

played the recording from the death notification

24:24

where Tina's mom shared Joseph's drug

24:26

history. Just before

24:29

the case went to trial, the San Bernardino

24:31

County Sheriff's Department reached an undisclosed

24:33

settlement with Tina's family. The

24:36

sheriff's office never responded to my request

24:38

for an interview, nor did they comment

24:40

on why officers questioned Tina and her

24:42

family before notifying them about

24:45

Joseph's death. I

24:47

asked Tina about that too.

24:49

Did you think about how

24:52

they asked those questions

24:54

before they told you what had happened,

24:56

maybe considered why

24:58

they had asked those questions? Did you have any idea?

25:01

At the beginning, no. I was

25:04

in too much of a shock, but as time kind of

25:06

went on, I kind of realized that they

25:08

were doing that to build their case for

25:11

their defense. They

25:15

didn't know Joseph. They only

25:17

got a bad thing that he did yesterday.

25:19

They don't hear about

25:21

the other person that he was, the good person. They

25:25

just go by how he was

25:27

acting at a certain point, not

25:30

the true person that he was.

25:35

In the months after I spoke with Tina,

25:38

I found more and more cases like

25:40

hers, cases where investigators

25:42

extracted damning information

25:45

from families before telling

25:47

them that their relative had been killed by

25:49

police. Many of those

25:51

families and their attorneys tell

25:53

me they believe the information law enforcement

25:56

got from them in that moment may

25:58

have impacted the outcome of the case. their lawsuit.

26:02

If there's one case that exemplifies this,

26:05

it's Jim Showman's.

26:06

Jim!

26:07

I was supposed to drive. It

26:10

was actually pretty good. Yeah, I'm surprised.

26:12

Me too. I went to

26:14

meet him on a sunny day this past fall

26:17

at a suburban home in San Jose, California. We've

26:19

been talking on the phone for what, like a year and a half

26:21

now? Yeah, it's been a while. In

26:24

the summer of 2014, Jim had

26:26

returned from work to find his home surrounded

26:28

by police cars. Officers tell

26:31

him that his 19-year-old daughter, Diana,

26:33

is in the hospital and that they need to

26:35

ask him some questions. They

26:37

escort him to the station and seat him in an

26:40

interrogation room.

26:41

I'm seething. I'm scared. I'm in

26:45

shock wanting just

26:47

to

26:49

find out what happened. How is

26:51

my daughter? How is Diana?

26:53

Jim goes through the same unfortunate pattern.

26:56

Detectives come in and ask him lots of questions

26:59

about Diana. Jim tells them she's

27:01

bipolar and how just a couple

27:03

days earlier she'd been in an argument that

27:05

resulted in a 911 call. As

27:08

I look back, I sang

27:11

like a canary. I guess I was just

27:13

in this mindset that I guess

27:15

people, if you haven't really

27:19

been involved with law enforcement,

27:22

you think they're your friends and you

27:24

think that they are there to help

27:26

you. And so I told

27:29

them more than I should have. And

27:32

I think soon

27:34

thereafter they stopped the questioning and I

27:37

said, what happened? Diana

27:40

was shot and killed by a San Jose

27:42

police officer. According

27:44

to the police report, Diana called 911

27:48

and told the operator she had a gun and

27:50

was going to shoot her family. When

27:52

officers arrived, Diana walked out

27:54

of the house holding a cordless drill that

27:57

was painted black. The

28:00

action lasted one minute. Diana

28:02

pointed the drill at police, and one of

28:05

the officers shot her. The

28:07

cop who pulled the trigger said she thought Diana

28:09

was holding a gun. The

28:12

San Jose Police Department wouldn't agree

28:14

to an interview, but they did file

28:17

a public report on the shooting and

28:19

concluded the officer legally shot

28:21

Diana in self-defense. After

28:23

Diana was killed, Jim and his

28:25

now ex-wife sued the department. They

28:28

argued that the officer should have done more

28:30

to de-escalate before shooting their

28:32

daughter.

28:33

That was our, I

28:34

guess, the only thing we could do to

28:36

hit back. But

28:40

the department had been working to undermine

28:42

Jim Shoman's lawsuit long before

28:45

he'd even considered fuming one. On

28:49

a scratchy phone connection, I

28:51

got a hold of Wayne Smith, a

28:53

retired San Jose Police detective

28:55

who interviewed Jim that day.

