Attorney General James’ Office of Special Investigation Releases Report on Death of Win Rozario  

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James’ Office of Special Investigation (OSI) today released its report on the death of Win Rozario, who died on March 27, 2024 following an encounter with members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in Queens. After a thorough investigation, which included review of footage from body-worn cameras, a ballistics report, crime scene evidence, and recordings of 911 calls and police radio dispatches, interviews with involved officers and a medical examiner, and comprehensive legal analysis, OSI concluded that a prosecutor would not be able to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officers’ actions were justified under New York law. The OSI will not be pursuing criminal charges against the officers involved in this matter.

At 1:49 p.m. on March 27, two NYPD officers responded to a house in Queens following a 911 call reporting an individual “on drugs” and acting erratically. The OSI’s investigation later found that Mr. Rozario placed the 911 call himself. Upon arrival at the house, the officers knocked on the door. A few minutes later, at 1:52 p.m., Mr. Rozario’s brother opened the door. In a brief exchange with the officers, Mr. Rozario’s brother stated that his brother was having an “episode.”

The officers proceeded upstairs to the second-floor apartment, while continuing to ask Mr. Rozario’s brother questions about Mr. Rozario, including, “Is he high on drugs?” and “Did he take anything?” When officers entered the second-floor apartment, they encountered Mr. Rozario and his mother standing in the entrance to the kitchen by the front door. The officers greeted Mr. Rozario and asked if anyone else was in the apartment.

At 1:53 p.m., Mr. Rozario walked into the kitchen, opened a drawer, and took out a pair of scissors. He then advanced toward the officers with the scissors in his hand, while his mother attempted to hold him back. As the officers backed away from Mr. Rozario and into the living room, the first officer deployed his Taser to stop Mr. Rozario from advancing further. Mr. Rozario’s mother then pushed Mr. Rozario to the floor and took the scissors from his hand. She remained standing near Mr. Rozario while holding the scissors, while officers asked her to move out of the way. Mr. Rozario’s mother put the scissors down on a kitchen chair while continuing to stand near Mr. Rozario. When one of the officers again shouted at Mr. Rozario’s mother to move out of the way, she stepped a few feet away from Mr. Rozario and said, “Don’t shoot.” The officer who had deployed his Taser earlier fired a second Taser round at Mr. Rozario.

Mr. Rozario removed one of the Taser prongs from his shoulder, picked up the scissors and continued to advance toward the first officer. As he got closer, the second officer, who was standing to Mr. Rozario’s left, discharged his service weapon, striking Mr. Rozario. Mr. Rozario’s mother and brother pushed him back into the kitchen where a brief struggle ensued as Mr. Rozario’s mother attempted to take the scissors out of his hand and Mr. Rozario’s brother tried to move his mother out of the way. Mr. Rozario’s mother and brother fell to the floor, and Mr. Rozario picked up the scissors, which he had dropped.

As the officers yelled for Mr. Rozario to “put it down,” he took one step forward toward the officers again. The second officer fired his gun a second time, again striking Mr. Rozario. When Mr. Rozario remained standing holding the scissors, the officers shouted at him again to “put it down.” After a brief pause, the first officer fired his gun, striking Mr. Rozario. After another pause, the same officer fired his gun again, striking Mr. Rozario a fourth time. Mr. Rozario remained standing holding the scissors, and after another short pause, the second officer fired his gun for the third time. In total, the officers fired five gunshots at Mr. Rozario, striking him five times. Mr. Rozario fell to the floor. The entire incident, from the time Mr. Rozario took the scissors from the kitchen drawer at 1:53 p.m. to the time he fell to the floor at 1:55 p.m., lasted a minute and a half.

The officers handcuffed Mr. Rozario while he was lying on the ground, and one officer began performing chest compressions while another called for an ambulance. Mr. Rozario was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Officers recovered a pair of scissors at the scene.

Under New York’s justification law, a police officer may use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend against the use of deadly physical force by another. Deadly physical force is force that could cause death or serious physical injury, and under the law, the use of a knife or other sharp object, such as a pair of scissors, can be considered deadly physical force. In this case, the officers fired gunshots at Mr. Rozario after he had advanced toward them and did not comply with repeated commands to drop the scissors. Therefore, the reasonableness of the officers’ fear that Mr. Rozario would come at them again with the scissors cannot be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under these circumstances, given the law and the evidence, a prosecutor would not be able to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the officers’ use of deadly physical force against Mr. Rozario was justified, and therefore OSI determined that criminal charges would not be pursued in this matter.

The OSI reviewed NYPD’s Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) and guidance for responding to encounters with, in NYPD jargon, an Emotionally Disturbed Person (EDP). The NYPD CIT materials do not provide officers with specifics on available mental health services or on protocols for calling upon those services. In this case, it was not clear that NYPD or New York City had mental health resources available for the officers to have called upon.

The OSI also reviewed New York City’s mental health assistance programs and resources, including the Behavioral Health Emergency Assistance Response Division (B-HEARD) pilot program, which dispatches teams of paramedics and mental health professionals as first responders to people experiencing a mental health emergency. B-HEARD was not available in Mr. Rozario’s precinct at the time of the incident, and OSI found that even if B-HEARD had been available, Mr. Rozario’s case would not have been eligible for a B-HEARD response team. The initial 911 call reported that Mr. Rozario was “on drugs,” and the New York City Mayor’s Office of Community Mental Health confirmed that B-HEARD will not respond when substance use is reported as a presenting problem. Additional existing New York City resources, including co-response teams and intensive mobile treatment teams, either appear to be defunct or would not have been applicable in this case.

Therefore, OSI recommends New York City expand the B-HEARD program to:

• Service all precincts and at all times of day and night;
• Include more categories of cases eligible for response, such as drug and alcohol-induced crises;
• Allow program personnel to co-respond with police officers in appropriate cases; and
• Provide a means for responding NYPD officers to request a B-HEARD co-response after officers have determined the scene is safe for mental health professionals.

Upon the recommended expansion of the B-HEARD program, OSI recommends the NYPD:

• Institute training for all officers to make clear that they can request co-response from B-HEARD;
• Teach officers what sort of information they should gather from a situation to provide to the co-responding B-HEARD team; and
• Equip officers with tools to evaluate whether a B-HEARD co-response is appropriate in a given situation, including determining the condition of the person who is the subject of the call and whether it would be safe for mental health professionals to respond.

The OSI recommends that the New York State Legislature pass, and Governor Kathy Hochul sign Daniel’s Law, which would ensure a public health-based response to anyone in New York experiencing a mental health, alcohol use, or substance use crisis. If passed and enacted, Daniel’s Law would develop a crisis response system consisting of non-police, community-run crisis first responder teams. Crisis response teams would respond when an emergency hotline receives a call reporting an individual experiencing a mental health, alcohol use, or substance use crisis. Teams would consist of non-police emergency medical technicians in addition to peers and family members.

The OSI is not involved in NYPD’s internal disciplinary process. Investigations of excessive use of force against NYPD officers are conducted by the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), an independent New York City agency. The CCRB is prosecuting a disciplinary case against the officers who fired their guns in this case.