Blanchard Complaint

Case 6:18-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
Nanette Blanchard-Daigle, as representative of

the estate of Lyle Blanchard,
Plaintiff,
v. No. _____
Shane Geers, Bell County, Texas, and Jim

Hatfield,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff, Nanette Blanchard-Daigle, as representative of the estate of Lyle
Blanchard brings this action against Bell County for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983 and § 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiff also bring this complaint against Deputy Shane Geers, police
officer of the Bell County Sheriff ’s Department, Texas, in his individual capacity
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also bring this complaint against Jim
Hatfield, Texas Ranger for the Texas Department of Public Safety, in his individual
capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is based
upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, and under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).
Deputy Geers, under no threat to himself, shot and killed Lyle Blanchard, in
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. These violations were committed as a result of the policies and
customs of the Bell County, Texas. Specifically, the governmental body had
Bla nc har d v. Ge e r s, e t al . Pa g e 1
Plai n tif f ’s Or ig i nal C om pla i nt
inadequate policies regarding hiring, retention, and training of excessive force as well
as reasonable accommodations for disability that caused the incident in question.
Following the incident Jim Hatfield signed an affidavit in support of an
arrest warrant that failed to detail that Blanchard was dead, an important fact in
investigating an aggravated assault.
Plaintiff herein complies with the pleading requirements of FRCP Rule
8(a)(2) and the requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
that “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
I. PARTIES
1.1 Lyle Blanchard, deceased, (“Plaintiff ”) was an individual residing in
Bell County, Texas at the time of the incident in question. Nanette Blanchard-Daigle,
the decedent’s sister, is the representative of the estate of Lyle Blanchard.
1.2 Bell County, Texas (“The County”) is a municipal corporation located
within the boundaries of the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas.
Defendant will be extended the opportunity to accept service of process pursuant to
FRCP 4(d). If Defendant fails or refuses to accept service as requested, then the
Plaintiff will request service of process pursuant to FRCP 4(e) upon defendant.
1.3 Defendant, Shane Geers was at all times relevant to this cause of
action a duly appointed and acting officer of the police department of Bell County,
and working within the course and scope of his employment with the Bell County
Sheriff ’s Department. Defendant will be extended the opportunity to accept service
of process pursuant to FRCP 4(d). If Defendant fails or refuses to accept service as
requested, then the Plaintiff will request service of process pursuant to FRCP 4(e)
upon defendant.
1.4 Defendant, Jim Hatfield was at all times to this cause of action acting
as an officer of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Defendant will be extended
the opportunity to accept service of process pursuant to FRCP 4(d). If Defendant
fails or refuses to accept service as requested, then the Plaintiff will request service
of process pursuant to FRCP 4(e) upon defendant.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.1 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1988 provide jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for redress, which are conferred on this Court by 28
U.S.C. §1343(a)(3).
2.2 Federal question jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C.
§1331, because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
2.3 This Court also has pendent jurisdiction over all other claims asserted
under the laws of the State of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).
2.4 Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, as
this is the district where the claim arose in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
III. DUTY AND LAW APPLICABLE
3.1 Plaintiff, Lyle Blanchard, was subjected to excessive force in violation
of his rights guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.
3.2 Plaintiff commences this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, which
provides in relevant part for redress for every person within the jurisdiction of the
United States for the deprivation, under color of state law, of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
3.3 Deputy Shane Geers and Jim Hatfield, acting under the color of law,
are liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
3.4 Nanette Blanchard-Daigle is the personal representative of the estate
of the deceased. She has capacity to pursue this claim under the Texas Survival
Statute. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE §71.021.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4.1 On or about August 30, 2016, Blanchard was travelling on the 12300
block of East Knights Way. While Blanchard was driving, Deputy Shane Geers
started following Blanchard. Immediately before Blanchard was going to take a right
turn down Rummel Road, Geers turned on his siren and emergency lights. Blanchard
engaged his turn signal, and turned right onto Rummel Road, the dirt road that led to
his home. Blanchard travelled approximately 1,000 feet up the dirt road and stopped
his vehicle. Blanchard opened the door of his vehicle, remained in the driver’s seat
and awaited instructions from Deputy Geers. Deputy Geers did not approach the
vehicle, and did not issue any audible instructions. Blanchard exited the vehicle.
Blanchard was unarmed. Geers and Blanchard were approximately 50 feet apart at
this time.
4.2 Geers gave no audible instructions to Blanchard. Blanchard did not
disobey any audible instructions from Geers. Geers made no effort to de-escalate the
situation. Geers did not turn off his siren to allow for communication or de-
escalation. Geers did not use a P.A. system or bullhorn; he only used his unamplified
voice. Whatever volatility, confusion or lack of communication that arose between
the two men was created solely by the actions, inactions and choices of Deputy
Geers.
4.3 At the time of the traffic stop Geers apparently believed Blanchard
to be driving while impaired or intoxicated. Geers claims to have seen Blanchard
swerving while driving. Geers did not have reason to believe Blanchard was armed.
According to the affidavit account of the traffic stop, there was nothing here to
indicate this was perceived to be a potentially violent situation. It was merely a
suspected DWI traffic stop. Geers did not see Blanchard with a gun or any other
weapon. Neither Bell County nor any other police department dispatch told Geers
that Blanchard had a gun or any other weapon. Geers did not have reason to believe
Blanchard was suspected of any felony, that he was armed, or that he had violent
tendencies. Neither Bell County nor any other police department dispatch told Geers
that Blanchard was suspected of any felony or outstanding crime. The actions of
Blanchard were consistent with the actions of a non-violent DWI suspect.
4.4 Blanchard made no move towards the officer. He did not move away
from the officer as if to flee. At this time he had shown all signs of complying with
the officer’s orders. Geers had no reason to believe Blanchard was a threat.
4.5 Having heard no instructions or commands from Deputy Geers,
Blanchard reached into the small, bottom right leg pocket of his cargo shorts,
apparently to retrieve his identification. At that time, Deputy Geers fired
approximately four shorts at the unarmed US Navy Veteran.
4.6 After Blanchard fell to the ground, clearly incapacitated and gravely
injured, Geers fired four more shots at the dying man.
4.7 At no time before or after the shooting did Deputy Geers see any
firearm or other weapon in the possession of Blanchard. Blanchard possessed no
weapon.
4.8 Geers should have recognized that a small cargo pant pocket could
not hold a firearm powerful enough to penetrate his armored patrol car door.
Therefore, any belief by Geers that his life was in danger was an unreasonable belief.
4.9 After being shot, Blanchard endured conscious pain and suffering as
he tried to move; tried to get up; tried not to die; but his efforts were futile. Lyle
Blanchard died due to gunshot wounds on August 30, 2016. Four of the eight
rounds fired by Deputy Geers succeeded in killing the unarmed man.
THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION
4.10 After Blanchard died at the scene, Geers spoke with Jim D. Hatfield,
a Texas Ranger employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Geers worked
with Hatfield to obtain a warrant to search Blanchard’s home to investigate an
alleged Aggravated Assault. Blanchard did not assault Geers. Hatfield drafted an
affidavit based on his own investigation as well as communication with Geers.
4.11 The affidavit does not inform the judge Blanchard was killed. Rather
than say Geers shot and killed Blanchard the description was only that “Corporal
Geers engaged and subdued Blanchard.” He details no assault or injury by Blanchard
