Sheriff's deputy must stand trial for alleged death threat, judge rules
Following more than two hours of testimony, a judge ruled Tuesday that a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy must stand trial on criminal charges for allegedly holding a gun to another man's head while off duty.
Richard Heverly, 42, who works at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, must stand trial on four felony counts, ruled Judge Arjuna T. Saraydarian: assault with a semi-automatic firearm, assault by a public officer, criminal threats and false imprisonment.
All four charges carry sentencing enhancements because Heverly used a gun.
The man Heverly allegedly threatened testified for about an hour and a half Tuesday in Palm Springs Superior Court about his encounter last year with Heverly, a La Verne resident.
Roger Ross Gilstrap Jr., 33, testified that Heverly handcuffed him, drove a pistol into his head, and flashed his sheriff's deputy badge, telling Gilstrap the badge "entitles me to do whatever the (expletive) I want to do."
On Aug. 10, 2008, Gilstrap said he was working as a tow-truck driver for Blythe Freeway Towing, Inc.
While responding to a call for service, Gilstrap said he saw a smoking big-rig at about 6:15 p.m. on the shoulder of the westbound 10 Freeway about 50 miles east of Indio.
Gilstrap, of Blythe, testified that he maneuvered his truck to block the shoulder and right lane of the two-lane freeway. He testified that he was talking to a California Highway Patrol dispatcher on his cell phone about the burning big-rig.
Heverly's pickup truck was parked 10 to 15 feet to the left of Gilstrap's truck, Gilstrap testified.
As Gilstrap remained on the line with CHP and monitored the now-flaming big-rig, he said he noticed Heverly walking towards him, flashing something he couldn't see clearly and saying something he couldn't hear.
Gilstrap said Heverly, wearing a white tank-top and shorts, approached and told him to get off the phone. Gilstrap told Heverly he was on the phone with the highway patrol, Gilstrap testified.
Heverly repeated his command, sometimes using profanity, and Gilstrap repeated his response, keeping his cell phone to his ear, Gilstrap testified.
Heverly grabbed Gilstrap's shirt and tried to pull him out of the truck, but was unsuccessful, Gilstrap testified. He said Heverly went back to his truck and retrieved handcuffs and again demanded that Gilstrap leave his truck.
Either before or after Heverly retrieved the handcuffs - Gilstrap said he couldn't remember the exact sequence of events - Heverly grabbed Gilstrap's cell phone and disconnected the call.
Heverly, now holding handcuffs, again demanded that Gilstrap get off his truck. Gilstrap said he again refused, and Heverly returned to his truck and retrieved a handgun from a black bag on his dashboard.
Heverly pointed the gun at Gilstrap and again demanded that he leave the truck. This time Gilstrap complied, he testified.
Heverly grabbed Gilstrap's right arm and handcuffed his wrist, cutting Gilstrap's wrist, Gilstrap testified.
"My hand immediately went numb," he said.
He said Heverly then walked him to the back of his tow truck and brandished his handgun.
"He put his pistol in my ear and started pushing me down over my (truck) bed," Gilstrap testified.
Heverly forced Gilstrap's head onto the bed of his truck, Gilstrap testified, and twisted the barrel of the gun into Gilstrap's head.
"Do you feel that?" Heverly asked, according to Gilstrap's testimony. "I have a (expletive) gun to your head and I will kill you."
Shortly after, fire trucks approached the scene of the burning big rig, and when Heverly noticed them coming his demeanor changed, Gilstrap testified.
He walked Gilstrap back to the driver's side of the tow truck and told Gilstrap he would take the handcuffs off. He asked Gilstrap if he was going to do anything after the handcuffs were removed, Gilstrap testified.
"Not until CHP gets here," Gilstrap said he responded.
Heverly repeated his question - this time with an angrier, more aggravated tone - and Gilstrap repeated his response, Gilstrap testified.
They repeated the exchange a third time before Heverly took off the handcuffs, Gilstrap testified.
After Gilstrap left the witness stand, three California Highway Patrol officers involved in the investigation of Heverly's alleged crimes testified.
Officer Brandon Reynolds testified that he arrived at the burning-big-rig scene at about 6:30 p.m., and noticed that Gilstrap's right wrist - which Heverly handcuffed - was bleeding and swollen.
The officer said that when he recovered Heverly's gun, it had a full magazine but did not have a bullet in the chamber.
Reynolds testified that he asked Heverly why he handcuffed Gilstrap and held and gun to Gilstrap's head.
Heverly responded that he felt threatened by Gilstrap when Gilstrap turned toward him. Gilstrap was as big, if not bigger, than Heverly, Heverly said, according to Reynolds' testimony.
The other two CHP officers who testified Tuesday repeated witnesses' accounts of the events, and testified about details contained in audio recordings of Gilstrap's phone calls to CHP dispatchers.
After the hearing, Heverly and his attorney, Michael Schwartz, declined to comment. When asked to elaborate on Heverly's feelings of being threatened by Gilstrap, Schwartz responded: "You'll find out at trial."
The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Joanna Daniels, said she didn't believe Heverly's statement about Gilstrap being a threat is credible.
Heverly is set to next appear in court on March 3.
This deputy is a disgrace to his department and himself. He deserves every bit of punishment he gets. The badge doesn't entitle him to do whatever the %*#$ he wants. If anything it holds him to a high standard, if that badge means anything to him he would realize it doesn't give him the right to violate peoples rights. Listen and listen good Heverly, it's called the fishbowl effect, if you are a true deputy you would know what that means. No sympthy for you.
TOTALLY AGREE - HEVERLY SHOULD BE PUNISHED, AT THE LEAST AS AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER "PEACE OFFICERS" THAT THEY ARE HERE TO PROTECT & SERVE NOT TO BULLY AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POWER A GUN & BADGE APPARENTLY MAKES THEM FEEL THEY HAVE.
What goes around comes AROUND!You (RICHARD) know what I MEAN......Just cuz you work FOR the LAW!!!! Does NOT make you ABOVE THE LAW. NOW, you get to see what life is like on the other side of the BARS in the jail that you work at.YOU had no right to interfere with what the tow truck driver was doing...IF ALL of the other drivers on the highway that nite in their big rigs/motorcycles/RVs/and SUVs had no problem with the situation at hand WHY DID YOU.....PUNK ! Its pretty bad when your FELLOW law enforcment BUDDYS dont even have your back
I've lived in SB County since 1978 and it's cowboy county. The attitude of many of the law enforcement here is they may do whatever they want. Not really shocking, but not forgivable either. I hope he goes to jail.
Its understandable that Heverly had some type of do something attitude when he confronted Gilstrap. This author artical has not provided the reader with pertinent information. There are to many "what ifs" unanswered in the artical(s) pertaining to this incident.
A tow truck driven by Gilstrap was parked on a roadway. In such a manner , as to affect the flow of traffic behind the tow truck. This is what we have been told so far.
Where is the information pertaining to the semi-truck and its occupants, their safty and wherabouts. When this incident took place? Did Gilstap make contact with the troubled trucks driver? Prior to blocking traffic behind a burning vehicle. Its unmentioned anywhere what condition the driver was in at the time.
Consider this; Heverly a trained professional in most aspects of initial repsonse to the public's need for help. Found a situation where he felt he was being hindered from having access to the potential victim. The driver of the semi truck. If Gilstap had any clue he would have welcomed Heverlys assistance with the possible extingushing of the fire, and or the safety of the initial persons involved.
This artical is not thourough. Nor is it complete, it could be considered bias and pretentious at best. Therefore, leaving a curious reader not enough facts to be truly informed.