June 26, 2007

Newport News Police Department

Chief of Police’s Summary Report

Regarding the Officer Involved Shooting of Robert L. Harper

Intended for Public Release

The following pages contain a public report on the police involved shooting that took place at 1211 25th Street Apt. #C on February 18, 2007, involving members of the Newport News Police Department. The report contains information that has been authorized for public release from the administrative investigation conducted by the Police Department’s Professional Standards Division. This investigation was conducted in addition to the criminal investigation that was submitted to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. Mr. Harper’s name has been well covered in public reports and by media coverage; therefore his name is used in this report. Other witnesses are not identified by name due to confidentiality issues related to administrative investigations.

As noted the shooting occurred in an apartment house in the 1200 block of 25th Street. This location is within the Police Department’s Patrol Beat 14 and a part of the South Precinct’s area of coverage. Patrol Beat 14’s boundaries are the water of Hampton Roads Harbor to the South; 39th Street to the North; Marshall Ave. to the West and the City of Hampton to the East. Of the city’s Patrol Beats, this beat is the most active. As of May 6, 2007 Beat 14 had 207 violent crimes (homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and weapons offenses) reported this year.  When compared to the other beats, beat 14 had 16.8 % of the reported violent crime during this time frame. The next closest beat had 165 violent crimes. Beat 14 also has had the largest number of calls for service for gunshots and shootings during this time frame. Beat 14 had 152 of these calls, which amounts to 22.3 % of the citywide total. Since this shooting, four homicides have occurred in the beat and each one remains unsolved. Twenty six firearms have been recovered in the beat by the Police Department this year.   

The Police Department must have the community’s support to effectively address crime problems in Patrol Beat 14. In that light, the Police Department understands that a public accounting of this shooting is required to maintain the community’s support, trust and positive relations. This report is presented as that public accounting.

On December 25, 2006, an acquaintance of Mr. Robert L. Harper contacted a bonding company and had them bond Mr. Harper out of the Newport News City Jail. The bonding company promises to pay the amount of the bond if the arrestee fails to appear.  The Surety agrees to pay that amount to reimburse the bonding company. The bond assures the arrestee’s presence in court. The arrestee or his/her designee pays a percentage of the bond to the bonding company, as the fee for the service provided. Mr. Harper had been incarcerated since August 20, 2006, and was being held pending trial on charges of grand larceny, possession of stolen property, possession of cocaine, and habitual traffic offender.

On February 9, 2007, the acquaintance called the bonding company and discussed having Mr. Harper’s bond revoked. Also, on February 9, 2007 the bonding company obtained a Surety Capias from the Newport News General District Criminal Court for Robert Lamont Harper. This type of document is described in Virginia State Code Section 19.2-149. This Code section allows, upon application of the surety, the Court or Clerk of Court to issue the Surety Capias. Once served, the bond holder is released from being responsible for the bond amount. The person wanted by this document is to be arrested and transported to the jail where the court is located.  The Code authorizes the document to be served by Bail Enforcement Agents, Sheriffs or Police Officers. There is no provision in the Code that allows the person to be summonsed in lieu of a physical arrest.

On February 18, 2007, a bail enforcement agent that was attempting to locate Mr. Harper to serve the Surety Capias, received information that he was located at 1211 25th Street. At approximately 7:40 PM the bail enforcement agent and several associates responded to the address in an attempt to arrest Mr. Harper on the Surety Capias. The bail enforcement agent made contact with a tenant and Mr. Harper. The agent identified herself to Mr. Harper and “explained that he was under arrest for bail revocation.”  There were a total of four subjects present, including Mr. Harper, when they entered the apartment.

According to several witnesses, Mr. Harper turned sideways with his left shoulder forward and kept his right hand concealed in his pocket as he talked. The tenant suggested Mr. Harper go resolve the matter and offered to accompany him. He noted Mr. Harper told him to “shut up I just want to talk to her.” He also described Mr. Harper’s demeanor, once the bail enforcement agent arrived, as “like real crazy”. The tenant further noted that since it appeared Mr. Harper was getting agitated, the bail enforcement agent requested everyone exit the apartment while the agent spoke with Mr. Harper alone. Two of the bail enforcement agent’s associates stayed near the apartment door. One of the exiting apartment occupants stated Mr. Harper was armed with a box cutter.

