Report of Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley On Findings in the February 12, 2016, Shooting Death of Peter Fanfan The Suffolk County District Attorney s office has concluded its investigation into the February 12, 2016, shooting death of Peter Fanfan at the intersection of Stanwood and Laredo streets in the Dorchester section of Boston. After shooting two men during an armed home invasion and then firing upon a responding Boston Police detective, Mr. Fanfan was shot and killed during an armed encounter with members of the Boston Police Youth Violence Strike Force and a Boston Police Detective. The investigation established that Boston Police Detective James Coyne and Boston Police Officers Ellis Lee and Eric McPherson fired their weapons in a lawful and proper exercise of self-defense and defense of others. The investigation revealed that Detective Coyne and Officers Lee, McPherson, and Michael Taylor responded to a 911 call for a person shot in the leg in the area of Devon and Laredo streets in Dorchester. As Detective Coyne arrived in the area, he saw two men walking down Laredo Street towards Stanwood Street, one of whom was showing clear signs of a leg injury. As Detective Coyne got out of his unmarked police cruiser, Mr. Fanfan pointed his gun at Detective Coyne and fired. Detective Coyne took cover, un-holstered his firearm, and returned fire. At the same time, Officers Lee, Taylor, and McPherson arrived and saw Mr. Fanfan firing his gun at Detective Coyne before turning and firing at them. Responding to the immediate lethal threat to themselves and others, Officers Lee and McPherson returned fire. During the exchange of gunfire, Mr. Fanfan was struck and killed. Under these circumstances, the law enforcement officers use of deadly force was a reasonable and lawful exercise of self-defense and defense of others. Therefore, after a comprehensive examination of all the evidence in this case, I have determined that criminal charges against the officers are not warranted.
2 Pursuant to my statutory duty and authority to direct all death investigations within the City of Boston, I instructed Mark Lee, deputy chief of the Homicide Unit, and John Verner, supervisor of special homicide investigations, to go to the scene and oversee the investigation in consultation with me and with input from the most senior attorneys on my staff, who have collectively participated in hundreds of death-related cases. Every detail of the investigation has been memorialized and documented for examination by Mr. Fanfan s family, the involved officers, the media, and other interested parties. I. The Scope of the Investigation. The majority of this incident was recorded by private surveillance cameras on Stanwood Street. In addition, our investigation included a review of the extensive report and investigative materials compiled by the Boston Police Department s Firearm Discharge Investigation Team led by Sergeant Detective Richard Lewis. The evidence considered included: recorded interviews with the officers involved; recorded interviews of civilian witnesses present at or near the scene; 911 calls; police radio transmissions; analysis of the officers weapons and ammunition as well as Mr. Fanfan s weapon and ammunition; physical evidence from the scene; physical evidence from Mr. Fanfan s body; photographs and video from the scene; surveillance video from nearby homes; cell phone video and other data; ShotSpotter recordings of the incident; fingerprint analysis; criminalistics testing and analysis; information from a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives investigation regarding the origin of Mr. Fanfan s firearm; and the autopsy report and supporting documentation. II. Prelude to the Police Encounter. On February 11, 2016, Peter Fanfan, Robert Williams, and Keon Campbell discussed a home invasion planned for the following day. At approximately 9:50 AM on February 12, 2016, the three men arrived in a black Chevrolet Malibu on Stanwood Street near 107 Devon Street, the location of the planned home invasion. Mr. Fanfan and Mr. Williams left the car, walked down Laredo Street, and unsuccessfully attempted to enter that residence. Within ten to fifteen minutes, they returned to the Malibu. Undeterred, the three drove around the block, discussed the situation, and returned to Stanwood Street, where they parked on the left side. Mr. Fanfan and Mr. Williams again