against Geers. He describes that Geers was suspected of having a gun, but fails to
state that at the point Hatfield arrived at the scene it was already determined
Blanchard did not have one. He describes that Blanchard had a violent criminal
history, including once when the Harker Heights Police department was called in
response to Blanchard threatening to shoot airplanes. The Harker Heights report,
however, details Lyle apologized and that the officer believed Blanchard “poses no
threat to aircraft or others.” This investigation concluded five months earlier with no
charges being filed. Hatfield indicated in the affidavit he reviewed this incident but
omitted the benign disposition of the investigation.
4.12 The affidavit, under false pretense and by deception of Judge Fancy
Jezek, requested a warrant to search Blanchard’s home for the following items in
support of an investigation of aggravated assault:
 Weapons and accessories;
 Firearms;
 Explosives;
 Ammunition;
 Literature containing anti-police statements/sentiments and
writings/recordings;
 Computers, cell phones or any other electronic device capable of sending,
receiving or storing data;
 Suicide note;
 And any other item(s) unknown to affiant which could constitute that a
particular individual committed the offenses described herein.
4.13 It is not common police procedure to investigate a dead man for
aggravated assault. It would be a violation of Blanchard’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendment to be searched and then tried in asbsentia as well as a waste
of Bell County resources. Nevertheless, Hatfield presented the affidavit and obtained
the warrant from Judge Jezek. But Blanchard had been dead for eight hours by the
time the warrant was signed. This search warrant was not obtained for the reasons
stated in the affidavit; rather, Officer Hatfield obtained the search warrant merely as
a pretext for investigation into Lyle Blanchard’s (deceased) history to later besmirch
the good name of a veteran in the community and media. Not surprisingly, the
search of Blanchard’s home found none of these potentially incriminating items.
V. THE COUNTY’S POLICIES, CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES
5.1 Bell County’s policies, customs and practices lead to the incident in
question. Bell County failed to provide Deputy Geers with training regarding how to
respond to non-violent offenders. Geers failed to use verbal de-escalation
techniques such as verbal judo to resolve the situation. Geers was untrained
regarding how to promote communication on a routine traffic stop. Geers was
untrained regarding the continuum of force in responding to a routine traffic stop.
5.2 After internal review, Geers was back on duty a few weeks later,
having not been disciplined or reprimanded for his actions.
5.3 Geers previously demonstrated failure to grasp issues related to the
importance of using deadly force during training. In August 2014 Geers was
reprimanded for poor participation and unbecoming behavior during a Firearms
Electronic Simulator. This simulators purpose was to practice choosing the proper
force option as a scenario unfolds in real time. This prior act shows Geers was
unfamiliar with the gravity of using deadly force
5.4 Bell County had an obligation to train Geers in the constitutional
rules of the use of deadly force. That training must go further than the broad
contours of the Fourth Amendment, but must also include information on when
deadly force is constitutionally appropriate. Suspecting a gun is not enough. On
information and belief Geers was not trained in the overall contours of the Fourth
Amendment prohibitions against excessive force. Specifically, he was trained that an
“imminent dangers” exist merely if a suspect possesses a weapon but does not point
it at someone. Such training deliberately ignores admonition by the Fifth Circuit that
mere possession of a weapon is not grounds for use of deadly force.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
Bell County
6.1 The acts and failures of Defendants on the occasion in question were
unreasonable and were the proximate and producing cause of the injuries and
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. Bell County, Texas is liable to Plaintiff under 42
U.S.C. §1983 for acting with deliberate indifference, in failing to provide to Deputy
Geers with supervision and training regarding the reasonable use of force. Deputy
Geers was not trained to use force based on objective facts available to him at the
time of the incident.
6.2 Defendant Geers’s use of deadly force against a suspect who was
only reaching into his pocket was manifestly indefensible. Bell County’s refusal to
discipline or reprimand Geers for his actions amounts to ratification of the act after
the fact. By ratifying Geer’s use of deadly force, Bell County demonstrated deliberate
indifference to the civil rights of Plaintiff and citizens of Bell County. Further,
Defendant’s failure to reprimand Geers and their “rubber stamp” of his actions
shows a reluctance to enforce its own policies and lends itself to recurring situations
and continued violations of civil rights by other officers.
Deputy Geers
6.2 Defendant Geers used excessive force, including intentionally shooting the
Plaintiff without provocation or the presence of any imminent threat. This was a
proximate cause of the Plaintiff ’s injuries, including his death. Defendant Geers’
actions were excessive in light of all the facts at hand. Blanchard was apparently only
suspected of driving while intoxicated. The crime of which Mr. Blanchard was
suspected was a nonviolent crime. He did not threaten Defendant Geers. Such a
crime does not rise to the level to warrant the use of deadly force. Geers had no
reason to believe Blanchard was a threat. Deputy Geers knew that pockets- even
pockets of drunk driving suspects- usually contain items other than weapons. There
was no other person around, so Geers could not have believed Blanchard would have
been a threat to any other person in the area.
Jim Hatfield
6.3 Defendant Hatfield violated Blanchard’s Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable search and seizure by signing an affidavit in support of an arrest
warrant that failed to detail Blanchard was dead. The search was unlawful in light of
the facts at hand, specifically that Blanchard did not injure Geers, did not have a
weapon and that he was dead.
Roger Clark
6.4 Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the expert report of Roger Clark,
attached hereto. Mr. Clark is a retired twenty-seven year veteran of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff ’s office. His experience and qualifications are listed in his report. Mr.
Clark states unequivocally that the Defendants herein violated normal police
procedure, departed from their training training, and violated numerous rights of
Bla nc har d v. Ge e r s, e t al . Pa g e 1 0
Lyle Blanchard. Mr. Clark also indicates that such violations should have been
apparent to any trained peace officer.
VII. DAMAGES
7.1 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Geers and Bell County’s
conduct, Plaintiff suffered the following damages:
a. Death;
b. Mental anguish;
c. Pain; and
d. Funeral expenses.
7.2 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Hatfield’s conduct
Plaintiff suffered a violation of his Fourth Amendment right. Plaintiff is entitled to
nominal damages.
7.3 Nanette Blanchard-Daigle as representative of the estate of Lyle Blanchard
seeks all damages to which he is entitled at law for personal, emotional, physical, and
economic injuries sustained as a proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and
omissions. Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and mental pain and suffering. These
damages are in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court.
VIII. ATTORNEY’S FEES
8.1 The Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of attorneys to
represent them in this complex and difficult proceeding and cause of action. The
Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys to represent them, and pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988(b) of the Federal Civil Rights Act, they are entitled to recover for
their reasonable and necessary fees incurred for these attorneys, and the reasonable
and necessary expenses incurred in the pursuit of this claim at the trial level, the
Court of Appeals level if the case is appealed to that Court, and in the Supreme
Court of the United States, if necessary.
IX. JURY DEMAND
9.1 Plaintiff respectfully demand a trial by jury.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Plaintiff ask for judgment against all Defendants for the
following
a. Trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury;
b. Judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, on behalf of the
Plaintiff for actual damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983;
c. Statutory and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) of
the Federal Civil Rights Act, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, and all of their costs herein expended; and
d. Any and all additional relief to which the Plaintiff may appear to be
entitled.
Filed this 26th day of July, 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
KOMIE & MORROW
7703 N. Lamar Blvd. Suite #410