The bail enforcement agent negotiated with Mr. Harper for approximately one hour in an attempt to arrest him without incident. Mr. Harper became more agitated as time went on. The bail enforcement agent contacted police communications at 8:38 PM and requested police assistance. The agent told the dispatcher she was “In a bad situation”. The person she was trying to arrest had a box cutter and would not let them get near him. The agent further stated, “I need lots of help” and ended the call stating “Hurry up.” 

Prior to the police arriving, the bail enforcement agent went back into the apartment with Mr. Harper and advised him that the police were responding. According to the bail enforcement agent, Mr. Harper responded, “I will not leave this room with you alive or them.”

Newport News Police Officers were initially dispatched to the call at 1211 25th Street at 8:40 PM. The dispatcher advised the responding officers that the complainant was attempting to arrest a subject that had a box cutter. The first officer arrived on scene at 8:43 PM and was advised by subjects outside to respond to the second floor. The officer made contact with the bail enforcement agent, who was located directly at the top of the stairs in front of an apartment with the door open. The officer was advised of the Surety Capias for Mr. Robert Harper, who was inside the same apartment. He was also told by the bail enforcement agent that Mr. Harper was armed with a box cutter. The officer requested to inspect the Surety Capias.

The officer advised that Mr. Harper was concealing his right hand in his waistband giving the appearance that he was holding something. He asked the subject if his name was Robert Harper as he proceeded to step inside the apartment itself.  Mr. Harper raised his left hand and told the officer to stop and not come any further. The officer maintained his position at the apartment’s front door. 

The apartment was located on the second floor of the apartment house. The entrance door to the apartment was directly in front of the stairs. At the top of the stairs was a small landing of approximately three and a half feet and then the apartment door. The apartment living room was directly inside the entrance and was 8.5 x 14 feet. Facing the entrance from the stairs, directly past the living room was an open kitchen area. To the left of the kitchen was the bedroom. Mr. Harper was standing at the bedroom door. This doorway was ten feet from the entrance door and at a left angle.  Mr. Harper was wearing dark jeans and a gray hooded sweatshirt under a black jacket.

The officer advised Mr. Harper at that point he was not under arrest; he just wanted to sort out the situation. According to the officer, Mr. Harper replied there would be trouble if the officer did not leave and shut the door. The officer notified the dispatcher over the police radio that additional officers were needed. He further stated over the radio, “I have one armed with a box cutter, he’s non-compliant.”

Additional officers arrived on scene and were advised by the first officer that Mr. Harper was standing inside the apartment armed with a box cutter. One officer took a kneeling position at the front door of the apartment, while another officer assumed a cover position over top of that officer. The other officers began to inspect the Surety Capias to ascertain its validity. Officers rarely encounter this type of document so they were cautious about proceeding with the arrest. While the document was being inspected the two officers at the apartment’s door continued to negotiate with Mr. Harper. Once a sergeant arrived he recognized the capias as a valid legal document that authorized the arrest of Mr. Harper. The sergeant advised the officers that Mr. Harper was under arrest. With the sergeant’s arrival a total of seven Department members were on the scene, six police officers and one sergeant. 

Mr. Harper was advised repeatedly by the officers on scene that he was under arrest and was given repeated commands to show his hands and submit to an arrest. Mr. Harper refused to comply and continued to be in the sideways stance, left shoulder forward, with his right hand concealed.

The sergeant obtained his less lethal shotgun and took a position at the apartment’s entrance. He advised Mr. Harper that he had a less lethal shotgun. According to officers, Mr. Harper replied by telling them to shoot him. The sergeant determined that his presence with the less lethal shotgun was agitating Mr. Harper. To defuse the situation, the sergeant had another officer take his place at the apartment entrance while he removed the less lethal shotgun from the entrance. No other officer at the scene was trained to handle the less lethal shotgun.
 
The sergeant proceeded downstairs and spoke to the bail enforcement agent to obtain additional information. He then started making requests for additional resources. The sergeant requested a hostage negotiator, another less lethal shotgun trained officer and a call from a command level officer.

