One of the three LA County Sheriff’s deputies who died in a bombing last year was not formally trained to handle explosives, and was put at risk by colleagues who violated the department’s bomb policy and handled a live gun as if it were not working, according to a legal complaint filed by the deputy’s widow.
The July 18 explosion at the Biscailuz Center Training Academy killed detectives Victor Lemus, Joshua Kelley-Eklund and William Osborn, and was the department’s worst shooting in more than 150 years. It has since sparked a series of investigations into what happened that day, including an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Arms and Explosives into what caused the explosion, two criminal investigations into the deputy’s death, and the disappearance of a second bomb linked to the explosion.
A legal claim recently filed by widow Nancy Lemus claims new information before the explosion.
The lawsuit — a precursor to the lawsuit — not only accuses the department of failing to properly train Victor Lemus, but also says Kelley-Eklund and Osborn failed to properly inspect and handle the bomb. The lawsuit alleges that Lemus relied on the knowledge of his fellow deputies, and would not have expected him to bring an explosive device to the training center or use it for training purposes.
“Victor Lemus would also have understood that because he had not been trained, he would not have been found in the explosion,” the lawsuit said. “The Department is a military organization that ordered Victor Lemus to join the Department’s bomb squad but failed to provide him with a low level of training and exposed him to the machine that killed him.”
A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the department has received the complaint, and that an investigation into what happened is ongoing.
“We are committed to fully understanding the circumstances of this tragic incident and ensuring the safety of our employees,” the prepared statement read. “The Department continues to mourn the loss of our three Arson Explosive Detail detectives and is committed to supporting their colleagues and families.”
Lemus, 40, a father of three, comes from a family of Sheriff’s Department employees, including his wife, a detective, and his sister, a sergeant. He worked for two decades as a deputy, but was new to the group’s hits and fireworks. In fact, so young that his widow says he still had to be trained to handle explosives.
“The Department failed to send Victor Lemus to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hazardous Device School in Huntsville, Alabama, where law enforcement explosives experts receive training in the proper handling of explosives,” the lawsuit said.
Experts interviewed by The Times said that was the standard for squads like this. Sheriff’s Department officials did not respond to questions about whether Lemus had been trained as a bomb squad.
The day before the explosion, Kelley-Eklund, 41, and Osborn, 58, responded to a call from the Santa Monica Police Department, after officers found two bombs in the garage of an apartment in the 800 block of Bay Street. Deputies responded to the scene in work trucks rather than the department’s Bomb Truck, the lawsuit states.
“The man’s trucks contained equipment of inferior quality compared to what would have been contained in the Bomb Truck. After arriving at the scene, Osborn used an old X-ray machine to examine the explosive device. Osborn then falsely reported to the Santa Monica Police that the device was not working,” the legal complaint continued. “Osborn’s reliance on X-rays meant he could not take the necessary steps to make the device safe.”
The lawsuit alleges that Kelley-Eklund and Osborn were authorized to request members of the nearest military unit responding to Santa Monica to retrieve the bomb or “safely deliver the device and transport it directly to the Department’s explosives facility for disposal.”
Instead, one of the men took the law home and left it in their truck overnight, or brought it into their house, the lawsuit said.
“During transportation, this device was not secured in a safe place or in a bomb truck, thus putting the public at risk,” wrote attorney Greg Smith. “Each of these separate actions — failure to use proper equipment, failure to make the device safe at the scene, failure to transport the device in a proper container, failure to take the device directly to the fireworks site, and intentionally driving on public roads with an improperly stored live firecracker — violates department policy and important public policies of the State of California and the United States.”
(The spokesman of the department said that he has no information to confirm the allegations that the bombs were taken to another house of the detective, where they were kept overnight.)
The next day, the bombs were taken to a training center, where “live fireworks are not allowed,” the lawsuit said.
Deputies “then used a live firecracker as a training demonstration — a particularly egregious violation,” the lawsuit reads.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Arms and Explosives is currently investigating this incident that killed many people and is expected to release a long report. Investigators served warrants in Marina del Rey on a yacht and warehouse linked to a man who served in the US military and was in the movie business.
Investigators are also looking into the disappearance of a second bomb found in Santa Monica. After the explosion, sheriff’s officials said the second device was unidentified and missing.
After the explosion, Sheriff Robert Luna called for an independent review of the department’s standards when it comes to the disposal of explosives, saying he plans to consult with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives about future policy decisions and procedures.
The department said it has also consulted with the Los Angeles Police Department, the FBI and other agencies about revising training manuals and guidelines for similar calls.
“Other revisions include further aligning the Department’s processes and procedures to ensure organizational consistency, introducing new equipment and adjusting response procedures to suit the nature of calls for service,” the statement read.
