Officers in Victor Perez Shooting will not face criminal charges, Pocatello Mayor responds
Linda Larsen
UPDATED: SEP 3, 2025 1:45 PM
POCATELLO, Idaho (KIFI) — Following an investigation by the Eastern Idaho Critical Incident Task Force, the Idaho Attorney General’s Office has determined that the four officers involved in the fatal shooting of Victor Perez, an autistic teenager with cerebral palsy, will not face criminal charges.
Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced the determination on September 3, 2025. In a twist of bitter irony, the date also marks what would have been Victor’s 18th birthday, according to his digital obituary.
Pocatello Mayor Brian Blad released a statement in response to the determination by the Idaho AG’s Office, acknowledging the decision and the city’s cooperation with the investigation. He stressed that the determination “does not lessen the pain of losing Victor” and the ongoing pain felt throughout the community.
“My heart goes out to the Perez family over the loss of Victor,” said Mayor Blad. “This incident has been difficult for our entire community. We recognize the weight of this moment for everyone affected, and we will continue to stand together in challenging times.”
The investigation was led by the Bannock County Sheriff’s Office, a neighboring agency to the Pocatello Police Department. In a statement, Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office stated that it could not prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the officers committed a crime and found that their use of force was justified under Idaho law.
These findings are detailed in a 12-page letter sent to Bannock County Prosecuting Attorney Ian Johnson. The letter, penned by Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye, acknowledges the “tragedy” of Victor Perez’s death and the public outrage sparked by videos of the shooting. However, Nye emphasizes that the Attorney General’s Office is legally bound to consider only the facts “known or reasonably believed by the officers at the time of the shooting.”
“None of the four shooting officers were aware of Perez’s age or his disabilities at the time of the shooting,” Nye wrote. “The officer’s knowledge was limited to what dispatch reported, and dispatch’s knowledge was limited to what the 911 caller reported.”
According to the letter, the Attorney General’s office hired a use-of-force expert to review the case. The expert’s opinion, cited in the letter, was that “any reasonable officer in these officers’ position… would have viewed the unknown male as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
Nye concluded by reiterating the decision: “While the circumstances of this case are tragic, the Idaho Office of the Attorney General will not file criminal charges.”
Background
RELATED: Victor Perez Shooting Timeline
On April 5th, 2025, 17-year-old Victor Perez was shot 12 times by 4 Pocatello Police Officers, seconds after they arrived on the scene of his family barbecue. It was previously reported that Perez had been shot nine times.
Victor had been known to have violent outbursts before, due to his condition. In his letter, Nye outlines how the family had “tried to keep him away from knives for his protection and the protection of those around him.” However, on April 5, 2025, “he managed to gain access to a large kitchen knife with a 9-inch blade.”
Victor Perez was captured on security camera video chasing his grandfather and attempting to hit him with a knife. The video shows the grandfather striking Victor multiple times over the fence separating them.
Neighbors had initially called 911, believing that Perez was in a drunken altercation with his family members. The incident continued for 13 minutes, escalating and pausing as the family tried to get the knife away from the 17-year-old. Nye’s letter outlines the “relevant information” officers had available to them as they arrived on the scene.
Four officers arrive on the scene, seeing Victor with the knife. Nye writes that as the officers approached the fence, Victor’s grandfather, standing outside the fence, told the officers, “No, no, that’s OK, that’s OK. Victor’s mother and sister were standing inside the fence a few feet from the 17-year-old. While Victor’s sister did try to shout to the officers, Nye argues that the officers “focused their attention on Perez because he fit the description they’d been given of the suspect.”
The officers give Victor several verbal commands to drop the knife. Nye’s letter describes the moments leading to the shooting in detail as captured by body camera footage and social media.
“…Perez looked at the officers from his position lying on the ground. He got up on his knees, lifted the knife in his left hand above his head, and pointed the blade toward the sky. He fell forward and caught himself using his hands. With his hands on the ground in front of him, he put his feet on the ground behind him. He stood up and took a step toward the officers. As he stepped, he put both hands on the knife in front of his body with the blade pointed up and toward the officers,” states Nye.
As the 17-year-old moved towards the officers, all four opened fire. According to the report, the officers fired fourteen bullets and a beanbag. In total, Perez’s autopsy report described twelve gunshot wounds.
“Perez’s failure to obey commands to drop the knife and instead to move toward the officers holding the knife appeared to the officers to mean Perez intended to do them harm,” concludes Nye.
Further Questions
A Local News 8 investigation later uncovered that not only had the Pocatello Police Department been called to the Perez home multiple times to intervene in the 17-year-old’s outbursts before the April 5th shooting. Those police reports indicate that several members of the Pocatello Police Department were aware of Victor’s disabilities after responding to the home. However, in answer to this information, Nye clarifies that “none of them were present at the time of the shooting in this case.” The Pocatello Police Department also does not flag residences for mental health issues.
Nye’s letter outlines several other questions pertaining to the case. Local News 8 has included the full text below.
How could Perez pose a threat given his disabilities?
One of the reasons Perez’s death is so tragic is that, in reality, he likely did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers due to his disabilities. Under Idaho law, however, whether the officers’ use of force was justified depends on what the officers knew at the time. See I.C. § 19-202A(2). None of the officers who discharged their weapons were familiar with Perez or his disabilities.
How do you know the officers did not know about Perez’s disabilities?
