On June 30, 2023, members of the Clifton Forge Police Department and the Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office received a lookout for a man who was reported to be unstable, suicidal, and potentially armed with a knife. A 911 caller, who described the man as being “out-of-control” and “causing a disturbance” requested officers’ assistance at the Oak Hill Apartments. When officers responded, they found Leonidas Tamanini, 38, in a volatile state attempting to inject himself with a hypodermic needle. After Tamanini refused to follow officers’ repeated commands to drop the needle, a Taser was deployed to prevent him from harming himself. Despite being tased, Tamanini immediately rushed toward the officers while still holding the syringe. Clifton Forge Police Officer Aaron Smith fired two shots as Tamanini came at him with the syringe in a confined area. Tamanini died from his gunshot injuries.
The Virginia State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation, led by Special Agent W. Scott Mitchell, conducted an exhaustive and independent investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding this officer-involved shooting. Special Agent Mitchell and his team of investigators represent a neutral law enforcement agency which is not affiliated with the Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office or the Clifton Forge Police Department. In my capacity as Commonwealth’s Attorney, I personally went to Oak Hill Apartments shortly after the incident to view the evidence and interact with investigators as they processed the scene. On completion of the investigation, a comprehensive file was submitted for my review which included use-of-force policies, officers’ body-worn camera video, photographs, diagrams, witness interviews, 911 calls, physical evidence, and forensic reports. Independent scientific examinations were conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Virginia Department of Forensic
Science in Roanoke. After completing thorough examinations, those experts provided an autopsy report and certificates of analysis needed to make factual determinations.
As Commonwealth’s Attorney, it is my responsibility to fairly and impartially review the officers’ actions on June 30, 2023 to determine whether their use of force was justified under Virginia law. The sole purpose of this report is to determine whether the officers’ use of force against Tamanini, under the circumstances, constitutes a crime under Virginia law. This opinion does not address any civil remedies that may be available.
The evidence is clear that on June 30, 2023 three law enforcement officers were confronted with Tamanini whom they had been warned was mentally unstable, suicidal, and possibly armed with a knife. When the highly agitated man tried to load a syringe with an unknown substance from a spoon to inject himself, officers ordered him approximately 15 times to drop the needle. Tamanini ignored officers’ commands and persisted frantically. In an effort to keep Tamanini from harming himself, officers attempted to subdue him with a Taser. Pulling the Taser prongs from his body, Tamanini, still holding the hypodermic needle, charged directly toward Officer Smith. Fearing imminent death or serious bodily injury, having “less than two seconds” to react, Officer Smith fired two shots at Tamanini.
A reasonable officer in Officer Smith’s position, relying on his training and experience, would recognize the hypodermic needle as a deadly weapon in
Tamanini’s hand. Officers’ numerous verbal commands ordering Tamanini to drop the needle were ignored. Efforts to stop Tamanini with the less than lethal Taser failed. Officer Smith could not have confronted the armed man hands-on. With his back against the wall in the confines of a small room, Officer Smith was legally justified in using deadly force under these circumstances where he was reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Consequently, it is my opinion that the shooting of Leonidas Tamanini by Officer Smith, of the Clifton Forge Police Department, was an act of justifiable homicide and, thus, not subject to criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there will be no criminal charges placed against any of the three officers involved in this incident. This report sets forth the basis for these conclusions.
FACTS
The facts surrounding this event as developed by the Virginia State Police are as follows:
According to Court records, at the time of this incident on June 30, 2023, Leonidas Tamanini was awaiting a hearing for a probation violation scheduled in Alleghany County Circuit Court on July 10, 2023. It was also confirmed that Tamanini had recently been arrested and released on bail for new felony charges in Bath County. His mother, Sandra Tamanini, told investigators that her son was under a lot of stress due to these circumstances and that she suspected he might be using drugs.