left the car and headed in the direction of 107 Devon Street. As Mr. Fanfan and Mr. Williams were walking toward the building, two men a resident and his friend were inside doing maintenance work. The resident and friend arrived at the building through the back entrance around 10:10 AM. After a few minutes, the resident went to the basement, while his friend went upstairs, closing the back door behind him. While working in the basement, the resident yelled to his friend, who was on the first or second floor of the building. As the resident was yelling, he saw two men, later identified as Mr. Fanfan and Mr. Williams, walking down the stairs into the basement. The two men asked the resident about a person referred to as J, and the resident responded that he did not know him. As Mr. Fanfan began to explain who J was, Mr. Williams struck the resident on the left of his head with a hard object. When Mr. Williams attempted to hit the resident again, the two began wrestling. The resident
3 then saw Mr. Fanfan holding a gun. The resident pushed Mr. Williams into an adjoining bathroom and began to wrestle with Mr. Fanfan in an attempt to point the gun away. During the struggle, Mr. Fanfan fired his weapon. The bullet struck the resident in the arm, passing through it and going into Mr. Williams s leg. Mr. Fanfan then fired a second bullet, striking the resident s right leg and breaking his femur. Believing Mr. Williams also had a gun, the resident then grabbed Mr. Williams, who was on the bathroom floor. Mr. Fanfan came back into the bathroom and shot the resident in the left leg, breaking his femur. Mr. Fanfan then helped Mr. Williams up from the floor and the pair fled the building. At some point during the confrontation, the resident s friend returned to the basement area and heard sounds of a fight coming from the basement. As he descended the stairs, this friend saw Mr. Fanfan with a gun. The friend ran from the house to call 911, before later returning to the basement to assist the resident. Meanwhile, Mr. Fanfan assisted Mr. Williams as they made their way back toward the Malibu, which was still on Stanwood Street. At some point, Mr. Fanfan went ahead, leaving Mr. Williams on the ground. Mr. Fanfan returned to the Malibu, briefly entering the car to tell Mr. Campbell that he had accidentally shot Mr. Williams. After informing Mr. Campbell of what had happened, Mr. Fanfan jumped out of the car to retrieve Mr. Williams, who was seated on the sidewalk on Laredo Street. As Mr. Fanfan helped Mr. Williams walk toward Stanwood Street, Mr. Campbell put the car in reverse and backed up to the intersection of Stanwood and Laredo streets. III. The Encounter with Police. As Mr. Fanfan and Mr. Williams approached the intersection, Detective Coyne pulled up to the intersection in a department-issued dark maroon Crown Victoria. Detective Coyne was responding to a dispatch that an individual had been shot in the leg in the area of Laredo and Stanwood Streets. Detective Coyne saw Mr. Fanfan supporting Mr. Williams with his right arm as he dragged his injured leg on the sidewalk. Unaware that Mr. Fanfan was armed, Detective Coyne got out of his car to help the obviously injured Mr. Williams. Detective Coyne s gun was in its holster. Once outside his car, Detective Coyne saw Mr. Fanfan disengage his right arm from Mr. Williams. At the same time, Officers Lee, McPherson, and Taylor of the Youth Violence Strike Force pulled up near the intersection in an unmarked black 2014 Ford Explorer. Responding to the same dispatch, they were driving the wrong way on one-way Stanwood Street, toward the Malibu. The Ford Explorer s lights and siren were activated. As the other officers were arriving, Mr. Fanfan, who was wearing white gloves, reached into his right jacket pocket, pulled out a black gun, pointed it at Detective Coyne, and then fired. At this moment, five individuals, including Mr. Campbell and a civilian witness, heard Detective Coyne repeatedly order Mr. Fanfan to drop his gun. Detective Coyne took cover behind the Crown Victoria and un-holstered his gun. Believing that Mr. Fanfan posed an imminent threat to him and others in the densely populated residential area, Detective Coyne shot four times at Mr. Fanfan. Detective Coyne ceased firing after observing Officers Lee, McPherson, and Taylor in the background. Officers immediately notified the dispatcher by radio that shots had been fired.