We knew we had to address this question before making a charging decision because it would alter the legal analysis. The task force’s investigation revealed that officers from the Pocatello Police Department had previously responded to Perez’s home, but none of them were present at the time of the shooting in this case. Following the task force’s investigation, our office’s investigators conducted follow-up interviews with the officers who had previously responded to Perez’s home. These officers confirmed that they had not communicated any information about Perez to the officers who discharged their weapons in this matter. Our investigators were unable to find any evidence indicating that any of the officers who discharged their weapons on April 5 had previously responded to Perez’s house or had learned about Perez or his disabilities before the critical incident on April 5.
Why didn’t the officers look up the address of the disturbance to see if the house was flagged for mental health issues?
None of the responding officers were given an address for the disturbance prior to arriving at the scene. Dispatch was working off the information provided by the 911 caller and informed the officers only that it was “behind 702 N. Main.” Perez’s residence was on North Harrison. In addition, our investigators learned during the follow-up investigation that the Pocatello Police Department does not flag residences for mental health issues. Perez’s residence was therefore not flagged for mental health issues prior to the April 5 critical incident even though the agency had responded to calls involving Perez and his mental health issues prior to April 5.
How does the dispatcher’s report that the family did not speak English affect the analysis?
All four officers were in full uniform in broad daylight, pointing their guns at the individual with a knife, and yelling commands. The individual’s response was to stand holding the knife and then to move toward the officers. The officers could reasonably infer from those facts that even if this person did not understand the commands, he had no intention of cooperating with the officers and meant to do them harm, especially given that the officers were not familiar with Perez or his disabilities.
How does the grandpa’s calm demeanor and statement “it’s OK” affect the analysis?
The officers’ bodycam videos suggest that both the grandpa and the sister were trying to deter the officers when they first arrived and while Perez was lying on the ground. As one of the officers acknowledged in his interview, Perez did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or others while he was lying on the ground. It was not until Perez refused commands to drop the knife, stood up, and started to approach the officers with the knife that they could reasonably believe he posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Even if the officers saw and heard the grandpa and the sister when they first arrived, their focus understandably shifted to the man with the knife who they were told had been trying to stab people and who was refusing commands and moving toward the officers.
Couldn’t the officers have stepped back from the fence to try to give themselves more time before shooting?
Yes, the officers could have stepped back from the fence. However, the officers were not required to do so under Idaho law. See I.C. § 19-202A(3). Idaho law does not impose on any person a duty to retreat from a place he has a right to be before using deadly force.
Couldn’t the officers have kept their distance from the fence in the first place?
Yes, there were a wide variety of tactical decisions the officers could have made when they arrived at the scene. In fact, our use of force expert opined that the officers made a suboptimal tactical decision by closing the distance to the fence. But he could not say their tactical decision fell outside of what any reasonable officer might do in the situation. More importantly, Idaho law does not require an officer or anyone else to make a sound tactical decision before standing his ground: “a person need not retreat from any place that person has a right to be.” I.C. § 19-202A(3). Regardless of the quality of the officers’ tactical decisions, there is no reasonable argument that the officers did not have a right to stand on the outside of the fence surrounding the backyard when responding to a disturbance involving a male with a knife attempting to stab others.
Weren’t the number of shots fired by the officers excessive?
An officer’s use of force is generally reviewed by each “round” or “volley” of shots fired. Additional shots would only be reevaluated if there were a change in circumstances that would affect the use of force analysis. Officers typically fire more than one shot in the initial volley because, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.” Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 777 (2014). Here, all four officers fired a single volley of shots that started and ended in less than two seconds. The number of shots fired is due, in part, to the fact that four officers were present and all four officers fired their weapons. But the same use of force analysis applies to each officer individually with respect to self-defense or defense of another.
Couldn’t the officers have used a taser or the less lethal shotgun prior to firing their handguns?
Each officer was equipped with a Taser, and one also carried a less-lethal shotgun at the time of the shooting. However, officers in Idaho are not legally required to attempt lesslethal methods before using deadly force. The relevant question is whether the use of deadly force was justified. Additionally, officers in Idaho and elsewhere are trained to respond to lethal threats with lethal force.
Does this mean the officers are “cleared” in the shooting of Victor Perez?
The Office of the Attorney General’s role in this matter is limited to reviewing the investigation for potential criminal charges against the officers. We have concluded only that the State would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was not justified. Our decision means the officers will not face criminal charges under Idaho law. In addition to the criminal investigation, the Pocatello Police Department conducted an administrative investigation to determine whether the officers complied with department policy and what, if any, employment consequences there should be for their actions. Our understanding is that there is also ongoing civil litigation over this critical incident. It would not be appropriate for us to express an opinion—and this letter does not express an opinion—on any of those topics.
What Happens Now?
While the officers have been cleared of criminal charges, the Attorney General’s Office does not have jurisdiction over “civil liability, employment discipline, or compliance with department policies.” These matters remain separate from the criminal investigation.
In June, attorneys with Burris Nisenbaum Curry & Lacy filed an expanded civil lawsuit not only for the life of Victor Perez, but also a civil suit for the endangerment of the lives of two members of the family, Victor’s sister and mother, who were standing nearby at the time he was shot.
“We are disappointed. However, we are not surprised,” James Cook of Burris Nisenbaum Curry & Lacy said in response to the decision by the Attorney General’s office. “We spoke to the family about it, and we’d already warned them that this was most likely the way that it was going to happen. And it just means that we have a long road of litigation ahead of us.”
The family has been advised not to speak with the media due to ongoing litigation. The law office has not received the full investigative report yet, only a letter released today.
The team was waiting for the AG’s review before updating the complaint and pushing forward with their civil litigation. An updated complaint is expected in about six weeks, with a press conference planned.
RELATED: FULL COVERAGE Pocatello Police Shooting
The entire letter from the Idaho Office of the Attorney General has been included below: