Free Brief in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02328-RPM-CBS

Document 68-3

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 1 of 1

EVAN HVIZDAK September 23, 2005 Greg Gonzales v. Officer Brett Titus
Page 85 Page 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 disengage upon the first command? 2 A. Yes. I can -- I can define 3 "immediately." 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. We're allowed under -- even in the 6 perfect conditions, without all the attendant noise 7 and confusion and all the violence that goes on in a 8 rapidly evolving event like this, several commands. 9 And that falls under the definition of 10 "immediately." When you consider the type of 11 apprehension that this was, he's within that 12 immediately -- or that -- the definition -- the 13 meaning of the word "immediately," he's within 14 policy. 15 Q. So in terms of the policy statement, "immediately" does not mean on the first command. It 16 17 means after -- up to how many commands? 18 A. Well, that has to be examined on a 19 case-by-case basis. Here, I think we've stipulated 20 that this apprehension occurred at most -- and I 21 don't think it's accurate -- but at most 40 seconds. 22 That falls within that parameter. 23 Q. In terms of either the unit policy or 24 the police department-wide policy, is there any 25 allowance made for juveniles to be treated
Page 86

the canine unit. Q. Let me ask this: It appears from all the documents you reviewed and listed in your report that no action was taken against Officer Titus for his actions that night? A. That's my understanding. I don't think there has been since then. Q. Would it have been a violation of any Denver Police Department policy to have not deployed the dog against Mr. Gonzales that night? A. This might be a lengthy answer. No, he wouldn't have violated any policy. But I think he would have -- I think you would have to call into question his judgment had he not deployed the dog and been able to stop the suspect before he escaped. When you consider his training and his expertise and his control over the dog, I would have -- and his ability to stop that suspect and prevent an open-area search for two suspects, I would have called into question his judgment. Q. And that's even though we may have -by doing that, he could maybe have spared Mr. Gonzales from the injuries we see in the photographs? MR. ZIPORIN: Object to the form of
Page 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

differently than adults when force is used against them? A. There is now. With this important -and it can't be excluded -- but this important portion of that, and those are the facts and circumstances known to the officer before deployment. Q. Is it your opinion that Officer Titus did not know that Mr. Gonzales was a juvenile? A. Yes. Q. Until, obviously, later when he saw him behind the tree? A. Which brings us to our conversation. You don't know what's going on until you have a chance to talk to the suspects. Q. Were you part of this canine unit in 2001 when this occurred? A. No. Q. When were you assigned to the unit? A. February of last year. Q. You were previously a handler from '89 to '97? Would that be -A. I get confused. I was a technician. I got promoted -- I was a handler. When you get promoted, you're transferred. And I was -- 2001 occurred during that time when I was not assigned to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the question. A. Could you repeat the question, please. (Last question read by the reporter.) A. In my opinion, Mr. Gonzales is responsible for these injuries. Had he complied, with the other suspects, he wouldn't have been injured by the police dog. Q. (BY MR. DeBAUCHE) Okay. Mr. Gonzales had testified to us during his deposition that the dog would not release until Mr. Titus removed the dog from him physically. Do you have any reason to believe that that would not be the case? A. By my review of his training records and his current training and his expertise now and the statements of Officer Titus and the statements included in the packet, I think Mr. Gonzales is inaccurate. Q. Have you answered all of my questions truthfully, accurately, and completely? A. Yes, sir. If you need to clarify it, I would be more than happy. And I'm not trying to be obstructionist. It's just -- there's difficulty with some definitions that make it difficult to give you

22 (Pages 85 to 88) Richardson Reporting Service 303-830-8488