State commission refers LAPD officers Zavala and Kintania to full evidentiary hearing after review of shooting

The California Peace Officer Standards and Training commission voted April 15 to refer the record in two linked officer‑involved‑shooting cases to an Administrative Law Judge for a full evidentiary hearing. The referral follows the division's finding that clear and convincing evidence exists that Los Angeles Police Department Officers Jose Zavala and Julio Kintania engaged in serious misconduct during a December 18, 2021 incident that resulted in an adult male's death.

The commission's action came after the division presented a multi‑part record including LAPD investigative materials, multiple body‑worn video perspectives and an expert opinion that concluded the officers'use of deadly force was inconsistent with tactically directed commands and not based on an objectively reasonable belief that the victim posed an imminent threat to officers or bystanders. The advisory Peace Officer Standards Accountability board had voted unanimously to recommend revocation of the officers'POST certifications.

Dave Sber, a law enforcement consultant for the division, summarized the timeline of the encounter and the division's analysis. According to the division, officers responded to a call that a man holding a large kitchen or butcher knife had left his residence and was threatening people; less‑lethal munitions (40mm) were deployed without apparent effect and, within minutes, Officers Zavala and Kintania each fired their service pistols. The victim was transported to a hospital and later died; the coroner recorded gunshot wounds to the torso as the cause of death.

Sber told commissioners the division concluded that at the time deadly force was used the victim was contained and posed primarily a risk to himself; the division said officers had distance and cover and that less‑lethal options had not been exhausted, and therefore the use of deadly force did not meet the statutory threshold in California Penal Code §835a. Sber recommended suspension or revocation of the officers'POST certificates, citing Penal Code §13510.8 and Commission regulation 1205 A3.

The two officers addressed the commission before the vote. Officer Jose Zavala said he had arrived prepared to arrest what he believed had become an assault with a deadly weapon, described repeated pleas in English and Spanish for the subject to drop the knife, and said he fired because he perceived the subject advancing with the weapon after less‑lethal attempts failed. "I acted in good faith and tried my best to deescalate the situation," Zavala said. Officer Julio Kintania gave similar testimony that he and his partner attempted deescalation and viewed the subject's movement and gestures as creating an imminent threat after the 40mm rounds proved ineffective.

Respondents'counsel highlighted the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. Felix and urged the commission to consider the totality of circumstances, including prior behavior by the subject and similarly trained officers'perceptions. Several LAPD colleagues and family members addressed the commission in support of the officers, describing long service records and urging restraint from removing certifications based on a record review rather than a full evidentiary hearing.

Commissioner Gordon moved to refer the matter to an Administrative Law Judge for a full evidentiary hearing with no discipline recommendation; the motion passed on roll call (10 in favor). A prior motion to send the case back to POST for additional materials (full videos, 911 logs and the DA report when available) failed (6 yes, 8 no). The division and counsel had advised commissioners that the ALJ process would allow development of a complete factual record and permit compelled testimony, which would not be available here.

The Los Angeles City Council has authorized up to $8 million to settle related civil litigation with the victim's family; the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office continued to review the incident and had not reached a charging decision at the time of the commission hearing.

Next steps: the record will proceed to an ALJ hearing as ordered by the commission. The ALJ proceeding will create a fuller evidentiary record and afford the parties the opportunity to present and cross‑examine witnesses under oath. The commission made no final determination on certification at this session.