Austin, TX 78752
512-338-0900 Telephone
512-338-0902 Facsimile
By: /s/ Robert L. Ranco

Robert L. Ranco
SBN: 24029785
robert@komieandmorrow.com
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

1717 N. I-35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
(512) 671-7277
(512) 238-0275 (Facsimile)
/s/ Roberto Flores

Roberto Flores
SBN: 24074211
Rflores@carlsonattorneys.com
Roger Clark
Police Procedures Consultant, Inc.
10207 Molino Road. Santee, CA 92071
Phone: (208) 351-2458, Fax: (619) 258-0045
rclark9314@aol.com
December 28, 2017
Robert L. Ranco, Esq.

The Carlson Law Firm, P.C.
1717 N. I-35
Round Rock, Tx 78664
Regarding: Nanette Blanchard-Daigle, et al. vs. Shane Geers, et al., Case No.: 6:17-
CV-00078-RP-JCM.
Dear Mr. Ranco:
Thank you for retaining me to analyze and render opinions regarding the August 30, 2016
shooting death of Mr. Lyle Blanchard (Mr. Blanchard) by Bell County Sheriff’s
Department (BCSD) Deputy Shane Geers (Deputy Geers). Pursuant to the requirements
of Rule 26, I have studied the reports, audio and video recordings, photographs, BCSD
reports, and other material (as listed below) provided to me thus far regarding this case.
Please be advised that if/when any additional information is submitted, it is likely that a
supplemental report refining my opinions will be necessary.
It is also necessary to state at the beginning of this report that I do not make credibility
determinations in expressing my opinions. That is, where there are differences in the
events proffered by Deputy Geers versus testimony proffered by video, and/or others, I do
not opine for the trier of fact regarding who are the more believable witnesses. The
resolution of any such conflicts are obviously the purview of a jury to decide.
Materials Reviewed Thus Far:
1. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.
2. Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Rangers, Report of

Investigation, Pages 1-31, September 7, 2016.
Page 1 of 23
3. Correspondence Between Carlos Rodriguez and Nick Lealos, June

16, 2017.
4. Harker Heights Police Department Property Disposition Record,

August 30, 2016.
5. Texas Department of Public Safety, Property Inventory HQ-109

(Rev. 10/83).
6. Affidavit for Search Warrant, August 30, 2016.
7. Bell County Sheriff’s Department Background Event Chronology.
8. Bell County Sheriff’s Department, Media Chain of Custody Report.
9. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences At Dallas, Office of the

Medical Examiner, Cause of Death Report, August 30, 2016.
10. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences At Dallas, Receipt of

Evidence.
11. Harker Heights Police Department Property Disposition Record,

August 31, 2016.
12. Harker Heights Police Department Property Release Report,

September 29, 2016.
13. Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory, Laboratory

Submission Form, Pages 1-2.
14. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences At Dallas, Office of the

Medical Examiner, Autopsy Report, August 31, 2016.
15. Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Ranger Division,

Voluntary Statement of Deputy Geers, September 8, 2016.
16. Bell County Sheriff’s Office Defensive Firearms Program (Deputy

Geers’ Completion).
Page 2 of 23
17. Correspondence from Deputy Geers to Perry L. Moose, July 22,

2016.
18. BCSD Lieutenant Lewing Correspondence.
19. Texas Department of Public Safety, Forensic Multimedia Laboratory

Report, January 6, 2017.
20. BCSD Video dissection 2016l-TRF-50006312.
21. Photographs (Bate Stamped DSC_0462-DSC_3109):

a. Scene.
b. 12953 Farm to Market 2410 Rummel Road, Harker
Heights, Texas Residence.
c. Mr. Blanchard’s Injuries.
22. Audio:
a. C16037283-LE 2, Radio Communications.
b. C16037283-LE CR CR, Radio Communications.
c. C16037283-LE 1.
d. C16037283-LE 2 TAC 1, Radio Communications.
e. C16037283-SO MAIN, Radio Communications.
f. SP OPS D, Radio Communications.
23. Video:
a. Deputy Geers’ In-Car Dash-Camera Recording of
Incident.
24. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Education (TCOLE) Basic

curriculum.
25. Satellite and Internet Images of Residence and Arrest Scene.
Brief Overview of Events & Commentary:
In 2016, Mr. Blanchard resided at 2410 Rummel Road, in Harker Heights, Texas. Mr.
Blanchard was 59 years old, valued community member, and military veteran. Mr.
Blanchard was not on probation or parole, and was not wanted for questioning in
connection with any crime. Over the span of five months, Mr. Blanchard had two
Page 3 of 23
encounters with local law enforcement: May 23, 2016, regarding an alleged terrorist
threat; and August 30, 2016, suspected of impaired driving. The May 23, 2016 encounter
resulted in Deputy Daniels reporting, “I believe he (Mr. Blanchard) poses no threat to
aircraft or other.” The August 30, 2016 encounter resulted in the shooting death of Mr.
Blanchard (who was unarmed), by Deputy Geers. The following briefly recounts the
incident between Deputy Geers and Mr. Blanchard and the lethal force inflicted on Mr.
Blanchard by Deputy Geers.
May 23, 2016 Investigation:
On May 17, 2016, Officer Coates received a call from Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Blanchard,
who lives on a hill, was upset about planes flying low, and, in anger, said the low flying
planes would be “popped”, it they didn’t alter their routes.
Officer Coates forwarded the voice mail to Officer David Daniels of the Harker Heights
Police Department. Officer Daniels listened to the voice mail, learned where Mr.
Blanchard lived, and contacted Mr. Blanchard on May 23, 2016.
After a brief conversation with Mr. Blanchard, and an apology from Mr. Blanchard,
Officer Daniels reported that, “At this time, I believe he possesses no threat to aircraft or
others.”
Subsequently, the case was closed, and no charges were filed or arrests made against Mr.
Blanchard; therefore, no reference to this case would be flagged, in the event that Mr.
Blanchard were to have his records run during a traffic stop or during any other records
review.
The August 30, 2016 Shooting Death:
On August 30, 2016, Mr. Blanchard was traveling east on 2410 Knights Way. As Mr.
Blanchard drove east, Deputy Geers started following Mr. Blanchard. Deputy Geers’
patrol car was equipped with a dashboard camera and recorded the incident in its entirety.
As Mr. Blanchard drove east toward Rummel Road, his vehicle appeared to veer toward
the south side 2410 Knights Way. According to Deputy Geers, he believed that Mr.
Blanchard was operating a vehicle while under the influence, accelerated his patrol car, in
order to close the gap between Mr. Blanchard’s vehicle and his patrol car.
Page 4 of 23
As Mr. Blanchard neared Rummel Road, he veered to the south side of Knights Way
again, and activated his right turn signal. Immediately before Mr. Blanchard was going to
turn right down Rummel Road, Deputy Geers turned on his siren and emergency lights.
Mr. Blanchard turned right onto Rummel Road, the dirt road that led to his home–a rough
and steep hill. Mr. Blanchard traveled approximately 1,000 feet up the dirt road and
stopped his vehicle. Mr. Blanchard remained with his vehicle in park, apparently
awaiting instructions.
After several nearly a half minute, Mr. Blanchard opened the door of his vehicle, and
again appeared to await instructions from Deputy Geers. Deputy Geers did not approach
the vehicle, and did not issue any audible instructions. Subsequently, Mr. Blanchard
exited his vehicle. Mr. Blanchard’s was wearing cargo shorts and his hands were
outstretched, to show that he was unarmed. Deputy Geers and Mr. Blanchard were
approximately 50 feet apart at this time.
Deputy Geers gave no audible instructions to Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Blanchard did not
disobey any audible instructions from Deputy Geers. Deputy Geers made no effort to
de-escalate the situation. Deputy Geers did not turn off his siren to allow for
communication or de-escalation, and given the significant distance and sound of sirencs,
did not use a P.A. system or bullhorn; he only used his unamplified voice.
At the time of the traffic stop, Deputy Geers did not have any reason to believe Mr.
Blanchard was armed or a threat. According to the affidavit account of the traffic stop,
there was nothing at the scene that would have portended a potentially violent situation.
It was merely a suspected DWI traffic stop. It must be stated that Deputy Geers did not
see Mr. Blanchard with a gun or any other weapon.
No communications from Bell County, or any other police department dispatch, suggested
to Deputy Geers that Mr. Blanchard had a gun or any other weapon. Furthermore, Deputy
Geers did not have reason to believe Mr. Blanchard was suspected of any felony, that he
was armed, or that he had violent tendencies. Neither Bell County nor any other police
department dispatch told Deputy Geers that Mr. Blanchard was suspected of any felony or
outstanding crime.
After exiting his SUV, Mr. Blanchard appeared to utter something not clearly recorded to
Deputy Geers. Deputy Geers stated that Mr. Blanchard said, “What the fuck do you
want?” After uttering something to Deputy Geers, Mr. Blanchard appeared to reach
towards his right, lower pocket of his cargo pants. It should be noted that although Mr.
Page 5 of 23
Blanchard reached into his cargo pants quickly, he was clearly unable to extract whatever
it was he was reaching for. Moreover, as a trained Deputy, Deputy Geers, who stood fifty
feet away, should have known that a small cargo pant pocket could not hold a firearm
powerful enough to penetrate his armored patrol car door.
Mr. Blanchard made no move towards Deputy Geers. He did not move away from the
Deputy as if to flee. At this time he had shown all signs of complying with the Deputy’s
orders. Deputy Geers had no reason to believe Mr. Blanchard was a threat.
Immediately, upon reaching into his cargo shorts lower pocket, Deputy Geers fired
approximately four shorts into Mr. Blanchard. Upon being shot, Mr. Blanchard fell to the
ground. Despite being clearly wounded and down, Deputy Geers fired four more shots at
Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Blanchard died due to gunshot wounds on August 31, 2016. Four of
the eight rounds fired by Deputy Geers succeeded in killing Mr. Blanchard (two bullets
wounds to his arms, and two bullet wounds to his torso.
Subsequent to the shooting, Deputy Geers spoke with Deputy Jim Hatfield (Deputy
Hatfield), a Texas Ranger employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Deputy
Geers worked with Deputy Hatfield to obtain a warrant to search Mr. Blanchard’s home
to investigate an alleged aggravated assault. However, per the video evidence, Mr.
Blanchard did not assault Deputy Geers. Deputy Hatfield drafted an affidavit based on
his communication with Deputy Geers. The affidavit did not inform the judge that Mr.
Blanchard was deceased as a result of being shot by Deputy Geers. Rather than disclose
that Deputy Geers shot and killed Mr. Blanchard, the description suggested that “Corporal
Geers engaged and subdued Blanchard.” The affidavit detailed no assault or injury
caused by Mr. Blanchard against Deputy Geers. Deputy Hatfield alleged that Mr.
Blanchard was suspected of having a gun, but failed to state that at the point Deputy
Hatfield arrived at the scene it was already determined Mr. Blanchard was unarmed and
never had a gun. Rather, Deputy Hatfield wrote that Mr. Blanchard had a violent criminal
history, including once when the Harker Heights Police department was called in
response to Mr. Blanchard threatening to shoot airplanes. The Harker Heights report,
however, detailed Mr. Blanchard’s apology and that the Deputy believed Mr. Blanchard
“poses no threat to aircraft or others.” That investigation concluded five months earlier
with no charges being filed. Deputy Hatfield wrote in the affidavit he reviewed the
incident but omitted the benign disposition of the investigation.
Accordingly, the affidavit, under false pretense and by deception of Judge Fancy Jezek,
requested a warrant to search Mr. Blanchard’s home for the following items in support of
an investigation of aggravated assault:
Page 6 of 23
• Weapons and accessories.

