LAPD letter explaining dispersal of Christopher Dorner reward

7/30/2019 LAPD letter explaining dispersal of Christopher Dorner reward

1/12

In re: The Christopher Dorner RewardMEMO RANDUM OF DECISION

May 6, 2013

This matter comes before the Hon orable Lourdes Baird (ret.), the Honorable Rob ertBonner (res.), and the Hono rable Carlos M oreno (ret.) (the "Panel").INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

In early February 2 013, m ultiple jurisdictions throughout S outhern Californiacollaborated on an investigation into the criminal activities and location of exLos AngelesPolice Department ("LAPD") Officer Christopher Dorner ("Dorner"). On February 10,201 3, following a series of events in which D orner murdered three individuals and injuredtwo others, Los Angeles City M ayor Antonio V illaraigosa offered on behalf of privateentities and m ultiple jurisdictions an approxim ately $1 m illion reward to any individualproviding information leading to Dorner's capture and conviction. On February 12, 2013,law enforcement officers surrounded Do rner in a remote cabin in Big B ear Lake, California.That afternoon, Dorner died of an app arent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

On April 5, 2013, multiple public and private entities agreed to participate in athree-step reward process by wh ich: (1) claimants w ould submit claims to law en forcement;(2) law enforcement wou ld present the evidence to this Panel of former judges; and (3) this

1 These entities include, but are not limited to, the City of Irvine, the Federal Bureauof Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, AEG, First Watch, the Los A ngeles Dodgers,the University of Southern California, Wells Fargo, and anonym ous donors.


2/12

Panel would decide w ho, if anyone, should receive the reward. See Procedures for theDorner Investigation R eward, dated A pril 5, 2013 ("the P rocedures").

Twelve claimants filed claims prior to the A pril 19, 2013 d eadline set forth in theProcedures for subm itting claims. On May 1, 2013, representatives from several lawenforcement agencies gave a presentation to the Panel detailing the timeline of eventsbeginning with D orner's two initial murders in Irvine, California and ending with his deathin the Big Bear area. Law enforcement also provided each memb er of the Panel with abinder containing each claimant's subm itted materials.

After independently reviewing the claims an d considering other relevantinformation, the Panel finds and concludes as follows.II. CRITERIA USED FOR DETERMINING REWARD RECIPIENTS

The Panel adopted the following guidelines for assessing the merits of each claim:(1 ) whether the claimant contacted law enforcement to provide information

relevant to the Dorner investigation;(2 ) whether the information provided by the claimant furthered the purposes of

the investigation;(3 ) whether the information actually led to the "capture" 2 of Dorner (causation-

in-fact); and(4 ) in the event that more than one claim satisfied the foregoing elements, the

Panel would equitably apportion the reward based upon the com parative

2 Although the reward was based on information that led to the arrest andconvictionof Dorner, for purposes of the Procedures adopted for the Panel, there is no requirement thata conviction have resulted, which of course wo uld be impossible in view of the fact thatDorner is dead. See Procedures, page 3. As for an actual arrest or capture of Dorner, thePanel deems that Dorner was constructively arrested or captured when law enforcementsurrounded the cabin on the afternoon of February 12, 2013. There was no escape.- 2 -


3/12

value of the information provided and how directly it causally led to D orner'scapture.

Based on the foregoing and as set forth below, the Panel concludes that threeclaimants are entitled to a portion of the reward: M r. R. Lee M cDaniel ("Mr. McD aniel") isentitled to five (5) percent; Mr. Daniel M cGowan ("Mr. McG owan") is entitled to fifteen(15) percent; and Mr. and Mrs. James and Karen R eynolds ("Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds") areentitled to the remaining eighty (80) percent.