28:57

I seen her recall that we did

28:59

ask him questions before

29:02

we let him know that she died, and that the

29:04

memory served me. He was a bit upset

29:06

about that.

29:08

Wayne is hard to hear. He's saying

29:10

he remembers asking Jim questions about

29:13

Diana before letting him know she died.

29:16

He says, quote, if my memory

29:18

serves me, he was a bit upset about

29:20

that. I asked him why

29:22

he performed death notifications this

29:24

way.

29:25

We're going to be what happens when the police kill

29:27

somebody who has been extricated

29:30

through the police, through the police, they finish

29:32

getting into the county. I mean, they go out and

29:34

they want money. So

29:37

it's important to interview her and sustain

29:39

her as soon as possible to lock them

29:42

into a story.

29:43

Wayne says lawsuits are common

29:45

when police shoot somebody. So officers

29:48

question families in order to lock them

29:50

into a story. He is the only

29:53

officer I've been able to get on the record

29:55

acknowledging this tactic as something

29:58

police do to protect their department. from

30:00

lawsuits. But later

30:02

in the interview, Wayne would walk back

30:04

that statement.

30:06

You have mentioned the lawsuit aspect

30:08

a couple of times. I mean, is there an aspect to

30:10

that when you're interviewing these family members where you're

30:13

trying to protect the department?

30:34

Jim says the city of San Jose initially

30:36

offered him and his ex-wife $10,000 to settle

30:39

their lawsuit. But Jim says

30:42

that after reviewing the case, the

30:44

city took it off the table. Both

30:46

Jim and his attorney told me they think

30:48

it's partly because of what Jim said

30:51

about Diana in that interrogation room.

30:54

Instead of the money, the city came

30:56

back to the table with two things. First,

30:59

he says he and his ex-wife were invited

31:01

to go through the police department's crisis

31:04

intervention materials and work with

31:06

officers to update them. In

31:08

the city's second offer, Jim

31:10

took me to visit. So

31:13

this is what the memorial bench here

31:16

is and they did a nice

31:18

job. They planted

31:21

the trees so there's all their shade here. What

31:24

is this plaque say? In loving

31:26

memory of Diana Marie Showman,

31:30

July 5th 1995 to August

31:34

14th 2014, play

31:36

ball. The

31:39

bench sits in the shade of two young trees

31:41

and overlooks the third baseline. It's

31:44

the position Diana played on her softball

31:46

team as a kid. Jim does

31:48

his best to visit at least once a year.

31:51

It's a nice gesture but

31:54

it's well below what should

31:57

have been and should continue to

31:59

be. You know, when law enforcement

32:02

uses lethal force, there

32:05

should be a different outcome, especially when

32:08

people are unarmed. And

32:13

it's a nice acknowledgment, but it's

32:16

not what I'm going to continue to fight

32:18

for. Since

32:23

Diana's death, Jim's grief has

32:25

fueled his advocacy work. He's

32:27

met with state officials and academics to

32:30

talk about how police officers should

32:32

be trained when they encounter civilians

32:34

in the middle of a mental health crisis. Lately,

32:37

he's been working with a local advocacy

32:39

group to push for a new California

32:42

law that would bar officers from interviewing

32:44

families before delivering a death

32:46

notification. We are working so

32:48

this doesn't occur again, but I

32:52

really don't have any other choice

32:54

personally than to just keep pursuing

32:58

justice and change of society,

33:00

I mean, change of the laws so,

33:02

you know, other families aren't victims

33:05

of this.

33:11

The San Jose Police Department is one

33:13

of the few in California that does not

33:15

contract the Flexi-Pole. It's the

33:17

company we mentioned earlier in the show. Flexi-Pole

33:20

has contracts with more than 95% of California police

33:23

departments, and they offer

33:26

trainings and write policy for law enforcement

33:28

agencies. And

33:30

until 2022, the company's website

33:33

offered a webinar that advises officers

33:35

to use the same death notification tactic

33:38

that Tina and Jim experienced. That

33:41

webinar was run by Flexi-Pole co-founder

33:43

Bruce Tran. So

33:47

next on my reporting to-do list was

33:49

to interview Bruce about the consequences

33:51

of his advice.

33:59

responded. Coming up,

34:02

Brian tries to track down Bruce in

34:04

person. I told you I wasn't gonna give a comment

34:06

and now you've got 10 minutes of my time so

34:09

I'm not gonna miss my flight for your article

34:12

or whatever. I

34:12

gotta find out where they need to pick

34:14

up.