Officers at the apartment door continued to negotiate with Mr. Harper in an attempt to calm him. During this time Mr. Harper was eight to ten feet from the officers. At one point Mr. Harper asked them why they thought he had a box cutter. An officer asked Mr. Harper if he had a gun and Mr. Harper replied he had a “weapon.” Based on that statement the officers believed Mr. Harper was indicating he was armed with a firearm. They again instructed Mr. Harper to slowly move his hands and place them in the air. Officers noted Mr. Harper did not comply and they noticed his facial expressions and body language were getting more intense. Officers attempted to calm Mr. Harper. One officer again asked Mr. Harper if he had a gun. Mr. Harper again replied that he had a “weapon.” At this time, the two officers at the door to the apartment discussed being in great fear of their lives.

One of the officers stated that when he told Mr. Harper not to move and to listen to his commands, Mr. Harper started to come out with his right elbow rising upward in a “drawing motion” and simultaneously moving toward the officers with his left foot. The officer discharging his weapon advised Mr. Harper’s left arm was moving away from his body and extending outward with an open hand as if reaching out toward the officers at the front doorway.

In reaction to this threatening and aggressive movement, the officer began firing his service weapon at Mr. Harper from the kneeling position and continued firing as he entered the room in a tactical movement. The officer moved to the right, out of the path of Mr. Harper’s movement. The officer was simultaneously firing, moving and yelling commands for Mr. Harper to stop moving. Mr. Harper fell back onto the bedroom floor. As the officer moved to the door to the bedroom, he stated that Mr. Harper continued to move his right arm in a threatening manner. The officer continued to give commands for Mr. Harper to stop moving and fired two shots while Mr. Harper was in the bedroom. Because the movement did not stop the officer reloaded and fired two additional shots toward Mr. Harper’s head because he believed Mr. Harper was wearing body armor. After these two shots were fired the threatening movement stopped.

Because of the restricted space, Mr. Harper was pulled out from the bedroom and handcuffed for security reasons. Once Mr. Harper was secured, officers searched him and found no weapon on his person. The officer that fired began first aid on Mr. Harper and continued until medics arrived. Newport News Fire Department personnel arrived and pronounced Mr. Harper deceased at 9:22 PM.

The officer involved in this incident fired nine rounds, reloaded and fired an additional two times for a total of 11 rounds. As part of its investigation the Police Department had a trainer conduct a demonstration on the amount of time that it could take for an officer to fire 11 rounds in a manner described by the officer in this shooting. The trainer conducted the demonstration three times. Time taken was 7.0 seconds; 6.2 seconds and 5.4 seconds for an average time of 6.2 seconds. 

On May 24, 2007 the Department received a copy of the Medical Examiner’s Report, concerning Mr. Harper’s death. Information in the report is consistent with statements and evidence obtained during the administrative investigation. The report notes Mr. Harper had eight gunshot wounds. The report gave each wound a number, but noted this was done for convenience of description and was not to imply the order the wounds were received, which was not known. Wound One was to the head; Wound Two was a chest wound; Wounds Three, Four and Five were to the back; Wound Six was to the buttocks; Wound Seven was to the back and Wound Eight was to the right hand. The Report lists Mr. Harper’s cause of death as gunshot wounds to the head and torso. The Case Summary also states, “A small amount of cocaine and its metabolite benzoylecgonine were detected in the blood.”

Civilian witness statements, which include the occupants of the apartment, the bond enforcement agent and her associates, were consistent with statements obtained from police officers. They described Mr. Harper in a very unusual demeanor after the bond enforcement agent advised him of the Surety Capias. They all stated that he immediately got into a sideways stance and concealed his right hand. The tenant offered to go with Mr. Harper to resolve the situation and he reported Mr. Harper told him to “shut up”. In reference to Mr. Harper the tenant further stated, “I had never seen him act in this manner before.” Once officers took over the situation civilian witnesses moved outside. They did report hearing officers giving Mr. Harper verbal commands and asking him to take his hand out of his pocket.   

Statements obtained from officers on the scene were consistent. They reported that Mr. Harper was asked a number of times to show his hands and comply with the arrest. Based on the officer’s statements it is estimated they asked Mr. Harper to drop the box cutter and submit to the arrest at least 20 times. Other officers reported hearing the officer at the door way warning Mr. Harper not to come towards him. Officers noted that during the 32 minutes of negotiations Mr. Harper remained in the sideways stance with his right hand concealed.  