• Firearms.
• Explosives.
• Ammunition.
• Literature containing anti-police statements/sentiments and
writings/recordings.
• Computers, cell phones or any other electronic device capable of
sending, receiving, or storing data.
• Suicide note, And any other item(s) unknown to affiant which could
constitute that a particular individual committed the offenses
described herein.
It is not a common police procedure to investigate a dead man for aggravated assault. It
would be a violation of Mr. Blanchard’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment
to be searched and then tried in absentia as well as a waste of Bell County resources.
Nevertheless, Deputy Hatfield presented the affidavit and obtained the warrant from
Judge Jezek. But Mr. Blanchard had been dead for eight hours by the time the warrant
was signed. This search warrant was not obtained for the reasons stated in the affidavit.
Rather, Deputy Hatfield obtained the search warrant merely as a pretext for investigation
into Lyle Blanchard’s (deceased) history - apparently in an attempt to besmirch Mr.
Blanchard in the community and media. Incidently, the search of Mr. Blanchard’s home
found none of these potentially incriminating items listed in the warrant.
Deputy Geers’ Statement to Texas Ranger Division:
“My name is Shane Gears. I am a Corporal with the Bell County Sheriff's
Department. I have been a peace officer for 13 years. I have been employed
with the Bell County Sheriffs Department for 17 years. I hold an Advanced
Peace Officer's Certification with the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement (TCOLE). I maintain my license with continued training and
updated classes for TCOLE credit hours and take extra classes to continue
my education in law enforcement to stay up to date each year.”
“On Tuesday 08-30-2016, I was on duty as a Corporal with the Bell County
Sheriff's Department (BCSD). I was working my regular shift which is
1400 to 2200 hrs. I was alone in my vehicle, which is typical. I was in a
fully marked BCSD patrol vehicle more fully described as a Black 2016
Ford Police Interceptor Explorer SUV with a full light bar on top spot light
and Gold Sheriff Decals down the sides and back and a standard Police
Page 7 of 23
issue push bumper with red and blue lights and double siren speakers across
the front. The vehicle is equipped with a L3 in-car camera system with an
L3 microphone system. One microphone is located inside the vehicle. A
second microphone is worn on my belt. The camera and microphone
should turn on and record when the emergency lights are activated. After
reviewing the video, I discovered the body microphone did not record audio
of this incident.”
“I was wearing my official duty uniform which consisted of the following:

Solid black BDU style pants black boots black shirt and black bullet proof
vest with black outer carrier. On the front of the vest is my gold name tag
and gold badge and on the back is a large 4 in by 11 in SHERIFF patch with
letters in white. On the shoulders are 4-inch Sheriff's Department Bell
County Patches in gold and silver and under those patches are my gold
Corporal Bars/Stripes. I wear a black full duty belt around my waist with a
police radio and Department issue Taser along with a Department issue
Smith & Wesson M&P 40. Caliber pistol black in color in the holster which
is also black. The pistol was equipped with a magazine that held 15 rounds
of ammunition plus one in the chamber. I had two ammunition magazines
on my duty belt. However, I did not access those / reload during this event.
“At approximately 1540hrs, I was traveling east bound on FM 2410 in the

city of Marker Heights Texas in Bell County. I had just finished helping
BCSD Deputy Jaimie Villa #2225, who works on my shift, jump start her
car at her home in Marker Heights near the area of Verna Lee and
Maplewood Dr. I was able to get the car started and decided to head back
to Belton to meet up with Deputy Obrien #2242 at the Office. As I
approached the intersection near Cedar Knob Rd and FM 2410 east bound
still in Marker Heights, up ahead further east I observed a dark blue SUV
style vehicle with dark tinted windows traveling east on FM 2410 and saw
the vehicle travel slightly off the road with its passenger side tires causing
dust to stir up from the shoulder before it re-entered the roadway and began
to travel at what appeared to be a higher rate of speed than the posted speed
limit of 60MPM. I observed the vehicle as I traveled and tried to close the
gap between my patrol vehicle and it so that I could check the license plate
for further information and continue to observe its actions on the road. I
checked my speed at approximately 74 to 76 miles per hour in the marked
60 miles per hour zone of FM 2410 and found that the vehicle was slowly
pulling away and I saw it slightly travel off the roadway once more with the
passenger tires before returning to the road and continued east bound until it
Page 8 of 23
started approaching another vehicle traveling in the same direction on FM

2410. I was able to close the gap and got within what looked like to me to
be about 40 yards at an estimated speed of approximately 83 to 84 miles per
hour when I saw the vehicle travel off the roadway again with the passenger
tires. These signs exhibited by the drivers continued loss of control, and
failure to maintain a single lane of traffic, made me suspect the driver of the
vehicle may be intoxicated or distracted and I decided to conduct a traffic
stop on the vehicle for the violations I observed and to check the welfare of
the driver and its occupants.
“I activated my emergency overhead lights and siren, to make the driver of