34:16

That's next on Reveal. If

34:28

you like what we do and you want to help, well

34:30

it's pretty simple. Just write us a review on

34:33

Apple Podcast. It's easy and

34:35

only takes a few seconds. Just open

34:37

the Apple Podcast app on your phone, search

34:40

for Reveal, then scroll down to where

34:42

you see Write a Review and

34:44

there tell them how much you love

34:46

the host. Your

34:49

review makes it easier for listeners to find

34:51

us and it really does make

34:53

a difference and if you

34:54

do it you will get a personal thank

34:56

you from me like right now. Like thank

34:59

you, not him, not you,

35:01

yes you thank you

35:04

so much.

35:05

Alright.

35:12

From the Center for Investigative Reporting in PRX,

35:15

this is Reveal. I'm Al Ledson.

35:21

Jonathan Ryan Hernandez ran for

35:24

a city council seat in Santa Ana, California

35:26

when he was in his 20s. So when I ran against

35:29

a sheriff at 27, I was seen as a kid, seen as

35:33

somebody who wasn't necessarily

35:36

a challenge. He won his election in 2020

35:39

and after he took office he started looking

35:41

closer at the Santa Ana Police Department

35:44

and its policies. I thought well

35:46

clearly you know there are concerns

35:48

here and these concerns

35:51

turn into lawsuits and those lawsuits affect

35:53

taxpayers and so when I started

35:55

following who is training these police

35:58

departments, what policy manuals are following?

35:59

that's when I discovered

36:02

Lexapol.

36:04

Lexapol offers training and policies

36:06

for more than 95% of California

36:08

police departments. Today the

36:11

company is headquartered in Frisco, Texas

36:13

but it was founded in Southern California

36:16

just a few miles away from Santa Ana.

36:19

Jonathan finds out his city has had a contract

36:21

with Lexapol for nearly a decade.

36:24

He starts asking around about the company and

36:27

here's a lot of good things. It's

36:29

a simple easy platform to use,

36:32

covers all of your bases and it's cost-effective

36:35

and police departments all over the state of California

36:37

are using it. But months later

36:40

Jonathan would be leading an effort to get

36:42

Lexapol out of his city. Our

36:45

reporting partner this week, Brian Howie,

36:48

met Jonathan to find out why.

36:53

Jonathan's fight against Lexapol isn't

36:55

just political, it's also personal.

36:58

On a tour of Santa Ana, Jonathan takes

37:00

me to a beauty salon on Santa Ana

37:03

Boulevard and painted on the side

37:05

is a 10-foot mural of Brandon Lopez.

37:08

Brandon was Jonathan's cousin.

37:10

Brandon Lopez was a santanero.

37:14

He loves Santa Ana, he's a father, he loved

37:16

music, he loved tattooing, he

37:19

loved graffiti art. When we

37:21

were kids he was a really amazing

37:23

skateboarder. He's somebody who went through

37:25

the struggle like us and sometimes

37:29

those who go through the struggle we don't always make it out.

37:33

Less than a year after Jonathan took

37:35

office, Brandon was shot and killed

37:38

in a standoff with Santa Ana and Anaheim

37:40

police. The mural is painted

37:42

a few yards from where he was killed. Right

37:45

there they murdered him literally right there, 22

37:47

bullets. It was a four hour

37:49

standoff and I was at each of the precincts

37:52

trying to save his life. Brandon

37:55

was unarmed and Jonathan thinks the

37:57

department could have de-escalated.

38:00

instead of shooting him. Later

38:02

that night, Jonathan got a call to

38:04

come to the scene. He and a family member

38:07

were greeted by an officer. And

38:09

they didn't confirm right away if

38:11

Brandon was dead, but they did

38:13

ask questions about Brandon.

38:16

They asked about his past. It became

38:18

very clear the night of the murder that

38:21

they wanted to begin

38:23

their investigation then and there, before

38:25

ever telling us that he was deceased.

38:31

This lines up with what I found across

38:33

California, investigators questioning

38:36

families before sharing the news

38:38

the police killed their relative. It's the

38:40

same tactic one of Lexapul's co-founders

38:43

suggested to police officers in an online

38:46

training. This practice was part

38:48

of what Jonathan came to see as Lexapul's

38:50

bottom line, helping police

38:52

departments lower their chances of getting

38:54

sued. So he set out to

38:57

push Lexapul out of Santa Ana. So

39:00

item number 20 please. This is fooled

39:02

by... That would be me. Councilman

39:04

Hernandez. Madam Mayor. Thank you.