At approximately 1:02 p.m. on June 30, 2023 deputies from the Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office and officers from Clifton Forge Police Department received the following “be on the lookout” notification from the 911 dispatcher:
BOL for Leonidas Tamanini driving a white van with missing paint on the front. Parent stated he is unstable and made threat to go to a graveyard and kill himself. Subject is carrying a knife.
Officer Aaron Smith of the Clifton Forge Police Department responded to the dispatch call by checking various cemeteries in Clifton Forge to no avail. Deputy Evan Soto of the Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office radioed Officer Smith and offered to assist him since Tamanini was believed to be armed with a knife.
Approximately an hour later at 2:11 p.m., dispatch received another 911 call requesting officers to respond because Tamanini was at his mother’s residence at Oak Hill Apartments “out-of-control,” having a “psychotic episode” and “causing a disturbance.” The caller also alerted dispatch that “he may have knives.” Sandra Tamanini told investigators that when her son finally showed up at her apartment in an agitated state she phoned her ex-husband and asked him to call 911.
Clifton Forge Police Chief Chad Wickline arrived first at 1606 Oak Hill Avenue Apartment 2. Body camera video showed that he was met outside the front door by Sandra Tamanini who said, “He’s in my bathroom. He’s doing a drug.” When Chief Wickline started to enter the apartment, Ms. Tamanini warned, “Wait, wait you can’t go in there alone.” When asked why, Ms. Tamanini explained, “Because, he’s big and strong. I don’t think he has a weapon but you can’t go in there alone.” She went on to say, “Please don’t shoot him.”
Deputy Soto and Officer Smith arrived to back up Chief Wickline and the three, all wearing body cameras, entered the apartment. They located Tamanini in a small bathroom just off the kitchen. Drug paraphernalia including a spoon, a smoking device and the package for a syringe lay on the vanity next to the toilet. When Tamanini saw officers he became upset and tried to close the door. Video showed Tamanini frantically trying to load a substance from the spoon into a hypodermic needle in an apparent effort to inject himself. Both Chief Wickline and Deputy Soto repeatedly ordered Tamanini to drop the needle. Together they loudly demanded that he drop the needle approximately 15 times. Taminini ignored their commands and continued to manipulate the syringe. He then grabbed items from the vanity and began to put them in his mouth.
Deputy Soto, who was aware of Tamanini’s suicidal threats, finally warned Tamanini, “Put the needle down or I’m gonna tase you.” Again, Deputy Soto
warned, “I will tase you right now.”
Tamanini ignored the orders and sat down on the toilet still holding the needle appearing determined to inject himself. Deputy Soto told investigators, “I made the decision that tasing Tamanini would de-escalate the situation and be the best way to prevent him from taking his own life.” Deputy Soto deployed his Taser making contact with Tamanini’s torso. Tamanini immediately swiped at the Taser probes and charged out of the bathroom toward Chief Wickline and Deputy Soto who were in front of the doorway. When they retreated backwards, Tamanini veered to his left toward Officer Smith who was positioned with his gun drawn in the confined kitchen area with little room to retreat. Fearing death or serious bodily injury, Officer Smith fired two shots as Tamanini charged at him. When Tamanini fell to the floor he was within arm’s reach of Officer Smith. On the floor next to
Tamanini’s hand, after he fell, lay the uncapped hypodermic needle. Body camera video and still photographs confirmed the presence of the syringe which was collected as evidence and sent to the state lab for analysis.
In a statement to Special Agent Mitchell, Officer Smith said:
He (Tamanini) left the restroom with his fist clenched on the needle. He turned to me and made eye contact with me before moving
towards me. I had less than two seconds to react. I did not have time to warn him I was going to use deadly force.
Officer Smith went on to say that he was “cornered” and “did not have space to retreat.” Specifically in this case, Officer Smith was aware that Taminini was suicidal and threatening to kill himself. Officer Smith did not carry a Taser but had his firearm unholstered at the time Tamanini charged toward him.