the vehicle aware to pull over and stop. I felt I had the driver's attention
because I observed the vehicle's brake lights illuminate and it slowed down.
I then deactivated the siren and left the lights activated. The vehicle turned
into a driveway off FM 2410 in an area I was not familiar with. I had never
been down that road and did not know where it led. I had no address for the
drive and I could not see how many people were in the vehicle because the
window tint was dark. As the vehicle began to slow, almost to a stop, I
tried to notify my dispatcher by radio of the stop and my approximate
location. As I did so, the vehicle began to accelerate up the rough gravel
private driveway. It was obvious at that moment that the driver was
attempting to evade me.
“I notified the dispatcher by radio that the vehicle was not stopping and
tried to give the dispatcher the plate as I pursued the suspect vehicle up the
gravel drive. The drive was steep and in very rough / poor condition. It had
so many ruts and washed out portions of gravel that it was hard to maintain
control of my vehicle and still see the suspect vehicle's license plate. At
one point, the suspect's vehicle fishtailed out of control due to its excessive
speed on the roadway, I reactivated my emergency siren at that time and
continued the pursuit directly behind the suspect vehicle. The drive was
wooded on both sides with cedar trees and very remote and continued to
climb up the hillside towards an unknown location.
“About a mile up the driveway on a steep gravel grade, the vehicle abruptly
stopped and the driver's side window was rolled down. I stopped my
vehicle a few yards behind the suspect vehicle and immediately exited my
car, drew my duty weapon from its holster on my belt, aimed it at the
driver's position of the vehicle and yelled in a loud and clear voice for the
driver to show me his hands. I yelled "show me your hands" several times
Page 9 of 23
and I saw the male driver with one hand on the driver's door and the other
still inside the vehicle out of sight. I was concerned for my safety at this
point, as I could not see both his hands and he was completely
non-compliant by both evading me in his vehicle and by refusing to obey
my verbal commands.
“The driver yelled at me, "What the fuck do you want?" I began to
approach the suspect vehicle with my pistol drawn and continued to loudly
and clearly instruct him to show me his hands, as both were not visible.
Instead of complying, the driver yelled other obscenities at me during my
approach.
“As i got out in front of my vehicle I had no cover for safety. The driver
then rolled his window up while still yelling at me. Once the window was
up, I could not see inside the vehicle. I did not know whether there were
other occupants in the vehicle, nor did I know what actions the driver or
others inside, were making. I was not clear on my exact location. I knew
that other deputies were attempting to find my location to assist me, but
were not anywhere close to being on scene. I felt that I was possibly
outnumbered and in a very dangerous location since I was not familiar with
the terrain and I was dealing with an irate and non-compliant driver. I
began to slowly back away from the vehicle towards a safer location near
my vehicle and continued to yell at the driver to show me his hands. For
my safety, I maintained constant eye contact with the vehicle. I was next to
the driver's door of my patrol vehicle when I again saw the suspect vehicle
driver's window roll down. I continued to clearly and loudly yell commands
for the driver to show me both hands. The driver was still yelling and was
clearly visibly agitated and angry. Rather than complying and showing me
his hands, he quickly opened the door and got out of his vehicle and stood
with his back to his open door facing me while I was at the side of my
driver's door and he continued yelling at me and not obeying my clear and
repeated orders to show me his hands.
“The white male was wearing what looked like tan shorts with cargo
pockets and a button down short sleeve shirt and a brown or tan baseball
cap. The shirt was red plaid type design and he had on shoes and socks. He
was a slender build and appeared to be older with no facial hair that I could
see. He had an angry expression on his face and his eyes were clearly
focused on me as he was yelling obscenities towards me and not obeying
my commands to get his hands up. Instead of complying, the male reached
Page 10 of 23
behind his lower back with his left arm under the tail of his shirt in a way
that placed me in fear that he had a gun and was going to shoot me with it.
I yelled as loud as I could to show me his hands and I saw his arm coming
forward from his lower back waist as if he were bringing a gun out and up.
Although I did not clearly see his hand, I felt like he had to have a gun in it
by the motion he made, and it appeared to me that he was pulling a gun on
me. Based on the male's evading from me in his vehicle, his repeated
noncompliance with showing me his hands and his on-going cursing and
unwarranted hostility toward me, I felt at that moment that the male
intended to cause me serious bodily injury or death with a firearm by
shooting me. I feit that if I did not immediately protect myself from his
unlawful action, I would be seriously injured or killed by the male. I pulled
the trigger back and felt my weapon discharge and fire a round towards his
body and saw him appear to take that round in his body. He did not fall
down and still appeared to be holding his hands in a way that made me feel
he had a weapon, he kept his hands low and close to his body and it
appeared to me that he was still holding a weapon and could still harm me
with it. I kept yelling for him to show me his hands and I wanted him to
raise his hands and surrender but he continued to have furtive movements
with his hands so I continued to fire additional rounds from my pistol as I
saw him double over to the ground and fall a few feet from the driver's door
of his vehicle. He was on the ground next to his vehicle facing down with
his arms up under his chest area and he was still moving as if he was still
trying to get control of a weapon. I fired my pistol again until he stopped
moving while I was yelling for him to show me his hands, i could not see
his hands at all and still did not know if he was holding a gun or which hand
it was in.
“I yelled on my handheld radio to my dispatcher "Shots Fired! Shots Fired!

Man Down! Man Down!" I also was unsure if his vehicle was occupied by
other individuals. I stayed by my vehicle training my weapon on the vehicle
and the suspect back and forth trying to see if any other suspects would be
coming out of the vehicle. I requested EMS to be dispatched to the area and
i watched the suspect and yelled at him to show me his hands so that I could
approach him and get him in custody and get him help. I saw him lift his
head and look at me. I still couldn't get him to show me his hands so that I
knew he would be safe to approach. I pleaded with him several times to
just show me his hands and he would not comply. He never said another
word and lowered his head back to the ground face down and kept his
hands still under his body. I'm not sure as to when but sometime during this
Page 11 of 23
interaction I turned off my siren that was still activated with my lights. The
male stopped struggling and moving and I felt like I could make an
approach to try to get closer and see where his hands were at, and see if
there was a weapon in them.
“I got closer and saw his closed fist doubled up under his chest and I could
see that there were no suspects remaining in the vehicle. I reached for my
cuffs after bolstering my duty weapon and went to detain the suspect in
cuffs and try to give him emergency aid. As I reached down I could feel no
pulse in his neck and I could see blood on his shirt. I roiled him slightly
over to his back to see his other hand and found both hands were empty. I
did not see a weapon on the ground and I could see by the vacant clouded
look in his eyes that he was likely deceased. I did not cuff him because I
believed he was deceased. I checked his lower back for a weapon and did
not find one. I could see he was wearing a belt and I think he had a T-shirt
tucked in his shorts under the button down shirt. I checked the ground
around him and could not find anything other than a pack of what looked
like Marlboro Red brand cigarettes in a box pack, with a bullet hole in the
side and his hat on the ground in front of him. I checked his pockets and
located his wallet with a Texas Driver's License belonging to a man whose
picture closely resembled him by face and I gave the dispatcher the address
of the license and advised that it might be the location where I was at. I
don't ever recall looking at the name on the license because I would not
have put that information out on the radio at that time and knew that the
only information I needed right now for my safety was an address, I placed
the license on my vest and returned his wallet to his pocket. I advised my
dispatcher on the radio that I felt the suspect was deceased and detained and
then began to contain preserve the scene for an investigation. I saw what
appeared to be a bullet hole from at least one of my shots in the suspect
vehicle's interior driver's side door that was open behind him. I did not see
an exit through the door for that entry hole. I checked his other pockets and
found a key possibly belonging to the vehicle he was driving. It was black
in color and oblong in shape with buttons on it. I did not remove it from his
pocket.
“I went back to my patrol vehicle and climbed on top of the hood by the
push bumper to gain a height advantage and so that I could guide the
responding Officers and Deputies to my location.
Page 12 of 23
“As Deputy Bode #2220 and Constable Ed Melton arrived on scene I was
relieved of duty and I sat by the road side near my vehicle until my
supervisor arrived. Once my supervisor arrived who is Sgt. Curtis Nichols
#2212, and Deputy Obrien #2242 arrived with him, I briefed Sgt. Nichols
on the incident and what took place. I checked my magazine from my
weapon and could see that I had nine rounds still inside the fifteen round
magazine. Counting back with one in the chamber I advised that there
should be about seven spent shell casings near my vehicle to mark and
preserve for the scene. Deputy Obrien opened the rear hatch of my vehicle
with my keys and grabbed my orange evidence marking cones to place on
the ground next to each located casing on the ground. Seven spent shell
casings were located near my patrol vehicle.
“I turned my pistol over to Sgt. Nichols to be preserved and held for