The Police Department’s investigation has found the statement of the officer that discharged his weapon is consistent with evidence collected at the scene and the Medical Examiner’s Report. Eleven spent cartridge casings were recovered. Two were located outside of the apartment entrance, seven were located in the living room of the apartment and two were located inside the bedroom. As the Medical Examiner states it can not be noted with certainty the order that Mr. Harper received his gunshot wounds, but based on the officer’s statement it is highly likely that the first wound Mr. Harper received was the chest wound. This was the only wound that had an entrance on the left side. The left side was toward the officer when he began to fire. Two rounds hit the wall near the bedroom door frame below door knob level. These rounds were likely the officer’s second and third rounds that were fired as he came up from his knees and entered the apartment. The four gunshot wounds to the back were angle wounds that had direction of fire as right to left, back to front and upward. The officer reported Mr. Harper turned to his left as the officer was moving into the apartment. This movement would have exposed Mr. Harper’s back and wounds would have entered right to left. This would account for the seven shots fired by the officer as he moved to the bedroom door. At the bedroom door the officer reported firing two shots at the torso area. It is believed that these two rounds resulted in the wound to the buttocks and right hand. It was also noted that Mr. Harper’s right jean pocket had a hole in it that would be consistent with the right hand wound being received while it was in the right jean pocket. The officer reported firing two rounds toward the head. It is believed one round missed and the other one resulted in Mr. Harper’s head wound.                       

When reviewing situations where officers have used force, the Police Department looks to prior court cases for guidance. A very significant case guiding law enforcement agencies in the United States regarding use of force situations is Graham v. Connor. According to the United States Supreme Court in:

GRAHAM v. CONNOR, 490 U.S. 386, 387 (1989)

The Court Held:

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.

The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. An officer’s subjective intent and motivation in using force is irrelevant to the reasonableness test.

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments, in circumstances that are often tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

The Department’s Use of Force Policy (OPS-110), describes reasonable force options. The policy states that these options are, “A training model/philosophy that supports the progressive and reasonable escalation of officer-applied force in proportional response to the actions and level of resistance offered by a given subject. Such response may progress from the officer’s actual physical presence at the scene to the application of deadly force. The level of response is based upon the situation encountered at the scene and the actions of the subject in response to the officer’s commands and actions at a given instance.”

In addition to the above noted force options the policy states, “Before using a firearm, police officers shall identify themselves and state their intent to shoot, when feasible.” Furthermore, the policy also states that an officer may resort to deadly force when necessary to: “Protect the officer or another person from what is reasonably believed by the officer to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

In Newport News, Virginia, Mr. Harper was convicted in August 1993 of Forgery & Uttering. In September 1993 he was convicted of False Statement to purchase a Firearm. In April and May of 1996 he was convicted of Failure to Appear in Court.

In Hampton, Virginia, Mr. Harper was convicted in May 1997 for Possession of Cocaine. In August 1997 he was arrested on a fugitive warrant from Florida, in which extradition was waived.  In August 1997 he was convicted of Unauthorized Use of an Automobile.  In April 2001 he was convicted of Operating a Motor Vehicle while Habitual Offender.   In April 2005 he was convicted of Possession Marijuana and Failure to Appear.

On the evening of the incident, Mr. Harper had several pending charges in Newport News that stemmed from a traffic stop on August 20, 2006. Those charges were Grand Larceny, Possession of Stolen Property, Possession of Cocaine, Operating a Motor Vehicle while Habitual Offender, Driving Under Suspension or Revocation and  Failure to Signal.
                       
Several photographs are presented with this report. The first photograph is a view from outside the apartment house. The next photograph is a view of the apartment house front entrance door. The third is a view of the stairs looking up. The next one is of the apartment entrance doorway. The fifth photograph is from within the apartment looking toward the entrance door. The next one is from the entrance door looking into the apartment. The seventh photograph is from a reenactment with other officers in positions that the officer was in just before he began to shoot and in Mr. Harper’s position. The view is from behind the shooting officer’s position. The eighth photograph is also from the reenactment and is from the view of the standing officer looking into the apartment. The last photograph is of the Surety Capias.  
      