4 Immediately after firing at Detective Coyne, Mr. Fanfan ran around the Malibu and pointed his gun at Officers Lee, McPherson, and Taylor, who had just stepped out of the Explorer. As Mr. Fanfan was pointing the gun, Mr. Campbell put the Malibu in reverse. Officer Lee then ordered Mr. Fanfan to drop his gun. Mr. Fanfan refused that command and fired in the direction of Officers Lee, McPherson, and Taylor. Officers Lee and McPherson returned fire, striking Mr. Fanfan, who fell to the ground. The surveillance video reflects that, from the time that Mr. Fanfan initially fired at Detective Coyne to the time that Mr. Fanfan fell, seven seconds elapsed. The four law enforcement officers then approached Mr. Fanfan and Mr. Williams to render aid. Mr. Fanfan succumbed to his injuries on the scene. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Williams were secured, and Officer Lee retrieved Mr. Fanfan s Smith & Wesson.38 caliber revolver from Stanwood Street. Soon thereafter, Mr. Campbell s black Malibu was towed to Boston Police Headquarters, where detectives executed a search warrant. Detective Coyne s vehicle was towed to Area B-2 in order to search it for any ballistic evidence. Sergeant Detective Richard Lewis released the crime scene at 5:07 PM after the area was washed down by the Boston Fire Department. IV. Video Evidence. Specialized personnel from the Boston Police Department, including a detective detailed to the United States Secret Service, responded to the scene to collect all video surveillance in the area. The events described above were captured by three cameras from surrounding homes recorded a majority of the incident. 1 V. Ballistics Evidence. Pursuant to Boston Police Department policy, firearms from all of the law enforcement officials involved were immediately secured at the scene and submitted for testing. Detective Coyne, Officer Lee, and Officer McPherson stated that they fired their guns during the encounter. A total of eleven shell casings from police firearms were collected at the scene. Four casings were recovered from the area where Detective Coyne was at the time he discharged his weapon. Based on microscopic examination and testing, the Boston Police Firearms Analysis Unit concluded that all four of these casings matched Detective Coyne s firearm. Seven casings were recovered in the area where Officers Lee and McPherson were at the time they fired their guns. Based on microscopic examination and testing, the Boston Police Firearms Analysis Unit concluded that four of these casings matched Officer Lee s firearm and three of these casings matched Officer McPherson s firearm. Additionally, several projectiles and fragments matching officers firearms were recovered in and around the scene. 1 Video from a camera at a Stanwood Street residence was released to Mr. Fanfan s family on Feb. 24, 2016, and to the public on Feb. 29, 2016.
5 One projectile was found in Mr. Fanfan s clothing at autopsy. Based on microscopic comparison, the Boston Police Firearms Analysis Unit concluded that this projectile was fired from Officer Lee s gun. One projectile was recovered from Mr. Fanfan s right occipital bone at autopsy. One projectile was removed from a Toyota Corolla (MA plate 2MT784) parked in front of 124 Stanwood Street. One projectile was recovered from the snow at the intersection of Laredo and Stanwood Streets. Based on microscopic comparison, the Boston Police Firearms Analysis Unit concluded that these projectiles were fired from an officer s firearm; due to damage to each of the projectiles, however, analysis was unable to determine which officer fired it. Mr. Fanfan s Smith and Wesson.38 caliber, black-painted five-shot revolver with an obliterated serial number was also found at the scene with five expended cartridge casings in the cylinder. Police recovered one bullet fragment from the basement floor of 107 Devon Street. Based on microscopic comparison, the Boston Police Firearms Analysis Unit concluded that this bullet fragment was fired from Mr. Fanfan s gun. Additionally, the lead core of one damaged bullet was removed from the tire of Detective Coyne s vehicle. Due to a lack of rifling marks, analysts could not determine from which gun it had been fired. Detective Coyne and Officers Lee and McPherson all stated that their guns had been fully loaded with one bullet inside the chamber, a configuration colloquially referred to as topped off. Examination of each officer s gun after the incident, however, indicated that either the officers guns were not topped off or three cartridges were not recovered. My determination as to the justifiability of the shooting does not turn on whether the officers fired five times instead of four (Coyne and Lee) or four times instead of three (McPherson). Rather, my determination is based on whether the officer s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances confronting the officers at the time. VI. Autopsy of Peter Fanfan. On February 13, 2016, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner performed an autopsy to determine the cause and manner of Mr. Fanfan s death. The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be multiple gunshot wounds and the manner to of death to be Homicide (Shot by Law Enforcement Officer(s)). The autopsy determined that Mr. Fanfan sustained five gunshot wounds. 2 There was a gunshot wound to the head. The projectile entered through the left temple, traveling front to back and left to right, and was recovered from the right occipital bone. There was a gunshot wound to the left, lower back. The projectile traveled back to front, left to right, and upward and was recovered from Mr. Fanfan s clothing. There was a gunshot wound to the right wrist. The projectile entered through the right wrist, traveling from back to front and left to right before exiting from the left wrist. That projectile was not recovered at autopsy. There was a gunshot wound to the left hand. 2 The bullet wounds are listed in the order of the autopsy report. This does not suggest the order in which the projectiles struck Peter Fanfan. The order in which the wounds were sustained cannot be determined definitively.