The facts stated herein have been summarized from the claimant's written statementsand cross-referenced with verified law enforcement records. Each rewardee's contributionto the Do rner investigation is discussed in chronological order, followed by a briefdiscussion of the remaining nine claimants.III. MR. R. LEE MC DANIEL

1 .nformation Provided to Law EnforcementMr. McD aniel is a tow truck driver in Corona, California. In the early morninghours of February 7, 2013, he stopped at an AM /PM gas station located at 8765 WeirickRoad, Corona, CA . While inside the store, he spotted a man whom he believed to be Dornerstanding to his left. Mr. McD aniel, who had read a news article describing Do rner's truck asa gray Nissan Titan and listing its license plate number as 7X09131, noticed a gray truck inthe parking lot. He returned to his vehicle to boot up its License Plate Recognition ("LPR")Cameras. 3

Mr. McDaniel noticed that the Nissan truck parked in the parking lot bore a licensenumb er beginning with an 8, not a 7. Nevertheless, Mr. McD aniel's suspicion caused him to

3 LPR Cameras record scanned photos of license places, the time and date the vehiclewas scanned, and the GP S coordinates of where the vehicle had last been scanned. Thesystem uploads and stores this information in a searchable database.- 3 -


4/12

enter the 7X09131 plate into his LPR database, which pulled up a photo of a N issan truckidentical to the truck parked in the A M/PM lot. By that time, Do rner had returned to histruck, opened the door, stood between the door and the cab, and m ade eye contact with M r.McD aniel. Apprehensive under the circumstances, McDaniel exited the parking lot.

Upon exiting the AM /PM m otorists must take a right onto Weirick Road. Fromthere, motorists have two options: either make a U-turn at the end of Weirick Road to returnwestbound on W eirick, or turn onto Temescal Canyon Road. Mr. McD aniel made a U-turnat the end of W eirick, pulled over across the street from the A M/PM , and prepared to callthe Corona Police D epartment to report what he had seen. Dorner, meanw hile, exited theAM /PM and took a right onto Temescal Canyon Road. As M r. McDaniel prepared to callthe police, a marked LA PD squad car with two officers pulled into the AM/PM . Mr.McD aniel drove across the median to meet with the officers and inform them that he hadjust seen Dorner. As the officers interviewed Mr. M cDaniel, Dorner's vehicle turned backonto Weirick Road from Tem escal Canyon Road and passed by the AM /PM en route toInterstate 15 no rthbound. Mr. M cDaniel positively identified the truck as the one beingdriven by D orner. The officers immediately began to g ive chase.

This chase led to tw o shootouts between D orner and law enforcement officers: First,the two LA PD officers engaged Dorner on M agnolia Avenue just off of Interstate 15. Oneofficer suffered a nonfatal wound to the head during the encou nter. Second, Dorner fleddown M agnolia Avenue until he reached Arlington Avenue in Riverside, CA, at which pointDorner opened fire on two Riverside Police Officers sitting in a marked car at a stoplight.Officer Michael Crain was killed and his partner was critically w ounded. Dorner fledRiverside and drove to the Big Bear area approximately 50 miles to the northeast, althoughthis would not be know n for another six hours.

4


5/12

2.nalysisThe information provided by M r. McDaniel to law enforcement on February 7, 2013,was im portant insofar as it confirmed Dorner's presence in Southern California, and m orespecifically, his presence east of Los A ngeles in the Inland Emp ire. Investigators suspectedthat Dorner remained in Southern California, but they were devoting significant resources toexploring other possibilities such as D orner fleeing to M exico, Las Vegas, or Utah. Mr.McD aniel recognized Dorner, used his LPR Cameras to positively identify D orner's vehicledespite the fact that Dorner had switched license plates, and directed LAPD officers toDorner's exact location. This information undou btedly furthered the goals of theinvestigation.

That being said, the information provided by Mr. M cDaniel, while a contributingcause of the ultimate capture of Dorner, was a fairly attenuated cause, mainly because lawenforcement was unable to capture this vicious killer in the early morning hours of February7. Indeed, Dorner managed to escape the clutches of law enforcement in Corona andRiverside and fled to an undisclosed area. Nearly five days passed before law en forcementcornered Dorner in a cabin in Big Bear Lake. D orner could have traveled a great distancefrom the time Mr. McD aniel discovered him and when he was ultimately surrounded. Theinformation Mr. McDaniel provided is properly considered, at best, an indirect contributionto Dorner's ultimate capturebut a contribution nonetheless.