39:07

In September, Lexapul's contract

39:10

with the city of Santa Ana was up for renewal

39:12

and Jonathan tried to block it. I

39:15

do believe that Lexapul has

39:17

advertised its policies primarily

39:20

to protect law enforcement from accountability.

39:22

On the City Council floor, Jonathan argued

39:25

the city should write its own policing manual

39:28

with community input instead of getting

39:30

it from Lexapul. I believe that for us

39:32

to be able to do this in-house is going to create

39:34

a sense of trust that we simply don't have. Some

39:37

City Council members agreed with Jonathan.

39:40

I am worried that Lexapul will continue

39:42

to want to widen guidelines instead

39:45

of holding police accountable where

39:47

we have asked them to do. Others

39:49

weren't swayed. I trust the police chief.

39:51

I trust our city management to be able

39:53

to do these things and vet them through the police

39:56

commission, through the City Council. But when it

39:58

came down to a vote...

39:59

I notice four ayes, three

40:02

nays, nays by council members, Hernandez,

40:05

Vasquez, and Mayor

40:07

Pro Tem Beldin. The motion failed. The

40:09

contract with Lexapul was renewed for another

40:12

three years. I

40:14

got a hold of Jonathan by phone after

40:16

the vote was cast. He was disappointed,

40:18

but he's already planning his next move.

40:21

So I think what happens next

40:24

is having a back-applying draft

40:26

with Lexapul and the Artfuls Department,

40:29

and there will be reviews

40:32

upon Lexapul. We still have

40:34

the ability to look at the contract

40:37

and see what policies are being adapted.

40:41

In the meantime, Jonathan is pushing

40:43

for an alternative to Lexapul, but

40:46

convincing his fellow council members could

40:48

be a hard sell, in part because Lexapul

40:50

is so convenient for cities and police

40:52

agencies. I spoke to

40:55

several California police chiefs whose

40:57

departments contract with Lexapul. Many

40:59

told me the company is a valuable and

41:01

necessary resource for their day-to-day

41:04

operations. Take, for example, the

41:06

Fremont Police Department. It's contracted

41:08

with Lexapul for more than a decade. I

41:10

interviewed Matthew Snelson, who is now

41:12

a captain in the department.

41:14

They give us timely updates

41:17

on when law is being changed, recommendations

41:22

and best practice as they

41:24

see it, you know, what their attorneys think.

41:26

When I spoke with Matthew, part of his job

41:29

was vetting policy updates for the department.

41:32

Police departments in smaller and midsize

41:34

cities often rely on Lexapul to

41:37

help them keep up to date on the latest

41:39

local, state, and federal

41:41

laws. We're really using Lexapul

41:43

to be a content provider, to be an alert

41:46

source, to say, hey, there's

41:48

changes that you should be aware of. Here's our recommendations

41:51

on how to change that language, things like

41:53

that. Matthew and other heads

41:55

of police departments tell me Lexapul's

41:58

policies have been legally sound. As

42:00

a public agency, we're sued

42:03

at times over the years and I'm

42:06

not aware of a time where one of our policies

42:08

was shown to be lacking

42:11

or not reflective

42:14

of law, best practice. Okay,

42:18

so Lexapul makes life easier for some police

42:20

departments. But did they know about

42:23

the company's co-founder Bruce Prayett

42:25

and the advice he was giving? Like

42:27

his take on death notifications. I

42:30

played parts of Bruce's online trainings

42:32

for the police chiefs I spoke to. They

42:35

had a range of reactions. Some

42:37

said Bruce's advice would never fly

42:39

at their departments. Others said

42:41

his advice was legal, albeit a little

42:43

crass, and brushed it off. Matthew

42:46

didn't want to talk about it.

42:47

I'm going to stop you, Brian. I have no comment

42:50

on any of this. There's no bearing on our contract

42:53

with Lexapul or how we interact

42:55

with Lexapul. These

42:58

are on the Lexapul website though. I mean, this is

43:00

either comments from the co-founder

43:02

of the company and... Sounds like opinion

43:04

pieces. Okay. I

43:06

mean, does the opinions... Do you have

43:09

another line of questioning or is this where

43:11

you want to go from here? I mean,

43:13

these are the questions that I have about these webinars. Thanks,

43:15

Brian. Appreciate your time. You don't want to go to the rest

43:18

of what I found. Thanks, Brian.