evidence. I went and checked my patrol vehicle's 13 Camera and audio
system to make sure that everything was still working and recording and it
appeared to me that it was all operating fine, as the "on" switch was
engaged on my body microphone and a flashing red light was displayed on
the monitor screen inside my vehicle which indicated that the camera was
recording.
“I was taken down the hill from the scene to be debriefed and await further
instructions while EMS and investigators processed the scene and secured
the area.
“I was transported to the Sheriffs office to meet with Texas Rangers for a
briefing at the office before I was allowed to be transported to Scott and
White emergency room for a drug screening test to be conducted pursuant
to department policy. After the drug screening, I was transported home
after being advised by my supervisor that I was being placed on
administrative leave until further notice, per department policy.” (Deputy
Geers’ Statement to Texan Ranger Division, September 8, 2016)
The Basic Tactics Trained for this Type of Incident:
My review of the uncontested facts of Mr. Blanchard’s pull-over (as documented by the
video recordings) documents significant apparent deliberate departures by Deputy Geers
from training given to every officer. In my opinion, had Deputy Geers followed his
Page 13 of 23
training, It would have been obvious to Deputy Geers that Mr. Blanchard was not armed
and did not pose a credible threat and would not have been shot. The required pull-over
tactic on a potentially high risk subject is as follows:
Containment:
This phase includes getting the suspicious suspect to stop so that a

containment can be established. This was eventually accomplished, in this
incident when Mr. Blanchard voluntarily pulled to a stop in response to the
red lights and siern.
Once the vehicle is stopped, it is desirable to keep the suspect from fleeing
on foot if possible. In this case, Mr. Blanchard remained at his vehicle with
no indication of fleeing the scene. All deployments at this stage are done
from positions of safety – “cover” in the event that the suspect may be
armed and/or irrational. Deputy Geers was a safe distance from Mr.
Blanchard and safely behind the door of his unit.
Decompression:
All living creatures, including human beings, have instinctive protective

reflexes that will take control of the body during extreme stress. This
instinctive response is commonly called the “flight-fight” response and it
occurs when a human being perceives danger. As part of this instinctive
response, the subconscious body takes over and the rational mind loses
control. Humans will invariably flee or, when there is no other option, they
will fight to either ward off the danger or to create an avenue of escape.
All trained and experienced police Deputies have both seen and experienced
this human response. It is a basic fact of life in the business of police work.
The flight-fight instinctive response is a common circumstance within the
police/suspect dynamic and something every experienced Deputy is trained
to cope with. Deputies are trained that there is always a point during any
sudden demand upon a suspect when it becomes counterproductive and can
only be expected to drive the suspect into a state of incoherent dread and
terror rather than compliance. Thus, the necessity for a pause wherein
rational activity (such and meaningful communication between suspect and
Deputy) can occur.
Page 14 of 23
Communication:
In this phase, the Deputy Geers would make a meaningful contact with Mr.
Blanchard from a position of safety. During this time, issues such as
language problems, intoxication, mental defects, emotional anxieties, and
other issues that may interfere with a safe apprehension surface and would
have been addressed by Deputy Geers.
It is common in uncoordinated incidents that immediately after being

stopped, an officer fresh out of the pursuit would start screaming directions
at the suspect. Such acts only serve to cause confusion and create mistakes.
The necessity for all units at the scene to coalesce as a team cannot be
overstated. When this does not occur, Deputies and suspects alike can be
injured or killed.
Instruction:
Once the communication link has been established, a clear set of

instructions which contain enough detail to avoid surprises are conveyed to
the contained suspect. This typically includes how to exit the vehicle, how
to assume a position that will facilitate a safe apprehension, what not to do,
etc. Thus, all parties, both suspect and police units present, understand
what will occur during the compliance stage.
Compliance:
In this phase the suspect indicates to the communicating Deputy that he

understands what he is expected to do and that he will comply. He is given
the opportunity to ask any questions for clarity of understanding.
Surrender:
This phase requires the suspect to physically perform the acts necessary to
place himself in the required place and position for the arrest team to
approach and take him into custody.
Apprehension:
This final phase includes the actual proper physical restraint of the suspect,
a search for any weapons, and his safe transport for booking.
Page 15 of 23
It appears that Deputy Geers had every opportunity to move through the
appropriate steps, but chose, in lieu, to yell from 50 feet away, aggravate the
situation by not clearly giving Mr. Blanchard intelligible directions and time
to reach for his identity, and not staying behind the cover of his armored
patrol car driver’s side door.
Opinions Thus Far:
1. Deputy Geers did not follow the tactical guidelines and standards
that every certified Deputy should know. Accordingly, his actions
are indicative of inadequate training provided to him by the Bell
County Sheriff’s Department. These deficiencies in training
apparently include a lack of realistic scenario training at the TCOLE
certified Academy given to Deputy Geers. Specific deficiencies
include training designed to create “muscle memory” responses to
high risk incidents, meaningful continuing periodic training during
their career as line Deputies.
The actions of Deputy Geers were also indicative of the inadequate

BCSD published policy and procedure. As a result, the individual
actions of Deputy Geers were directly connected to the preventable,
unnecessary and excessive fatal shooting that occurred. His actions
were also so far below the established professional standards that
they can only be viewed as recklessly dangerous. As such, Deputy
Geers’ actions constituted unreasonable and excessive force and
reflected a deliberate indifference to the life and safety of Mr.
Blanchard.
2. Despite Deputy Geers’ apparent deliberate departure from the

required tactics, he was returned to duty without meaningful
discipline and corrective retraining. Deputy Geers has stated that he
was adequately trained to handle situations of this type, and he
continues to hold to the opinion that he acted within the established
policy of the BCSD as it had been conveyed to his prior to this
incident. Additionally, no new BCSD policies have been
implemented, and no existing BCSD policies have been corrected or
clarified since this incident. Additionally, no new training has
occurred in the BCSD since this incident. As such, the existing
BCSD policy facilitated the unreasonable and excessive force that
Page 16 of 23
occurred and reflected a deliberate indifference to the life and safety

of Mr. Lyle Blanchard. There are indications in the record that the
BCSD has a pattern and practice of improper high risk vehicle
approaches as evidenced by many other cases of improper shootings.
3. Across the country police departments for decades have recognized

and trained their Deputies in safe and accepted ways to pursue,
contain and arrest subjects in order to avoid deaths such as the one
that occurred in this case. These methods are well known and
proven effective for the safety and welfare of both Deputies and the
public. Bell County Police Department Deputy Geers used none of
the training and tactics that should have been a part of his repertoire,
and there is no evidence that since this incident, Deputy Geers had
been retrained. There is nothing reflecting any new training or
policies in any of the materials produced in this case. Without such,
it is only a matter of time before additional tragic and unnecessary
deaths occur again.
4. According to Deputy Geers, there was no significant cover for him,

and fearing for his life and safety, he fired 8 rounds at an unarmed
US Navy Veteran. However, Deputy Geers would have been
standing next to his patrol car, and should have taken cover behind
his armored patrol car door. Deputy Geers’ failure to take proper
cover behind his door, which would have afforded him the one or
two seconds he needed to see that Mr. Blanchard was reaching for
his identification, cannot be excused or explained away.
My Qualifications To Review This Case:
My opinions are based in part on my training, professional experience and education. I

am a twenty seven year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
I was hired on December 1, 1965, and I retired from active service on March 31, 1993.
My career included six years at the rank of Deputy Sheriff, six years as a Sergeant, and
fifteen years as a Lieutenant. I retired holding a California Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST) Advanced Certificate, and I am a graduate of the POST Command
College (class #5, 1988). The POST Command College was a Masters level two-year
course of study requiring a thesis, in Police Administration, with the diploma awarded by
the California Department of Justice (and not the California University system).
Page 17 of 23
During the course of my service with the department, I had a wide range of duties. Those
duties included an 18 month assignment as a staff jail deputy and two years as an
Administrator/Lieutenant in the same jail facility (Men’s Central Jail). I also served on
the department as a patrol officer, field supervisor, jail watch commander and
administrator, station watch commander, and commanding officer of investigative units.
I was a field training officer while assigned as a patrol deputy, and I trained new officers
in POST and department approved patrol procedures, field investigations, apprehension
techniques, and emergency procedures.
I was a Station Detective and, as such, reviewed and assessed cases passed on to me by
the patrol officers. Those cases included possible complaints relating to both
misdemeanor and felony crimes. They frequently required follow up investigations and
interviews before the exact nature of the case could be determined. As a field officer and
detective, I was trained in interview and interrogation methods and subsequently trained
other officers.
Among other assignments as a Sergeant, I supervised field officers and station detectives
as they took complaints and conducted preliminary investigations regarding criminal and
administrative matters.
As a Sergeant and as a Lieutenant, I served on the training staff of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department’s Patrol School which taught the POST accepted patrol
tactics, and investigation and apprehension methods.
As a Watch Commander and as a Lieutenant, I responded to, investigated, and reported