Because M r. McDaniel's information confirmed D orner's presence east of LosAngeles and still in Southern California, his efforts minimally qualify under the rewardcriteria set forth above. Accordingly, relatively to other meritorious claimants, the Panelawards M r. McD aniel a five (5) percent share of the reward proceeds.

- 5 -


6/12

IV. MR. DANIEL MCGOWAN1. Information Provided to Law Enforcem entMr. McG owan w orks for the Snow S umm it ski resort in Big Bear Lake. En route to

work around 8:30 a.m. on February 7, 2013, Mr. M cGow andriving along a rarely used,unpaved fire routecam e across a burning truck on the side of the road. He contacted theDeputy Sheriff assigned to Big Bear Lake through the security department at Snow Summ it.Law enforcement officers, upon inspection of the truck, discovered that the truck belongedto Dorner. This discovery precipitated by Mr. M cGow an's information initiated anintensive focused search for Dorner in the Big Bear Lake area.

2. AnalysisAt least three factors favor awarding Mr. M cGow an a portion of the reward.First, Mr. M cGowan was the only person to contact law enforcement about the

burning truck. Given the truck's remote location, it is conceivable that several days or evenweeks w ould have elapsed before anyone contacted authorities had M r. McGow an not actedpromptly.

Second, Mr. McG owan's information caused law enforcement to launch a significantmanhunt for Dorner in the Big Bear Lake area where he w as ultimately found.Importantly, Mr. McGow an's information about the burning truck established that Dornerhad fled to Big Bear from his homicidal encounter with Riverside police officers severalhours earlier, had abandoned his vehicle there, and had recently been in the vicinity. Mr.McG owan's tip caused law enforcement to set up a comm and post in the Big Bear area andmobilize significant ground an d air forces to canvas the surrounding mo untain. Thisoperation was continuous until Dorner was captured five days later.

6


7/12

Third, authorities ultimately located Domer close to w here he abandon ed his truck.Although Dorner w as not found until five days later, it is reasonable to infer that theconsiderable police presence in Big Bear Lake, triggered by Mr. M cGow an's information,caused Dorner to hunker down in a nearby cabin (owned by M r. and Mrs. Reynolds) ratherthan risk capture on one of the few passageways off the mountain. Had Mr. McGowanfailed to contact authorities in a timely fashion, Do rner would hav e had a chance to flee thearea.

There is one factor, howev er, that counsels against awarding Mr. McG owan a m ajorportion of the reward: Mr. McG owan's tip did not directly lead law enforcement to findDorner. In other words, although Mr. McGowan's prompt notification proved valuable tolaw enforcem ent and it was a contributing cause of D orner's capture, it did not immed iatelyor directly lead to his capture. Indeed, the manh unt persisted for five m ore days after Mr.McG owan con tacted authorities. Dorner may w ell have avoided capture but-for the actionsof Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds discussed below.

In light of the foregoing, the Panel awards Mr. M cGow an a fifteen (15) percent shareof the reward proceeds for his contribution to the capture of Dorner.V. MR. AND MRS. JAMES AND KAREN REYNOLDS

1 .nformation Provided to Law EnforcementMr. and M rs. Reynolds own a cabin-style condom inium in Big Bear Lake.Som etime between February 7, 2013 , and February 12, 2013, Dorner entered their cabinto encamp as he w aited for law enforcem ent to complete their search of the area. OnFebruary 12, 2013, M r. and M rs. Reynolds traveled to their cabin and cam e face-to-facewith Dorner.

7


8/12

Dorner tied the couple up at gunpoint and stole their purple Nissan SUV. Sho rtlyafter Dorner left in their SUV, Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds were able to escape their restraints atwhich point Karen Reynolds called the San B ernardino County Sheriff's Department toreport the encounter. Mrs. Reynolds positively identified D orner, provided the exactlocation of the cabin, and described the Nissan SUV .

