DA Hoovler Issues Statement on Police Shooting Investigation

May 23, 2017

District Attorney Hoovler Issues Statement on Police Shooting Investigation

Investigation Being Conducted by District Attorney’s Office
Assisted by the New York State Police

Portion of Police Vest Video Released

Incident will also be investigated by Orange County Grand Jury

Orange County District Attorney David M. Hoovler announced today that the incident which occurred on May 16, 2017, which resulted in Town of Montgomery Police Chief Arnold Amthor being shot, and Anthony Bostick, 28, of Maybrook, dying of an apparent gunshot wound, will be investigated by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, with the assistance of the New York State Police. The investigation began pursuant to Orange County’s Officer-Involved Deadly-Force Encounter which was instituted in March 2015. That protocol, which was established by the District Attorney, together with the unanimous vote of the Police Chiefs’ Association of Orange County, and the New York State Police, established a County-wide protocol for the investigation of incidents that involve police officers’ use of deadly force against citizens. Pursuant to that protocol the District Attorney’s Office will lead the investigation, with investigative support and forensic investigation provided by the State Police. The District Attorney’s Office notified the New York State Attorney General’s Office of the incident on the date that it occurred. Since it is apparent that Mr. Bostick was armed with an operable pistol at the time that police officers fired their weapons the incident does not fall within the Executive Order appointing the Attorney General as a special prosecutor.

So far the investigation has revealed that on May 16, 2017, at approximately 9:30 am, police officers from the both the Town of Montgomery and Village of Maybrook Police Departments responded to third floor apartment of 812 Abbey Avenue, in the Village of Maybrook, the residence of Anthony Bostick. Mr. Bostick was wanted on misdemeanor charges related a domestic incident that had been reported by his girlfriend earlier that morning. The girlfriend had also reported that Mr. Bostick may have been entertaining suicidal thoughts. When officers knocked on the door, Mr. Bostick refused to open the door, or surrender to police on misdemeanor charges. Police officers continued to talk with Mr. Bostick while they obtained an arrest warrant. Even after Mr. Bostick was informed that an arrest warrant had been issued, he refused to open the door. When officers attempted to enter, they discovered that in addition to the door being locked, objects had been placed behind the door to “barricade” it. The police officer who initially entered the apartment was wearing a body-worn camera. Recordings from the camera indicate that Mr. Bostick refused repeated orders to surrender, and fired a pistol at the police, striking Chief Amthor, before one police officer returned fire. Approximately nine seconds after the last shot was fired by police, another shot is heard coming from the room that Mr. Bostick had been firing from, leading the police officers in the apartment to believe that he may have killed himself. Police retreated from the apartment until additional police resources could be brought to the scene.

To ensure public confidence in the integrity of the investigation, a portion of the body-worn camera footage is being released to the media.

The investigation into this incident is ongoing. In addition to the investigation being conducted by the District Attorney’s Office, and the New York State Police, a parallel investigation will conducted by the Orange County Grand Jury. In the event that it is determined that no charges are warranted, the finding of the Grand Jury would be sealed by operation of law. However, a report regarding the incident can be issued by the District Attorney’s Office, as long as it does not make reference to testimony or other evidence obtained from the Grand Jury.

A criminal charge is merely an allegation that a defendant has committed a violation of the criminal law, and it is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial, during which it will be the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.