on the use of force and officer-involved shootings. I was also assigned by my Department
to sit as a member of Departmental review committees regarding the reasonable or
unreasonable use of force and tactics.
As stated above, during my career I was assigned to the Los Angeles County Men’s
Central Jail (MCJ) for a period of 18 months as a line officer. Upon my subsequent
promotion to Lieutenant, I returned to the same facility approximately 10 years later.
During that time, I was assigned as a Jail Watch Commander, and as the Facility Training
and Logistics Administrator. At the time of my assignment, the MCJ held a daily
population in excess of 7,000 inmates, including a hospital, which was serviced by a staff
of more than 900 sworn and civilian personnel.
During my assignment as the Administrative Lieutenant of the Department’s Reserve

Forces Bureau, I worked closely with the State of California Peace Officer Standards and
Training in revamping our Reserve Academy to bring it into state compliance. This
Page 18 of 23
process gave me an expertise in the POST Basic curriculum. I also supervised the
training of cadets at our Reserve Training Academy. They were taught proper
investigation, interview, and apprehension procedures. Among other topics, I lectured the
Reserve Academy on the POST syllabus: “The Legal and Moral Use of Force and
Firearms.”
During the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles, I was assigned and served as the
Department’s Intelligence Officer at the Los Angeles Olympics Emergency Operations
Center.
During the last five and one half years of my career, I commanded a specialized unit
known as the North Regional Surveillance and Apprehension Team (N.O.R.S.A.T.),
which was created to investigate, locate, observe and arrest major (career) criminals. I
held this position until my retirement from the Department on March 31, 1993.
Criminals investigated and arrested by N.O.R.S.A.T. included suspects involved with

homicide, robbery, kidnaping, extortion, burglary, major narcotics violations and police
corruption. The majority of our cases were homicide cases, including the murder of
police officers. Arrests frequently occurred in dynamic circumstances including crimes in
progress.
My unit also conducted major narcotics investigations including undercover narcotics

buys, buy busts, and reverse stings. We frequently deployed at the request of
investigative units, such as Narcotics, which provided the initial investigative leads for
our operations. These narcotics cases usually involved multiple kilogram quantities of
drugs and amounts of money ranging from one hundred thousand to more than one
million dollars.
Approximately 80% of cases assigned to N.O.R.S.A.T. were active Homicide

investigations. In that regard, the unit processed, under my command and supervision,
various aspects (depending on the complexity of the cases involved) of approximately
1,000 Homicides ranging from deaths of police officers to serial homicide suspects.
Additionally, the majority of the over 1550 cases for which I have been retained as a
consultant (since 1993) have involved injuries or deaths connected with some aspect of
force during either apprehension or while in police custody.
During the first three months of my command of N.O.R.S.A.T., the unit had three
justifiable shooting incidents. From that time, and over the next five years of my
command, N.O.R.S.A.T. established a remarkable record of more than two thousand
Page 19 of 23
arrests of career criminals without a single shot fired – either by my officers or by the
suspects whom we arrested.
Many of these suspects were armed and considered to be very dangerous. Some were
apprehended during the course of their crimes and were very prone to use firearms to
escape apprehension. This record of excellence was accomplished through the use of
proper tactics, management and supervision of personnel, training in correct apprehension
methods, and adherence to the moral and ethical standards endorsed by California POST
and my Department. These methods and principles are also embraced by every state
training commission of which I am aware, as well as the national standards established by
the U.S. Department of Justice.
As a result of my position and record as the commanding officer of N.O.R.S.A.T., I was

assigned to author Field Operations Directive 89-3, “Tactical Operations Involving
Detective Personnel.” This order remained in force 20 years (until September 30, 2009),
and included the basic standards and considerations with which investigative officers
must comply in the event of a tactical deployment such as the dynamic entry into a
building for the purpose of an arrest and/or seizure of evidence.
Since my retirement, I have testified as an expert on use of force, jail procedures and jail
administration, investigations, police procedures, police tactics, investigative procedures,
shooting scene reconstruction, and police administration in Arizona State Courts,
California State Courts, Washington State Courts and Federal Courts in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, New Mexico, New York and
Wisconsin. I have testified before the Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights
and the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. I have testified before the Harris
County (Texas) Grand Jury and the Cleveland Grand Jury. I have also submitted written
opinions in matters before Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, North Carolina, New
York, Oregon, Kentucky, and Wyoming Federal and State Courts. I was selected
(January 20, 2007) to present on the topic of: “Police Experts” at the National Police
Accountability Project held at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California. I was
selected (September 23, 2010) to present on the topic of: “Using POST Modules to
Establish Police Officer’ Standard of Care” at the National Police Accountability Project,
National Lawyers Guild Convention, in New Orleans, Louisiana. I was selected (March
30, 2012) to present to the Kern County Public Defenders in Bakersfield, California, on
the topics of “Ethics, Police Investigations, the California POST Curriculum, and the
M26 and X26 Taser weapons.” On August 7, 2013 I was invited and presented to the
Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) 2013 Annual Legal Summit in Austin, Texas on the
topic: “Ethically Working with Experts from the Prospective of a Police Expert.” On
Page 20 of 23
October 15, 2015 I was the invited presenter at a Community Forum in Victorville,
California on the topics of Police Procedures, Community Policing, Use of Force, and
features of the M26, X26 and X2 Taser weapons.
I have worked on several projects with the Paso Del Norte (El Paso, Texas) Civil Rights
Project and the Texas Civil Rights Project (Austin, Texas). As a result of my expert
testimony in Border Network, et al. v. Otero County, et al., Case No. 07-cv-01045
(D.N.M. 2008), a federal court issued a temporary injunction to stop the illegal and
widespread immigration raids in Chaparral, New Mexico, implemented pursuant to
Operation Stonegarden. The case resulted in the adoption of a model policy for inquiring
into a person’s immigration status, which has been adopted nationwide and has also been
presented to the United States Senate, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other
government officials seeking to reform immigration enforcement.
I have been recognized, and my expert report was quoted by the USDC in Burns v. City of
Redwood City, 737 F.Supp2nd.1047. I have been recognized, and my expert report was
quoted by, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as an expert in Police
Administration and Use of Force in Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, et al., 485 F.3d 463,
485 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit also drew from my expert report in a second
published case involving Police Detective Investigations. Torres, et al. v. City of Los
Angeles, et al., 540 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2008). The Torres case was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court and returned for trial. I provided the expert opinion in Chavies
Hoskin v. City of Milwaukee, et al. (USDC Case No. 13-cv-0920), regarding field strip
and cavity searches, hiring, training, discipline and supervision, and which resulted in
significant policy changes within the MPD. My opinions supported argument in the
Ninth Circuit case: Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Ninth Circuit also drew from my expert reports regarding credible threats justifying
the use of force, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 658 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2011), and Young
v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit also drew
from my expert reports regarding Jail Administration and Administrative Responsibilities,
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit also drew from my
expert reports regarding an officer’s violation of the 14th Amendment if an officer kills a
suspect when acting with the purpose to harm, unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement
objective, in AD v. California Highway Patrol, 712 F. 3d 446 (9th Cir. 2013). The Fifth
Circuit drew from my expert report regarding search and seizure, investigations and no-
knock requirements in Bishop et al. v. Arcuri et al., 674 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2012). The
Ninth Circuit also drew from my expert report regarding the use of impact weapons
(PepperBall) on civilians in Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012). I was
the expert in the Ninth Circuit opinion regarding the allegations proffered by police
officers and their use/display of firearms against civilians in Green v. City and County of
Page 21 of 23
San Francisco, 751 F. 3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2014). Most recently, I was the expert in an
important Ninth Circuit opinion regarding the allegations proffered by police officers and
their use of lethal force against unarmed persons in Jennifer Cruz, et al., v. City of
Anaheim, et al., 765 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). I was the expert at trial in the Ninth
Circuit opinion regarding the order of evidence at trial in Estate of Manuel Diaz, v. City
of Anaheim, et al., No. 14-55644. My opinion is quoted in the Ninth Circuit opinion
regarding the use of lethal force in A.K.H. a minor, et al, v. City of Tustin, et al., No. 14-
55184. My opinions supported argument in the Ninth Circuit case: Estate of Angel Lopez,
et al., v. Kristopher Michael Walb, No. 14-57007 (not for publication) wherein the Ninth
Circuit Affirmed the Denial of Summary Judgement by the District Court. My opinions
supported argument in the Ninth Circuit case: Estate of Shakina Ortega, et al., v. City of
San Diego, et al. No. 14-56824 (not for publication) wherein the Ninth Circuit Affirmed
the Denial of Summary Judgement by the District Court. My opinions supported
argument in the Ninth Circuit case: Jerry Newmaker, et al., v. City of Fortuna, et al. No.
14-15098 (for publication). My opinions supported argument in the Ninth Circuit Case:
Tonya E. Shirar, v. Miguel Guerrero, et al. regarding use of lethal force and “suicide by
cop,” No. 15-55029 (not for publication). My opinions supported argument in the Ninth
Circuit Case Angel Mendez; Jennifer Lynn Garcia, v County of Los Angeles, et al., Nos.
13-56686, and 13-57072 (for publication) and which was settled before the Supreme
Court, No. 16-369, regarding the use of lethal force and searches. My opinions supported
argument in the Ninth Circuit case: Chien Van Bui, et al, v City and County of San
Francisco, et al, No. 14-16585 (not for publication), regarding the use of lethal force. My
opinions supported argument in the Sixth Circuit opinion, Case No. 16-5322, Carey
Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green, et al, Originating Case No. 1:13-cv-00124 regarding
the use of lethal force. My opinions supported argument in the Ninth Circuit opinion,
Case No. No. 14-17388 (for publication), Johnathan Jones, et al v. Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department, et al, Originating Case No. 2:12-cv-01636- regarding
the use of lethal force and Taser weapons. My opinions supported argument in the Ninth
Circuit opinion, Case No. No. 16-15606 (for publication), Christian Longoria, et al v.
Pinal County, et al, Originating Case No. 2:15-cv-00043, PHX SRB, regarding the use of
lethal force after a vehicle pursuit.
The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) drew in part from my expert
report regarding search warrant service, Macias v. County of Los Angeles, 144 Cal.
App.4th 313, 50 Cal. Rptr.3d 364 (2006). The California Supreme Court drew in part
from my expert opinion regarding police tactics and the use of deadly force, Hayes et al.
v. County of San Diego et al., 57 Cal.4th 622 (2013).
On February 10, 1989, I was personally commended at the Los Angeles County Hall of
Administration by United States Attorney General, the Honorable Edwin Meese III, for
Page 22 of 23
my work to establish California Penal Code Section 311.11 (forbidding the Possession of
Child Pornography). On February 22, 1993 (at the time of my retirement), Mr. Meese
presented a second personal commendation for the success of this critical five-year effort
to bring this law into effect.
On December 7, 2015 I was requested by the Cleveland District Attorney to present my