43:19

Appreciate your time.

43:27

I've spoken with more than a dozen

43:29

family members of people killed by police

43:31

who went through a delayed death notification

43:34

process. Many of them told

43:36

me they felt betrayed. Many

43:38

also felt that the little chance

43:40

at justice they had, their civil lawsuit

43:43

against the police, had been undermined.

43:46

Families and their attorneys believed departments

43:49

offered less money to settle their lawsuits.

43:52

In part because of the information they gave

43:54

investigators. In other

43:56

words, these police agencies

43:58

had argued their...

43:59

relatives' lives were worth less

44:02

because of what they said during the death notification.

44:07

Bruce Prayett might not have invented the tactic,

44:10

but he advised officers to use it, and

44:12

he did so from Lexapul's very powerful

44:14

platform. I tried

44:16

to interview Bruce. I called

44:19

him, left him messages, I sent emails.

44:21

He never responded, so I tried

44:24

one last time to get his side of the story

44:26

in person. In

44:30

June 2022, I heard

44:32

he was giving a talk in a suburb of Fresno,

44:35

California.

44:39

Turns out Fresno is pretty hot in

44:41

the summer. I sweat outside of the

44:43

city hall building where the talk is being held.

44:47

After about 20 minutes, I see a bunch

44:49

of guys with buzz cuts and suit jackets

44:51

file out of the presentation. Then

44:53

I hear that unmistakable voice coming

44:56

from the auditorium.

45:17

Bruce

45:20

turns away from me and starts walking at a hurried pace

45:22

toward a small parking lot.

45:47

Bruce

45:50

walks off looking for his rental

45:53

car, but I keep

45:56

asking

46:00

him questions and he keeps stopping

46:02

to answer them. After each answer

46:05

he spins around and takes off and

46:07

we walk around in circles in the parking lot

46:09

for the rest of the interview.

46:11

So then why did you advise police departments

46:13

to withhold this from the family? You instructed

46:16

them to say

46:17

hey Mrs. Jones

46:19

we've had contact with your son and

46:21

allude to some sort of vague interaction

46:24

with the police department at which point in

46:26

your training you make it out. I tell

46:28

agencies to get whatever information they can

46:30

upfront without any bias or perspective

46:33

or anything else. Okay so

46:35

if Mrs. Jones whoever Mrs. Jones is

46:37

says this is what he was up to for the last 24

46:39

hours

46:40

hopefully that's the truth which

46:42

is what we should have okay

46:44

so that's what we want them to get as early

46:46

and often as possible. Okay don't you think

46:48

that's a good idea to find out what the

46:51

person was up to? Don't the people who

46:53

have lost their loved one deserve to know that that person is

46:55

dead before they're asked questions though? Do

46:57

you think that might taint their perspective

47:00

on what they say the individual was up to for the first 24

47:02

hours? Do you think it would? I don't know

47:04

it's up to the person that's being interviewed. If

47:07

they want to share what was going on with the law enforcement

47:09

officer then they should tell the truth shouldn't they? So do

47:13

you think it's okay then for law enforcement

47:15

officers to withhold the next of kin notification?

47:17

You're not saying withhold not me. Don't

47:20

quote me as saying that I've ever said withhold

47:22

information. Do I advocate getting

47:24

out there as early as possible and getting information

47:26

the truth from family,

47:29

friends, associates, co-workers? Absolutely.

47:32

Get it all while it's still fresh while it's still truthful.

47:35

Okay but the way that you framed it in this webinar

47:37

certainly seemed that's the way that you're interpreting

47:39

whatever I said I can't say what I said. Okay

47:42

but now I'm not going to do an

47:44

interview or whatever you got more interview than I ever

47:46

intended for you to get and

47:48

I'm sure you'll put whatever spin you want on it. Whatever

47:51

I say you'll cut and paste whatever you want to put.

47:53

I just told you if you want to quote something said the role

47:55

the officer is to get to the truth. Public

47:58

has a right to know what happened. We

48:00

have a right to investigate what happened to get to the truth.

48:03

That truth shouldn't be tainted in any direction.