6 The projectile entered through the back of the left hand, traveling back to front, right to left and downward before exiting from the left index finger. That projectile also was not recovered at autopsy. There was a gunshot wound to the right buttock. The projectile entered through the right buttock, and traveled slightly right to left and upward before exiting from the right buttock. That projectile was not recovered at autopsy. No soot, unburned gunpowder particles, or gunpowder stippling were visible on the skin surrounding any of Mr. Fanfan s wounds, indicating that none of the shots were fired at close range. During an inventory of Mr. Fanfan s personal items at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, four live bullets were found among Fanfan s belongings, as well as a black pocket knife and other personal items. In addition, Mr. Fanfan was wearing white gloves on both hands when his body arrived at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The left glove contained what appeared to be a bullet hole that was consistent with the location of a bullet entrance wound on the left hand. VII. Physical Evidence From the Scene at Stanwood and Laredo Crime scene analysts and other specially-trained investigators processed the scene thoroughly throughout the day. In addition to the ballistics evidence discussed above, investigators recovered: (1) an expandable metal baton within feet of Mr. Fanfan s body; (2) a blood-stained white glove; (3) a flathead screwdriver found underneath Mr. Fanfan s body; (4) pieces of a broken motor vehicle mirror; (5) a black Chevy Malibu, MA Registration 1WS763, with ballistic damage; and (6) a green Toyota Corolla, MA Registration 2MT784, with ballistic damage. VIII. Physical Evidence From the Scene inside 107 Devon Street Investigators sought and obtained a search warrant allowing them to search several areas of 107 Devon Street. Inside the basement apartment, crime scene analysts noted several red-brown stains consistent with human blood as well as a gold discharged bullet fragment that was matched to Mr. Fanfan s firearm. The discovery of these items was consistent with the violent struggle described by the resident of this address. IX. Forensic Examination The Boston Police Latent Print Unit processed Mr. Fanfan s Smith and Wesson.38 caliber, black-painted, five-shot revolver with an obliterated serial number; five discharged.38 special cartridge casings that were recovered from the revolver; the black retractable baton; the screwdriver found underneath Mr. Fanfan; and the black four-door Chevy Malibu. No latent fingerprints were recovered from the firearm, the discharged cartridge casings, the black retractable baton, or the screwdriver. Several latent fingerprints were found inside the black four-door Chevy Malibu, although none of the prints were matched to Mr. Fanfan or Mr. Williams. Criminalists from the Boston Police Crime Laboratory examined several items seized from the crime scene: four apparent bullet strikes on the front portion of the black Chevy Malibu, the
7 black retractable baton, the pair of white gloves Mr. Fanfan was wearing and the screwdriver. An analyst determined that the screwdriver, the baton, and the gloves tested positive for the presence of blood. X. The Legal Standard and Conclusion. Our legal analysis as to whether the actions of the involved law enforcement officials could constitute criminal acts was guided by applicable case law and legal precedent on the use of force by law enforcement. To be lawful, an officer s use of deadly force must be objectively reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer. Whether such actions were reasonable is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, [T]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for 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, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,396-397 (1989), and that if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2016 (2014). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has also noted, a police officer has an obligation to protect his fellow officers and the public at large that goes beyond that of an ordinary citizen, such that retreat or escape is not a viable option for an on-duty police officer faced with a potential threat of violence. Com. v. Asher, 471 Mass. 580, 589 (2015). After a careful consideration of the facts and the law, I conclude that Detective James Coyne, Officer Ellis Lee, and Officer Eric McPherson acted reasonably and lawfully. The investigation establishes that Peter Fanfan used unprovoked deadly force by firing upon Detective Coyne and Officers Lee, McPherson, and Taylor, placing them in real and immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. The involved officers had a right to protect themselves and each other, and a duty to neutralize the threat to innocent civilians in this densely populated neighborhood. Under the circumstances, the officers use of deadly force was a lawful and reasonable exercise of self-defense and defense of others. Accordingly, I have determined that criminal charges are not warranted. Daniel F. Conley DISTRICT ATTORNEY