In view of all the recent issues with the Santa Barbara Police Department—the Police Chief looking for another job; alleged embezzlement, a controversial gang injunction, the Peter Lance/Kasi Buetel issue, allegations that political endorsements were based more on salaries and benefits than on public safety, etc. What level of credibility does this statement have with the general public?
Source: SBPD
On the evening of Friday, October 21, 2011, Police Officer, Aaron Tudor, a 4 year veteran of the Santa Barbara Police Department made a traffic stop that resulted in the arrest Tony Vincent Denunzio, 50, for driving under the influence (DUI), resisting and obstructing an officer and other related charges. The arrest was witnessed by members of the public, and some have expressed significant concern over the level of force used to subdue the suspect. These concerns were taken very seriously by the Santa Barbara Police Department. All uses of force are reviewed by the Santa Barbara Police Department and the case involving Mr. Denunzio was reviewed by the Chief of Police.
Read the Full Report…
Mr. Denunzio was driving without a valid driver license, as it was suspended as a result of a DUI conviction he is on probation for. The incident was captured on a video recorder
Santa Barbara Chief of Police Cam Sanchez has completed a review of the arrest of Mr. Denunzio and has authorized the following statement:
“Keeping the City streets safe is important for the Santa Barbara Police Department, and DUI enforcement is definitely one of our priorities. Many serious traffic accidents are caused by DUI drivers. Repeat DUI offenders, such as Mr. Denunzio, represent a real threat to traffic safety. I am glad that he was stopped before he hurt himself or someone else.
In addition, DUI enforcement can be very dangerous for our officers, as intoxicated drivers are frequently uncooperative, resistive and at times even combative. Mr. Denunzio’s choice to drink and drive, in violation of his probation terms, was a very bad decision. He further compounded this error by resisting our officers.
I have reviewed the video recording of the incident, which was recorded from inside Officer Tudor’s vehicle. The video clearly shows that Mr. Denunzio, upon being told to get back into his vehicle, looked back, did not comply with Officer Tudor’s verbal commands, and in fact began to walk away from the officer. This prompted the officer to grab Mr. Denunzio’s arm to stop Mr. Denunzio from leaving, at which time Mr. Denunzio began to resist.
At this point, consistent with standard procedure, the officer had probable cause to arrest Denunzio for resisting/obstructing an officer (148 PC). The video shows the officer using a variety of options, including palm and knee strikes and multiple Taser applications to get Mr. Denunzio to comply with instructions. The use of these options are, as a matter of department policy, available for use by a SBPD officer, depending on his/her reasonable judgment in maintaining their own safety and that of the public and the arrestee; and in also making sure that a person who has violated the law is not able to escape arrest for that violation.
It is a good thing that the most of the incident was captured on video. However, the resistance was so strenuous, that the struggle moved outside the view of the video recording, and for approximately one minute, I was unable to see what transpired in that time frame. In fact in that one minute time frame, it took three officers to eventually take custody of Denunzio. All of the decisions made and options exercised by the arresting officer that were captured on the video recording were justified standard law enforcement practices given Mr. Denunzio’s resistance.
The use of force is never desirable. It is difficult for members of the public to witness, particularly someone not familiar with police arrest/use of force training. To an outside observer, the use of this type of force may seem excessive. However, with the possibility of a fleeing suspect being armed, and officer safety at stake when making an arrest of a non-complying suspect, the techniques and force used by the arresting officer in a split second decision making mode is standard law enforcement operating procedure.
Based on what the video recording shows, witness accounts of the incident, and after reviewing the corresponding police report, there is no apparent violation of department policy or law enforcement procedure that would warrant a formal administrative investigation of the incident. ”
DUI enforcement is a strategy that helps prevent serious traffic accidents caused by DUI drivers that not only hurt themselves but often harm innocent people. Repeat DUI offenders, such as Mr. Denunzio, present a serious public threat to traffic safety.
DUI enforcement can be dangerous to police officers. Intoxicated drivers are frequently uncooperative, resistive and at times combative, particularly when they drive on a suspended license. Mr. Denunzio’s choice to drink and drive, in violation of his probation terms was a very bad decision. He compounded the situation when upon being stopped and told to stay in his vehicle he failed to comply with direction from officers and resisted arrest.
The case is with the District Attorney’s Office, which includes a copy of the video and we await their decision regarding the filing of any criminal charges against Mr. Denunzio.