48:05

Okay? And it's okay to withhold the truth in order to get

48:08

the truth? You're saying withhold the truth. Think

48:10

about it logically. Okay, I know this is

48:13

a foreign concept, but

48:15

logic and common sense, okay? If

48:17

you all of a sudden are a grieving family member

48:20

and don't most people jump to the defense of

48:23

the person who had the encounter with law enforcement,

48:26

shouldn't the officer be able to get the untainted

48:29

opinion and perspective and facts from

48:32

the family or friends or

48:34

relatives or whatever it was, shouldn't they get that

48:37

before this person is tainted and all of a sudden

48:39

in a defensive mode? Somebody

48:42

says, why did you have contact with my son? They're going to tell

48:44

him. Okay?

48:46

Nobody's... I've never said, don't

48:48

ever tell somebody that the person has mentioned

48:50

it. Okay, but saying we've had contact

48:53

with your son is a far cry from saying we've

48:55

shot your son. They've had contact

48:57

with your son.

48:59

I told you I wasn't going to give a comment and now

49:01

you've got 10 minutes of my time. So

49:03

I'm not going to miss my flight for your article

49:06

or whatever.

49:11

I still don't know if Bruce ever caught

49:13

his flight. I tried to contact

49:16

him once more before the story went to air,

49:18

but I never heard back.

49:22

I reached out to Lexapul for comment. In

49:25

an email, a company spokesperson confirmed

49:28

that Bruce is no longer on the company's

49:30

board of directors and made a point to

49:32

say he was not an employee. The

49:35

company distanced itself from Bruce's

49:37

advice about death notifications. In

49:40

a statement, Lexapul said that it recognizes

49:42

that parts of the 2019 webinar were quote, insensitive

49:46

and potentially hurtful. It went

49:49

on to say, we apologize for any

49:51

harm these statements may have caused. Lexapul

49:54

says the webinars have been removed from its website

49:57

and are not a reflection of the company's values.

50:00

The statement also pledged to monitor the

50:02

opinions expressed by webinar presenters

50:04

going forward. I

50:07

followed up to ask when Bruce left Lexapol

50:10

and why, but the spokesperson never

50:12

replied. You can still find

50:15

some of Bruce's advice on Lexapol's websites,

50:17

like an article summarizing his presentation

50:20

10 Ways to Lose Police Lawsuits. Other

50:23

trainings that Bruce developed are still online,

50:25

and California police officers can

50:27

count at least one of them as credit

50:29

toward their required training hours. And

50:33

not long ago, Bruce received a Lifetime

50:35

Achievement Award from the state body that

50:38

oversees California's policing practices.

50:41

Meanwhile, Lexapol continues

50:43

to expand its footprint. The

50:45

company now contracts with departments across

50:47

the country in states like New York, Texas,

50:50

Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Florida.

50:57

Brian first published a story about death

50:59

notifications and Lexapol's reach for

51:02

the Los Angeles Times. You can

51:04

find that and other links in the show notes at

51:06

revealnews.org. Our

51:10

lead producer for this week's show is Najeeb

51:12

Amini. Jenny Costas edited the show.

51:15

Editorial and reporting guidance from Wesley

51:17

Lowry, David Barstow, and Christine

51:19

Shivo. They worked with Brian on this

51:22

story from the beginning with the investigative

51:24

reporting program at UC Berkeley's Graduate

51:26

School of Journalism. Special thanks

51:28

to John Cotts. Nikki Frick is our fact-checker.

51:31

She had help this week from Kim Frieda. Victoria

51:33

Baranetsky is our general counsel. Our production

51:36

managers are the Wonder Twins, Stephen

51:38

Rascone and Zulema Cobb. Score

51:40

and sound design by the dynamic duo Jay

51:42

Breezy, Mr. Jim Briggs, and Fernando Mammano

51:45

Arruda. Our CEO is Robert Rosenthal.

51:48

Our COO is Maria Feldman. Our

51:50

interim executive producers are Brett Myers

51:52

and Taki Telenidis. Our theme music is

51:54

by Camerato, Lightning. Support

51:57

for Reveal is provided by the Reva and David Logan

51:59

Foundation. The Ford Foundation, the John

52:01

D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the

52:04

Jonathan Logan Family Foundation, the

52:06

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Park Foundation,

52:09

and the Hellman Foundation. Reveal is

52:11

a co-production of the Center for Investigative Reporting

52:13

and PRX. I'm Al Ledson,

52:16

and remember, there is always more

52:18

to the story.

52:30

From PRX.