One of three L.A. County Sheriff’s deputies who died in a grenade blast last year was not formally trained to handle explosives, and was exposed to danger by colleagues who disobeyed department bomb protocols and treated the live munition as if it were inert, according to a legal claim 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 marked the department’s deadliest incident 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, Firearms and Explosives into what caused the blast, and two criminal investigations into the deputies’ deaths, and the disappearance of a second grenade connected to the blast.
The legal claim filed recently by widow Nancy Lemus alleges new details in the runup to the 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 Kelley-Eklund and Osborn failed to properly examine and handle the grenade. The claim argues that Lemus was relying on the expertise of his fellow deputies, and would not have expected them to bring a live grenade onto a training campus or use one for training purposes.
“Victor Lemus further would have understood that because he had not been trained, he would not be exposed to a live explosive device,” the claim argues. “The Department is a paramilitary organization that ordered Victor Lemus to the Department’s Bomb Squad but failed to provide him with minimum standards of training and exposed him to a deadly device that killed him.”
A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department confirmed the department has been served with the claim, and that the investigation to determine exactly what happened is still ongoing.
“We remain committed to thoroughly understanding the circumstances of this tragic incident and ensuring the safety of our personnel,” read a prepared statement. “The Department continues to mourn the loss of our three Arson Explosive Detail Detectives and remains 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 two decades as a deputy, but was new to the arson and explosive squad. So new in fact, that his widow claims he had yet to undergo training for the handling of explosives.
“The Department failed to send Victor Lemus to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hazardous Device School in Huntsville, Alabama, where bomb technicians working in law enforcement receive training in the proper handling of explosive devices,” the claim alleges.
Experts interviewed by the Times said that is the usual standard in such squads. Sheriff Department officials did not respond to questions regarding whether Lemus had formal training for the bomb squad.
On the day prior to the explosion, Kelley-Eklund, 41, and Osborn, 58, responded to a call from the Santa Monica Police Department, after officers found two grenades in the garage of an apartment complex in the 800 block of Bay Street. The deputies responded to the scene in personal work trucks rather than the Department’s Bomb Truck, the claim alleges.
“The personal trucks contained lower-quality equipment as compared to what would be contained on the Bomb Truck. After arriving on the scene, Osborn used an older X-ray machine to examine the explosive device. Osborn then falsely reported to the Santa Monica officers that the device was inert,” the legal claim alleges. “Osborn’s reliance on the X-ray meant he would not take the required steps to render the device safe.”
The claim alleges that Kelley-Eklund and Osborn were mandated to request members of the nearest military unit respond to Santa Monica to take possession of the grenade or “render the device safe and transport it directly to a Department facility with an explosive range for disposal.”
Instead, one of the men took the ordnance home and either left it in their truck overnight, or brought it into their house, the claim alleges.
“During the transport, the device was not secured in a safe or a Bomb Truck, thus exposing the public to potential catastrophe,” wrote attorney Greg Smith. “Each of these discrete acts — failing to use proper equipment, failing to render the device safe at the scene, failing to transport the device in a proper container, failing to take the device directly to an explosive range, and purposefully driving on public roadways with a live explosive improperly stored — violates department policy and fundamental public policies of the State of California and the United States.”
(A department spokesperson said it had no information to substantiate the claim that the grenades were taken to one of the detective’s home, and kept there overnight.)
On the next day, the grenades were taken to the training center, where such “live explosive devices are prohibited,” the claim alleges.
The deputies “then used the live explosive device as a training demonstration — the most tragic violation,” the claim reads.
The ATF is currently investigating the deadly blast and is expected to produce a lengthy report. Investigators have served warrants in Marina del Rey for a yacht and storage unit connected to a man who served in the U.S. military and worked in the movie business.
Investigators are also looking into the disappearance of the second grenade that was seized in Santa Monica. After the blast, sheriff officials said the second device was unaccounted for and missing.
In the aftermath of the explosion, Sheriff Robert Luna has called for an independent review of the department’s standards when it comes to disposing of explosive devices, and said he plans to consult the ATF on future policy and practice decisions.
The department said it has also consulted with the Los Angeles Police Department, the FBI and other agencies about updating training manuals and guidelines for similar calls.
“Some updates include further standardizing Department practices and processes to ensure organizational consistency, the introduction of new equipment and refining response protocols tailored to the nature of the call for service,” a statement read.