opinions to the Cleveland Grand Jury regarding the November 22, 2014 shooting death of
Tamir Rice by City of Cleveland police officers. In March, 2016 I was requested by the
Delaware Attorney General to review and provide my opinions regarding the shooting
death of Jeremy McDole. The AG report was published May 12, 2016.
I have been found competent by both Federal and State Courts to render opinions as to
responsibilities as occurred in this case. A number of my cases have involved law
enforcement officers as civil plaintiffs and as criminal defendants.
Since my retirement, I have become an expert in the features and the use of TASER
International’s products, including the Model M26, Model X26 and Model X2 ECDs. I
own each, along with the download software. I have reviewed all the TASER training
materials and am familiar with the risks and tactics associated with these potentially lethal
devices. I have qualified as an expert on TASER products and testified both in deposition
and before juries on their usage. Two published examples are Lee v. Nashville, 596 F.
Supp. 2d 1101, 1121-22 (M.D. Tenn. 2009), and Heston v. City of Salinas, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 98433, *25-*26 (E.D. Cal. 2007). My most recent Federal
acceptance/certification as an expert in the general use and deployment of the TASER
weapon (including Taser International product warnings/bulletins sent to every agency
using the Taser weapon) occurred in Los Angles, California on November 7, 2017 in
William Mears, et al., v. City of Los Angeles, USDC Case No.: CV 15-08441 JAK
(AJWx). There are many others.
Attached as Exhibit A is a statement listing my law enforcement qualifications and

experience; Exhibit B is my fee schedule; Exhibit C is a listing of matters in which I have
testified in the last four years as an expert.
I reserve the right to modify my opinions to the extent additional information is provided.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
December 28, 2017, at Santee, CA.
Page 23 of 23

Blanchard Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Blanchard Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 6:18-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Nanette Blanchard-Daigle, as representative of

Shane Geers, Bell County, Texas, and Jim

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Plaintiff, Nanette Blanchard-Daigle, as representative of the estate of Lyle

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is based

upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, and under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution. These violations were committed as a result of the policies and

as reasonable accommodations for disability that caused the incident in question.

Following the incident Jim Hatfield signed an affidavit in support of an

investigating an aggravated assault.

Plaintiff herein complies with the pleading requirements of FRCP Rule

1.1 Lyle Blanchard, deceased, (“Plaintiff ”) was an individual residing in

the decedent’s sister, is the representative of the estate of Lyle Blanchard.

1.2 Bell County, Texas (“The County”) is a municipal corporation located

Defendant will be extended the opportunity to accept service of process pursuant to

Sheriff ’s Department. Defendant will be extended the opportunity to accept service

of process pursuant to FRCP 4(d). If Defendant fails or refuses to accept service as

as an officer of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Defendant will be extended

the opportunity to accept service of process pursuant to FRCP 4(d). If Defendant

of process pursuant to FRCP 4(e) upon defendant.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1988 provide jurisdiction over

2.2 Federal question jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C.

under the laws of the State of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

2.4 Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, as

III. DUTY AND LAW APPLICABLE

3.1 Plaintiff, Lyle Blanchard, was subjected to excessive force in violation

United States Constitution.

3.2 Plaintiff commences this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, which

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

are liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

3.4 Nanette Blanchard-Daigle is the personal representative of the estate

Statute. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE §71.021.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.2 Geers gave no audible instructions to Blanchard. Blanchard did not

voice. Whatever volatility, confusion or lack of communication that arose between

to be driving while impaired or intoxicated. Geers claims to have seen Blanchard

indicate this was perceived to be a potentially violent situation. It was merely a

Blanchard were consistent with the actions of a non-violent DWI suspect.

4.5 Having heard no instructions or commands from Deputy Geers,

apparently to retrieve his identification. At that time, Deputy Geers fired

approximately four shorts at the unarmed US Navy Veteran.

injured, Geers fired four more shots at the dying man.

firearm or other weapon in the possession of Blanchard. Blanchard possessed no

rounds fired by Deputy Geers succeeded in killing the unarmed man.

THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION

with Hatfield to obtain a warrant to search Blanchard’s home to investigate an

affidavit based on his own investigation as well as communication with Geers.

Geers engaged and subdued Blanchard.” He details no assault or injury by Blanchard

response to Blanchard threatening to shoot airplanes. The Harker Heights report,

omitted the benign disposition of the investigation.

support of an investigation of aggravated assault:

 Weapons and accessories;

 Literature containing anti-police statements/sentiments and

 Computers, cell phones or any other electronic device capable of sending,

receiving or storing data;

particular individual committed the offenses described herein.

4.13 It is not common police procedure to investigate a dead man for

aggravated assault. It would be a violation of Blanchard’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and