In considering the totality of the circumstances, Officer Smith explained:
I did not know what was loaded into the needle, but from training and experience knew it could contain a lethal dose of substances such as
Fentanyl, heroin, or meth. It could also have been infected with deadly viruses like HIV. From my training and experience, I knew a hypodermic needle is considered a deadly weapon. I was in fear for my life. I thought he might stab me in the face or neck with the needle. I was also in fear for my life that he would take my unholstered firearm and use it on myself or the other officers.
Chief Wickline and Deputy Soto both told investigators that, in their training and experience, they considered the hypodermic needle to be a deadly weapon. Officer Soto described Tamanini to be holding “what I believed to be a loaded/charged needle” pointing out that Tamanini’s suicidal threats made it more likely that the syringe contained a lethal dose of Fentanyl, heroin or “some other life-threatening substance.” Chief Wickline pointed out that a recent murder case in Clifton Forge involved a victim who died from injection with a hypodermic needle containing
lethal substances.
In a certificate of analysis dated, August 24, 2023, the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Forensic Science determined that the syringe found next to Tamanini’s body on the floor contained methamphetamine (schedule II) residue.
An autopsy report was received October 23, 2023 in which Assistant Chief Medical Examiner, Amy M. Tharp, determined Tamanini’s cause of death to be a gunshot wound to the head. A second gunshot wound to the left thigh was not lethal. A toxicology report analyzing Tamanini’s blood taken at the time of autopsy confirmed that his blood contained methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. Tamanini’s methamphetamine level at the time of this incident was determined to be 0.64 mg/L which is approximately six times the presumptive level listed in the Virginia Code for driving under the influence.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Virginia General Assembly has recently enacted a law outlining the circumstances under which a law enforcement officer may use deadly force and
listing the criteria under which the appropriateness of an officer’s use of deadly force should be evaluated. Specifically, Section 19.2-83.5 of the Code of Virginia provides as follows:
A. A law-enforcement officer shall not use deadly force against a person unless:
1. The law-enforcement officer reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the law-enforcement officer or
another person, other than the subject of the use of deadly force, from the threat of serious bodily injury or death;
2. If feasible, the law-enforcement officer has provided a warning to the subject of the deadly force that he will use deadly force;
3. The law-enforcement officer’s actions are reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances; and
4. All other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.
B. In determining if a law-enforcement officer’s use of deadly force is proper, the following factors shall be considered:
1. The reasonableness of the law-enforcement officer’s belief and actions from the perspective of a reasonable law-enforcement officer on the
scene at the time of the incident; and
2. The totality of the circumstances, including (i) the amount of time available to the law-enforcement officer to make a decision; (ii) whether
the subject of the use of deadly force (a) possessed or appeared to possess a deadly weapon and (b) refused to comply with the law-enforcement
officer’s lawful order to surrender an object believed to be a deadly weapon prior to the law officer using deadly force; (iii) whether the law-
enforcement officer engaged in de-escalation measures prior to the use of deadly force, including taking cover, waiting for backup, trying to calm
the subject prior to the use of force, or using non-deadly force prior to the use of deadly force; (iv) whether any conduct by the law-enforcement
officer prior to the use of deadly force intentionally increased the risk of a confrontation resulting in deadly force being used; and (v) the
seriousness of the suspected crime.
The general law of self-defense, applicable to all persons, also applies to an officer’s use of deadly force when one reasonably perceives an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.” McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E. 2d 808, 810 (1978). A law enforcement officer who reasonably believes that a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to that officer or others may legally use deadly force to “prevent harm to one’s self or others and to prevent escape.” Couture v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 239, 244, 656 S.E. 2d 425, 427 (2008).
The “reasonableness” of an officer’s “use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vison of hindsight.” Graham v. Conner, 490 US 386, 396 (1989). The Graham court acknowledged the fact that “police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id at 397.