Twenty-three minutes after Mrs. Reynolds's call, Fish and W ildlife Wardens in thearea spotted Dorner driving the Nissan SUV approximately 20 miles from the cabin. A fter abrief chase on Highway 38, D orner momentarily shed his pursuers by turning down GlassRoad, at w hich point he crashed the Nissan SUV and carjacked a white pickup truck fromRick Heltebrake. 4 A po lice helicopter alerted the Fish and Wildlife Wardens that Dornerhad turned down Glass Road. Accordingly, two vehicles containing three Wardensmaintained pursuit in search of the Nissan SUV.

Although D orner had sw itched vehicles, the first Warden immediately recognizedDorner driving the white pickup truck erratically dow n Glass Road . Dorner, cognizant thathe had been spotted, engaged the second W ardens' vehicle in a gun fight. Meanwhile, thefirst Warden radioed that Dorner w as now driving a white pickup truck.

Approximately three m inutes later, San B ernardino Sheriff's Depu ties followed thetracks of the white pickup truck which had veered off Glass Road onto a side road leading toa cabin in the w oods. From inside the cabin, Dorner shot and killed San Bernardino

4 Mr. Heltebrake did not subm it a claim under the Procedures and, therefore, chosenot to be a claimant for purposes of this reward process. The Procedures required that aclaim in writing be submitted by A pril 19, 2013 in order for it to be considered. SeeProcedures, page 2.- 8 -


9/12

Sheriff's Deputy Jeremiah Mackay and injured another officer during an extensive exchangeof gunfire. 5 Several hours later, after the cabin w as surrounded, Dorner committed suicide.

2.nalysisMr. and M rs. Reynolds were instrumental in providing information to lawenforcement that led to Dorner's constructive capture. In particular, Fish and WildlifeWardens located Do rner within 30 minutes of Mrs. Reynolds' phone call to law enforcementbased on her description of the SUV and her geographical location. Had Mr. and Mrs.Reynolds failed promptly to escape their restraints and contact law enforcement, it is likelyDorner wou ld have escaped unseen in their Nissan SUV. The content of the informationprovided by M rs. Reynolds, combined with the proximity between her phone call andDorner's constructive capture, is strong evidence that M r. and M rs. Reynolds played a vitaland determinative role in ending the manhunt.

Unlike the other claimants, Mr. and Mrs. Rey nolds's information directly led to thehot pursuit and capture of Dorner. Accordingly, the Panel awards M r. and Mrs. Reynolds aneighty (80) percent share of the reward proceeds.VI. ADDITIONAL CLAIMANTS

The Panel concludes that none of the other nine additional claimants is entitled toany portion of the reward.

5 At this approximate time, Mr. Heltebrakethe ow ner of the white pickup truckphoned local Deputy Sheriff Paul Franklin to report that Dorner had hijacked his vehicle.During this call Mr. Heltebrake reported hearing gunfire, suggesting that either the Fish andWildlife Wardens or the San Bernardino Sheriffs Deputies had already engaged Dorner.For this reason, Mr. H eltebrake's phone call did not provide information leading to D orner'scapture, as law enforcement had already spotted Dorner driving a white pickup truck.

6 The claimants who submitted claims pursuant to the Procedures are: Andrew Park,Pearl Burt, Tiirobii Tiirobii, Andrew H olguin, Ramona Hall, Karam Kaoud, E ligio and MaryRam irez, Tasha Prince, and Ted Scofield.- 9 -


10/12

Andrew Park provided an opinion to the Suffolk Police Department regardingDorner's manifesto. Among o ther reasons, Mr. Park is not entitled to a portion of thereward because he failed to provide any relevant information bearing on D orner'swhereabouts.

Pearl Burt posted a statement on the social media website Facebook about the Dornerinvestigation. Am ong other reasons, M s. Burt is not entitled to a portion of the rewardbecause she did not actually contact law enforcement w ith information bearing on D orner'swhereabouts.