             
Issues reviewed during the investigation:

1. When Mr. Harper refused to submit to the arrest, why didn’t the officers retreat?

The officers were attempting to serve a valid arrest capias and did not retreat because of their obligation to serve the legal paperwork. In accordance with Virginia State Code 19.2- 149, the officers were “commanded in the name of the Commonwealth forthwith to arrest the accused, and to deliver him or her to the Sheriff or jailor.” The officers were face to face negotiating with Mr. Harper. Had, for example, Mr. Harper backed into his bedroom and closed the door this would have then been considered a barricaded situation. This would have called for a Tactical Team response. Officers would have held their positions at the apartment doorway while they waited for the Tactical Team to arrive.

2. Why were less than lethal options not used?

 Tear Gas: The Tactical Team is authorized to deploy tear gas in limited situations under the authority of the Tact Team Commander.  Patrol personnel are not issued tear gas, so this option was not available at the scene at the time of the shooting.

 OC (Pepper) Spray: Mr. Harper was standing outside the optimal range of the spray. In the Department’s Use of Force Policy, OPS- 110. O.C. canister units are aerosol delivery systems and are only effective up to approximately 6 feet. Also, because of the confined area, the officers would likely have been affected by indirect contamination if they had elected to deploy the spray. OC spray is not an appropriate force option if the subject is thought to be armed with a firearm. 

 ASP Baton: This option is used during close encounters and is kept in an officer’s hand. It is not used to throw at a suspect. Mr. Harper was too far away from the officers to use this option.

 Less Lethal Shotgun: The sergeant did bring this option to the apartment entrance, but he did not fire the weapon. He believed the sight of the less lethal shotgun agitated Mr. Harper.  Even though this particular weapon system is considered a less lethal force option, the weapon could be lethal at close range. The officers were approximately eight to ten feet away from Mr. Harper at that time. The less lethal weapon is not an appropriate option if a subject is thought to be armed with a firearm.
 
3. Why was the Tactical Team not utilized?

  In accordance with departmental policy the situation did not warrant a tactical response at that point. Newport News Police Department Policy OPS-610, states, “The Tact Team will be used in all situations involving, but not limited to, armed and barricaded suspects, hostages, and when circumstances are such that officers believe individuals may resort to such tactics.”

  The policy further states, ”A tactical response may be instituted by the officer on the scene if he has first-hand knowledge that a situation exists as defined above (Example: a hostage being held by force with a deadly weapon that the officer has observed, or a barricaded subject who is known to possess a deadly weapon). In this particular situation, the officers on the scene were continuously negotiating with Mr. Harper and he was not barricaded.

4. Why didn’t the other officers fire their weapons?

  The officers were in a confined area and only two officers could safely be posted          at the door. Once the first officer fired and moved toward Mr. Harper, he was in the other officer’s line of fire; therefore it would not have been prudent for him to fire his weapon. The apartment in which the shooting took place is very small and did not allow the officers a great deal of latitude in their movements. The common area of the room in which Mr. Harper was standing is eight and a half feet wide by fourteen feet long. The two officers at the doorway were on a landing approximately three feet wide prior to a steep staircase.

5.   Why did the officer fire so many shots?

   The officer believed Mr. Harper was attempting to take out a firearm and advance on his position. The officer fired multiple rounds to keep Mr. Harper from advancing further and to stop the threat. The officer began firing his service weapon at Mr. Harper from the kneeling position and continued firing as he entered the room in a tactical movement. The officer moved to the right, away from the direction of Mr. Harper’s travel. The officer was simultaneously firing, moving and yelling commands for Mr. Harper to stop moving. Mr. Harper fell back onto the bedroom floor, but continued to move his right arm in a threatening manner.

  As noted the Department’s Use of Force Policy states an officer may resort to deadly force when necessary to, “Protect the officer or another person from what is reasonably believed by the officer to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.” The United States Supreme Court case of Graham v Connor notes the legal standard concerning force used by officers is that it must be reasonable based on the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The department does not condone the conduct of an officer who fires an excessive number of rounds; however in this case, in the heat of the moment, the department viewed the number of rounds fired by the officer as reasonable and within policy.

