One of three L.A. County sheriff’s deputies killed in a grenade explosion last year was not formally trained to handle explosives, and was accused by colleagues of disobeying the department’s bomb protocols and treating live ammunition as if it were inert, according to a legal claim filed by the deputy’s widow.
The July 18 explosion at the Biscaluz Center Training Academy killed Detectives Victor Lemus, Joshua Kelly-Eklund and William Osborn and was the department’s deadliest incident in more than 150 years. A series of investigations have since begun into what happened that day, including an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the cause of the explosion, and two criminal investigations into the deputy’s death, and the disappearance of a second grenade linked to the explosion.
A recently filed legal claim by widow Nancy Lemus alleges new details of what happened before the explosion.
The claim – a precursor to a lawsuit – not only accuses the department of failing to properly train Victor Lemus, but also alleges that Kelly-Eklund and Osborn failed to properly inspect and handle the grenade. The claim argues that Lemus was relying on the expertise of his fellow deputies, and was not expected to bring a live grenade to the training complex or use it for training purposes.
“Victor Lemus may have further understood that because he was not trained, he would not be exposed to a live explosive device,” the claim argues. “The department is a paramilitary organization that gave Victor Lemus command of the department’s bomb squad, but failed to provide him with the minimum standards of training and exposed him to a lethal device that resulted in his death.”
A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that a claim has been forwarded to the department, and the investigation is still ongoing to determine exactly what happened.
“We are committed to fully understanding the circumstances of this tragic incident and ensuring the safety of our personnel,” it said in a prepared statement. “The department continues to mourn the loss of our three arson explosives detail detectives and is committed to supporting their colleagues and families.”
Lemus, a 40-year-old father of three, comes from a family of Sheriff’s Department employees, including his wife, a detective, and his sisters, who are sergeants. He had worked as a deputy for two decades, but was new to the arson and explosives squad. So new, in fact, that his widow claims he still had to undergo training in handling explosives.
The claim alleges, “The Department failed to send Victor Lemus to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hazardous Devices School in Huntsville, Alabama, where bomb technicians working in law enforcement receive training in the proper handling of explosive devices.”
Experts interviewed by the Times said this is common standard in such squads. Sheriff’s Department officials did not answer questions about whether Lemus had received formal training for the bomb squad.
The day before the explosion, Kelly-Eklund, 41, and Osborn, 58, responded to a call from the Santa Monica Police Department when officers found two grenades in the garage of an apartment complex in the 800 block of Bay Street. The claim alleges that deputies responded to the scene in personal work trucks rather than the department’s bomb trucks.
The legal claim alleges, “The private trucks contained equipment of lesser quality than the bomb trucks. After arriving at the scene, Osborn used an old X-ray machine to examine the explosive device. Osborn then falsely reported to Santa Monica authorities that the device was inert.” “Osborne’s reliance on X-rays means he will not take the necessary steps to make the device safe.”
The claim alleges that Kelly-Eklund and Osborn were forced to request members of the nearest military unit responding to Santa Monica to take possession of the grenade or to “render the device safe and transport it directly to the department’s facility with explosives range for disposal.”
Instead, one of the men took the ordnance home and either left it in his truck overnight, or brought it to his home, the claim alleges.
“During transportation, the device was not secured in a safe or in a bomb truck, exposing the public to a potential disaster,” attorney Greg Smith wrote. “Each of these discrete actions – failing to use the proper device, failing to present the device safely at the scene, failing to transport the device in a proper container, failing to take the device directly to explosive range, and knowingly driving on public roads with improperly stored live explosives – violates Department policy and the fundamental public policies of the State of California and the United States.”
(A department spokesman said he had no information to corroborate the claim that the grenades were taken to a detective’s home and left there overnight.)
The next day, the grenades were taken to the training center, where such “live explosive devices are prohibited”, the claim alleges.
“Deputies then used a live explosive device as a training demonstration – a most tragic violation,” the claim says.
The ATF is currently investigating the deadly explosion and is expected to submit a lengthy report. Investigators have issued a warrant for a yacht and storage unit in Marina del Rey linked to a man who served in the U.S. military and worked in the film business.
Investigators are also looking into the disappearance of a second grenade seized in Santa Monica. After the explosion, sheriff’s officials said the second device was unidentified and missing.
Following the explosion, Sheriff Robert Luna has called for an independent review of the department’s standards when it comes to disposal of explosive devices, and has said he plans to consult with ATF on future policy and practice decisions.
The department said it also consulted with the Los Angeles Police Department, the FBI and other agencies about updating training manuals and guidelines for similar calls.
“Some of the updates include further standardizing the department’s practices and procedures to ensure organizational consistency, the introduction of new equipment, and refining response protocols to suit the nature of calls for service,” it said in a statement.
