A King County deputy and a corrections officer were attempting to serve a warrant using the controversial "no-knock raid" method, bursting into the home of Dustin Theoharis in search of his roommate. Theoharis was in bed when the officers
entered:
They said Dustin Theoharis looked like he was reaching for a gun. He was shot in the face, abdomen, legs and arm.
He wasn't reaching for a gun. He was unarmed. He was shot 16 times.
Prosecutors say there is not enough evidence for charges:
The King County Prosecutor’s Office has determined there is no new information to support criminal charges against a sheriff’s deputy and a state community corrections officer whose account of an incident in which they shot an unarmed man 16 times was called into question in a civil lawsuit.
Reacting to a judge’s recent ruling that raised questions about the deputy’s and officer’s version of events, prosecutors said in statement that insufficient evidence remains that the two acted with malice or bad faith in violation of state law.
The judge questioned the version of events from the two officers involved:
In their search of the home, Rongen and Thompson fired in a darkened bedroom after Theoharis, according to Rongen, claimed that he had three guns and reached under a mattress
Theoharis disputes that account in his federal suit, alleging Rongen and Thompson fired at him after asking for identification. Theoharis contends he reached to the floor for his wallet and was turning back with it when he was struck with about 16 shots in the face, arm, legs and abdomen.
King County agreed to a $3 million settlement to Theoharis in 2013. Theoharis filed a federal lawsuit against Officer Rongen last summer and this week a federal judge
denied a request to toss the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones, in a 31-page order issued Friday, denied the state’s request to dismiss Theoharis’ claim, citing conflicting versions of what occurred.
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Theoharis,” Jones wrote, referring to the standard of review, “the shooting constituted excessive force in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law.”