Tiirobii Tiirobii states that he called police officers and told them that Dorner w ouldbe caught "exactly where h e was caug ht[.]" Am ong other reasons, Mr. Tiirobii is notentitled to a portion of the reward because there is no record of him contacting any policedepartment and because he failed to provide specific information bearing on D orner'swhereabouts.

Ramon a Hall states that she had a "vision" about a storage facility in Los A ngelesthat allegedly belonged to D orner. Among other reasons, Ms. Hall is not entitled to aportion of the reward because she did not contact law enforcement and because she failed toprovide any information bearing on D orner's whereabouts.

Tasha Prince posted a m essage to Twitter on February 13, 201 3, claiming that shetried to tell LAPD C hief Charlie Beck w here Dorner had been h iding. Among other reasons,M s. Prince is not entitled to a portion of the reward because sh e did not contact lawenforcement and because she failed to provide any information bearing on Dorner'swhereabouts.

Ted Scofield, who is familiar with the Big Bear Lake area, states that he called lawenforcement to report potential locations where Do rner could be hidden. Am ong other

-10-


11/12

reasons, Mr. Scofield is not entitled to a portion of the reward becau se there is no record ofhim contacting any police department and because he failed to provide specific informationbearing on Dorner's whereabouts.

Andrew Holguin came u pon and provided assistance to LAPD officers shortly afterthey had been fired upon and wounded by Dorner in the early morning hours of February 7,2013 in C orona, CA. H e provided his cell phone to the police officers immediatelyfollowing the February 7 shootout in Corona. This permitted the officers to report theencounter with Dorner more qu ickly than they could have otherwise done. The Panelcomm ends Mr. Holguin for his courage and his quick decision to ignore concerns about hisown personal safety in order to assist police officers in need. N onetheless, the Panel isconstrained to conclude that Mr. Holguin is not entitled to a portion of the reward becausehe did not provide information to law en forcement that led to Dorner's whereabouts or hiscapture.

Immediately following the murder of Riverside police officer Michael Crain, KaramKaoud, w ho w itnessed Dorner's murderous assault, administered aid to the survivingRiverside Police Officer who w as shot by Dorner in Riverside, CA in the early morninghours of February 7, 2013 . Mr. Kaoud activated the patrol car's emergency radio to call forhelp and provided responding officers with details of the shootout and a general descriptionof Dorner's vehicle and direction of travel. Like M r. Holguin, Mr. Kao ud's efforts arecommendable because he too ignored any concern for his own personal safety to assist lawenforcement officers in dire straits. The Panel takes no te of his personal bravery un der thesecircumstances. Unfortunately, Mr. Kaoud is not entitled to a portion of the rew ard because,although he provided responding officers with information regarding the general directionDorner took from the crime scene, this information did not lead to Dorner's whereabouts or


12/12

capture. Moreover, the information regarding the direction of Dom er's exit from the crimescene in Riverside was known to law enforcement.

Eligio and Mary Ram irez reported D omer's possible direction of travel on February12, 2013, after Do rner hijacked Mr. Heltebrake's car. At this point, however, Dorner hadlikely already been located by law enforcement officers. Even if Mr. and M rs. Ramirezprovided information moments before Dorner was located, that information cannot be saidto have caused officers to locate Do rner. On February 15, 2013, M r. Ramirez foundDom er's handgun in the snow, bu t that too, had nothing to do with law enforcement locatingDorner several days earlier. Although M r. and M rs. Ramirez demonstrated a clearwillingness to assist with the investigation, they are not entitled to a portion of the rew ardproceeds.VII. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the reward proceeds shallbe apportioned as follows:

(1 ) Five (5) percent to M r. R. Lee M cDaniel;(2 ) Fifteen (15) percent to M r. Daniel McGow an; and(3 ) Eighty (80) percent to Mr. and Mrs. James and Karen Reynolds.

Dated: May 6, 2013

,e/(6p4Hon. Lourdes Baird on. Robert Bonneron. Carlos Moreno

-12

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-press-enterprise-pecom
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

LAPD letter explaining dispersal of Christopher Dorner reward

Documents