A panel of state prosecutors were unable to determine whether a deputy from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office acted reasonably when he fatally shot an off-duty Vancouver police officer last January.
A Dec. 27 opinion submitted by the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office stated prosecutors from Pend Oreille, Lewis, Island, Garfield and Clallam counties were “unable to reach a consensus” as to whether Clark County Sheriff’s Deputy John Feller was justified in firing at Donald Sahota, a Vancouver Police officer who had struggled with a robbery suspect at Sahota’s Battle Ground home.
The panel of prosecutors formed to investigate the Jan. 29 shooting. That night, deputies from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office arrived at Sahota’s home following a 911 call about an intruder. That intruder, Julio Segura, fled from a robbery at a gas station near Northeast 117th Avenue and Northeast 99th Street, police said.
After a high-speed chase Segura crashed near Battle Ground, and made his way to Sahota’s house, according to an investigation by the Lower Columbia Major Crimes Team. After arriving at Sahota’s door, Segura and Sahota got into an altercation, where Sahota dropped his gun.
Segura then ran into the house while Sahota retrieved his firearm from the ground, aerial surveillance appeared to show.
At that time, Feller arrived. Within a matter of seconds he shot at Sahota who was at the door, striking him three times.
Prosecutors in the panel were asked to determine if Feller had reason to believe Sahota was “a threat of serious physical harm” to responding officers.
“The simple answer is no, Deputy Feller did not have probable cause to believe Officer Sahota was a threat to other law enforcement,” the opinion read.
Although Feller may have had cause to believe Segura was such a threat, “that is not who was shot,” the opinion stated.
During the investigation Feller described Sahota as “someone (who) resembled what I was given at the last description and that person to be the suspect” at the time he fired.
The opinion noted Sahota did not have shaggy hair, as Segura was described, and appeared significantly older than the last description.
The opinion acknowledged Sahota may have been mistaken for the suspect.
“It appears that Deputy Feller believed the robbery suspect, Mr. Segura, was the person who picked up the gun, and was chasing after Officer Sahota,” the opinion read. “The (prosecutors) panel reviewing this case was unable to reach consensus on whether, had his mistaken belief been correct, Feller would have been justified in shooting Segura at the front door.”
The opinion reasoned that if it were Segura who was outside, then Sahota “would have been safely in his home, armed, and protecting his family,” diminishing the “imminent threat” standard needed for deadly force in state law. It also reasoned that Feller had a “good faith” standard in believing Segura would be enough of a threat.
Two other officers said they believed Sahota was Segura, the opinion stated.
“Clearly, Feller had no true factual basis to believe Officer Sahota was an imminent threat to anyone, other than acting in lawful defense of his family,” the opinion stated.
If properly identified, Feller would not have fired, it continued.
The opinion stated it “is not intended to guide any potential charging decision to be made by the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office.”
It did place blame on Segura, the one suspect currently facing charges in relation to the shooting.
“But for the actions of Mr. Segura, Officer Sahota would not have been shot to death on his own doorstep,” the opinion stated.
