Lawsuit claims Paso Robles police could have stopped 2020 shootings, but city can’t be sued
An investigative report from the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office apparently “confirms” Paso Robles police officers failed to engage with an active shooter in June 2020 hours before he shot a sheriff’s deputy and killed a homeless man, a lawsuit motion alleges, but a San Luis Obispo Superior Court judge ruled the city cannot be sued.
Before sparking a two-day manhunt around the city and into the Salinas Riverbed on June 10, 2020, Mason Lira shot then-San Luis Obispo County sheriff’s Deputy Nicholas Dreyfus in the face and then shot and killed Paso Robles resident James Watson. Dreyfus survived, but Watson succumbed to his injuries.
Lira, who had a long history of mental illness, then fled into the riverbed and spent the next 36 hours repeatedly firing on law enforcement before hiding again until he was eventually cornered and killed in a shootout.
Lira stole the gun used in the shootings from the office of local lawyer Robert Bettencourt, who is now being sued by Dreyfus and his wife, Tyler Dreyfus, along with Watson’s son, Johnny Watson.
The lawsuit alleges Bettencourt “negligently stored firearms in an unlocked and readily accessible location in his office.”
The Dreyfuses and Watson filed a motion to add the city of Paso Robles to the lawsuit, claiming the initial report from the city’s Police Department is “inaccurate,” court records show.
Officers ‘chose not to return fire’ while suspect shot at station, motion alleges
Police said Lira’s shooting spree began around 3:07 a.m. on June 10, 2020, court records say. Lira reportedly shot and killed James Watson around 4 a.m. and Dreyfus around 4:25 a.m.
But the motion alleges the Paso Robles Police Department received reports of Lira shooting a firearm at a woman in downtown Paso Robles around 12:11 a.m. — roughly three hours before what police reported.
“After approximately three hours, during which time law enforcement attempted to locate and apprehend him, Lira walked to the Paso Robles Police Station and loitered outside the building lobby, brandishing a handgun,” court documents say.
Three police officers and one police dispatcher were on duty inside the station when they observed Lira on video surveillance outside with the handgun, the motion alleges.
The four allegedly debated whether they should move to the roof, leave the station or turn off the lights before ultimately deciding to stay in the station and not engage with Lira “because they were ‘a little weary (sic)‘ that Lira was ‘armed with a gun,’” the motion alleges.
The motion further alleges Lira fired “several rounds” at the police station and officers inside “chose not to return fire,” instead instructing other police officers who were searching for Lira off-premises not to return to the station.
The officers inside the station then allegedly called other law enforcement agencies for help, including the SLO County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol and Atascadero Police Department.
The Dreyfuses and Watson believe the injury and death caused by Lira could have been prevented if Paso Robles police officers hadn’t failed to engage, the motion says.
According for the motion, the Dreyfuses and Watson did not learn about the officers’ alleged “failure to engage” until Aug. 6, 2021, when they received the investigative report from the District Attorney’s Office.
The report “allegedly confirms that the officers inside the City’s Police Department were aware that Lira was a suspect in a shooting earlier that morning in downtown Paso Robles, chose not to engage with Lira when he was present at the police station around later that morning, thus allowing and permitting Lira to fatally shoot James Watson and wound Nicholas.”
Motion to sue city is ‘arguably moot,’ judge says
The Dreyfuses and Watson filed two claims against the city of Paso Robles, first in February 2022 and again in March, alleging negligence and premises liability, court documents show. Both claims were rejected by the city, who said the claims were filed too late.
Under California Law, a claim against a public entity must be presented to the public entity first, then filed in court within six months of the date of the event that led to legal action. If the person filing a claim fails to do so on time, they can apply to the public entity for “leave to present a late claim,” which would let them filed the claim late, within a year after the event.
Both the Dreyfuses and Watson submitted separate applications to file a late claim, but the city rejected both on April 5.
The parties then filed a motion with the courts for relief from government claim-filing requirements, asking the judge to allow them to name the city as a defendant despite filing requirements.
The question at hand is which event led to the legal action, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Ginger Garrett wrote in her analysis.
The Dreyfuses and Watson argued the event that led to their legal action was on Aug. 6, 2021, when they received the investigative report from the DA’s Office, which would mean their filings were timely. If the event that led to legal action was the day of the shooting — June 10, 2020 — their filing would be considered late.
Garrett ruled the motion was “arguably moot,” because the Dreyfuses and Watson were not asking for the judge to excuse a late filing, but rather to make a factual determination of when the event that led to legal action occurred.
“A motion for relief ... is not the appropriate vehicle by which the Court can make such a factual determination,” the ruling said.
The law the motion was filed under is meant to provide relief when someone is in default and is not designed to resolve compliance with claim-filing requirements, the judge said.
Garrett ultimately denied the motion on Jan. 26, and the city was not added to the lawsuit.
This story was originally published February 8, 2023 at 10:00 AM.