Prior to arriving at 1606 Oak Hill Avenue on June 30 2023, all of the law enforcement officers involved had been forewarned by their dispatcher that
Tamanini had voiced his intention to commit suicide and that he was armed with a knife. When officers arrived at Sandra Tamanini’s apartment, after the second 911 call, she stopped Chief Wickline from opening the door and warned him, “You should not go in there alone.” After Chief Wickline was advised by Ms. Tamanini that her son was in the bathroom “doing a drug” he entered the apartment with Deputy Soto and Officer Smith. They found Tamanini in the bathroom in what officers described as a “manic” state frantically trying to load a syringe and inject himself. Based on his behavior and the recent suicidal threats, it is reasonable to believe Tamanini may have been trying to inject himself with a lethal dose of some substance.
First, Chief Wickline and Officer Soto attempted to de-escalate the volatile situation with repeated verbal commands to Tamanini ordering him to drop the needle with which they believed he was trying to harm himself. Approximately 15 verbal commands to drop the needle were audible on body camera recordings.
Tamanini ignored the verbal commands and became increasingly more agitated appearing determined to use the needle on himself. Second, in further compliance with the guidelines set out in Virginia Code Section 19.2-83.5, Deputy Soto took the next available step to de-escalate the situation by warning Tamanini twice that he would deploy his Taser. Despite Deputy Soto’s warnings, Tamanini still refused to drop the needle. Third, Deputy Soto then deployed his Taser believing it to be “the only less than lethal option he had” to prevent Tamanini from committing suicide or harming himself. The Alleghany County Sheriff’s Office Taser policy identifies the Taser as a “less lethal” force option which may be used by a deputy for subjects that are threatening harm to themselves or others.
The use of a Taser by Deputy Soto was not effective. After being tased, Tamanini escalated the situation by pulling the Taser barbs off and charging out of the bathroom toward the officers with the deadly weapon in his hand. Tamanini veered left and rushed toward Officer Smith who stood in a confined area with what he described as “no space to retreat.” Officer Smith did not have a Taser.
Less than lethal force had been ineffective against Tamanini leaving lethal force Officer Smith’s only viable option. Having “less than two seconds to react,” Officer Smith discharged his firearm at the coming threat believing he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Applying the standards set out in Virginia Code Section 19.2-83.5, Officer Smith’s use of deadly force, under the totality of the circumstances, was reasonable. All other options had been exhausted or did not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances. Verbal commands had failed. Less than lethal force had failed. Officers are not trained to go hands-on with a manic individual charging at them while armed with a deadly weapon.
As Deputy Soto explained to Special Agent Mitchell, “based on the suicide lookout” he believed Tamanini’s attempt to stick the needle in his arm was not to get high but “an attempt to end his life.” Consequently, from the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer on the scene at the time of this incident, Tamanini was wielding a deadly weapon potentially loaded with a lethal dose of an unknown substance. Officer Smith had no room to retreat. He had less than two seconds to react. Officer Smith was not required to wait and see if Tamanini would plunge the needle into his flesh or wait to see if the syringe contained a lethal dose of some substance before he employed deadly force to protect himself under the totality of these circumstances.
CONCLUSION
Chief Wickline issued repeated verbal commands to Tamanini in an effort to de- escalate the volatile situation at 1606 Oak Hill Avenue Apartment 2 on June 30, 2023; however, he used no physical force. When the verbal commands failed, Deputy Soto warned Taminini twice that he would use the less than lethal Taser. When his warnings failed, Deputy Soto deployed his Taser making contact with Taminini. When the Taser failed, Officer Smith was in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury as Taminini charged at him with what he believed to be a loaded hypodermic needle. Officer Smith fired two shots at Tamanini in self-defense. Tamanini died from a gunshot wound to the head. Under the totality of the circumstances this was an act of justifiable homicide. Therefore, no criminal charges will be filed against any of the three law enforcement officers involved.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.