Sonoma County’s civilian oversight office faulted sheriff’s deputies in the fatal 2022 shooting of David Pelaez Chavez, saying there is evidence the use of force may not have been reasonable.

In its investigative report finalized on Aug. 8, the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach said that “substantial evidence suggests that it may have been unreasonable” for the deputy, Michael Dietrick, to believe Chavez posed an imminent threat when he fired three shots that killed him.

Chavez, 36, was chased by deputies on July 29, 2022, after reports that he had broken a bedroom window with a rock, stolen a truck and dragged its driver about 20 feet before fleeing on foot. The pursuit began along state Highway 128 near Healdsburg and continued for more than 45 minutes through fields, vineyards and a creek bed before deputies cornered him.

The IOLERO report said he was barefoot, appeared disoriented and repeatedly shouted for help in Spanish.

Body-worn camera footage showed him clutching a rock and other objects as deputies ordered him in English to drop them. When he bent down toward another rock, Dietrick fired three shots from his handgun, striking Chavez in the arm, chest and head.

IOLERO said the deputies involved “engaged in significant de-escalation efforts, but also missed a number of de-escalation opportunities,” and that their decisions “seemed to force a confrontation with Mr. Chavez rather than de-escalate the situation.”

The report found “possible violations of Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) policies” but said it could not issue final findings of misconduct because IOLERO lacked access to key evidence and deputies indicated they would assert their rights against self-incrimination. It said a “Critical Incident Community Briefing” video released by the Sheriff’s Office after the shooting contained “misleading and erroneous statements.”

It also faulted the Sheriff’s Office for failing to sequester deputies as witnesses and for not conducting a sufficiently thorough administrative review.

“The Sheriff’s Office Review Board concluded that the deputies did not commit any misconduct, and that no policy violations occurred,” the oversight office wrote. “IOLERO disagrees with this conclusion.”

‘Speculative commentary’

Sheriff Eddie Engram issued a detailed response on social media Tuesday, defending his deputies and rejecting the findings.

“The Sheriff’s Office values IOLERO’s role as an oversight body, but the public should understand the limits of its authority. A recent Sonoma County Superior Court ruling confirmed that IOLERO does not have the powers of an ‘Inspector General,’” Engram said.

“In this case, District Attorney Rodriguez, the elected District Attorney of Sonoma County, after reviewing all available evidence and using an independent expert, concluded the deputies’ actions were reasonable and lawful. By contrast, IOLERO acknowledged it lacked key evidence and instead issued a report riddled with speculative commentary.”

Engram said deputies “were, in fact, interviewed by Santa Rosa Police Department detectives in compliance with the Sonoma County Critical Incident Protocol,” and that IOLERO’s inability to conduct its own interviews “reflects the limits of its oversight role, which were not written into Measure P as they could have been and passed by the voters in 2020, not any failure by the Sheriff.”

“In this case, District Attorney (Carla) Rodriguez … concluded the deputies’ actions were reasonable and lawful. By contrast, IOLERO acknowledged it lacked key evidence and instead issued a report riddled with speculative commentary.” Sheriff Eddie Engram

He said IOLERO wrongly suggested he should have compelled deputies to speak with the office. “Deputies are employees of the Sheriff’s Office, not IOLERO. The Sheriff, as their employer, can only legally compel testimony for Sheriff’s Office administrative investigations, which are protected under Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, not for third-party organizations (IOLERO). Deputies are still entitled to their Constitutional Rights.”

Engram also said Measure P, the 2020 voter-approved initiative expanding IOLERO’s powers, remains flawed and under dispute.

“As the Sheriff has said many times, the real issue lies with Measure P, which was rushed to the ballot without proper vetting or negotiations against the cautions of then IOLERO Director Navarro and County Counsel. Although passed in 2020, portions of Measure P remain under dispute in negotiations and litigation to this day,” he said.

“The Sheriff’s Office welcomes thoughtful policy recommendations that enhance transparency and safety,” Engram said. “But the completed criminal investigation by the Santa Rosa Police Department and review by the elected District Attorney of Sonoma County, not IOLERO’s advisory report, provides the authoritative findings as it pertains to the lawful use of force: the deputies acted legally under laws of the State of California.”