6. Why was Mr. Harper shot in the head?

   The officer fired multiple rounds at Mr. Harper, but he was still making furtive movements as if the rounds had no effect on him and he was still moving his concealed hand as if to retrieve a weapon. In the officer’s mind Mr. Harper was still a threat. At that point, the officer reported believing Mr. Harper was wearing body armor and fired towards the head. In reference to this issue the officer reported that Mr. Harper was not reacting as he expected a person that was shot would react. He also saw no evidence of blood from a gunshot wound. Officers are trained to aim at the head if someone is suspected of wearing body armor.

   Mr. Harper was wearing multiple layers of bulky clothing which could have easily concealed body armor. The evidence collected and photographs taken support the lack of visible blood on Mr. Harper’s torso area. This supports the officer’s statement that he did not visually see results from prior gunshots. 

 7.  Why was Mr. Harper shot in the back?

 When the officer began to fire his weapon and enter the apartment, Mr. Harper turned to the left exposing the side of his back to the officers. The angles of the entry wounds located on Mr. Harper’s body suggest that he was in a standing and turning motion when he was struck. Since Mr. Harper was wearing several layers of clothing and a dark in color jacket, the officer could not see the impacts on Mr. Harper’s body.

 
FEBRUARY 18, 2007 POLICE INVOLVED SHOOTING

INCIDENT TIMELINE

August 20, 2006 - Mr. Robert Harper is arrested by Newport News Police and charged with grand larceny, possession of stolen property, habitual traffic offender, and possession of cocaine. Initially he was given “no bond” and remained in jail.

December 21, 2006 - Mr. Harper is granted a $5,000 secured bond.

December 25, 2006 - Mr. Harper makes bond with Lexington National Insurance Company and is released from the Newport News City Jail.

February 9, 2007- A Surety Capias is issued by the Newport News General District Court Clerk revoking Mr. Harper’s bond upon the request of a bondsman for Lexington National Insurance Company.

February 18, 2007- A bail enforcement agent responds to 1211 25th Street, Newport News and locates Mr. Harper in a second floor apartment. The agent was informed that he was armed with a box cutter. The agent talks to Mr. Harper for approximately one hour in an attempt to convince him to surrender peacefully.

8:35 p.m. - Bail enforcement agent calls 911 requesting police assistance at 1211 25th Street. She advises that she is attempting to arrest a subject who is armed with a box cutter and she can’t get near him.

8:40 p.m. - Two patrol units are dispatched to 1211 25th Street in reference to meeting a complainant who advises she is attempting to arrest a subject that has a box cutter.

8:43 p.m. - First unit arrives at 1211 25th Street.

8:44 p.m. - Second unit arrives at 1211 25th Street

8:46 p.m. - First unit advises that he has a subject who is non compliant and requests additional units respond. A third unit marks en route to 1211 25th Street.

8:48 p.m. - Patrol supervisor marks en route to 1211 25th Street.

8:52 p.m. - Patrol supervisor arrives at 1211 25th Street along with two additional patrol units. Patrol supervisor inspects Surety Capias produced by bail enforcement agent and determines it’s valid. Mr. Harper is subsequently advised that he is under arrest.

9:00 p.m. - Request is made for an “on-duty” lieutenant.

9:01 p.m. - Communications advises that no “on-duty” lieutenant is working.

9:08 p.m. - Patrol supervisor on scene requests Communications call his cell phone.

9:10 p.m. - Communications calls the weekend “duty captain” and advises her of the situation at 1211 25th Street. The captain had been on duty Friday and Saturday night. She was not on duty at this time, but was reached by phone. 

9:11 p.m. - Patrol supervisor requests a hostage negotiator respond. A hostage negotiator hears the request and marks en route.

9:12 p.m. - Weekend “duty captain” calls the on scene patrol supervisor on his cell phone and hears the sound of gunshots over the phone.

9:13 p.m. - Weekend “duty captain” calls Communications and confirms shots fired and advises to make proper notifications.

9:15 p.m. - Announcement over police radio of shots fired and request for a medic.

9:15 p.m. - Newport News Fire Department is dispatched to 1211 25th Street.

9:16 p.m. - Request is made for the Newport News Fire Department to expedite their response.

9:22 p.m. - Mr. Harper is pronounced deceased by Newport News Fire Department.

Picture #1    Picture #4    Picture #7

Picture #2    Picture #5     Picture #8

Picture #3    Picture #6     Picture #9

 City Manager's memo to Council regarding this report