Pasadena Officer Accidentally Shot by Colleague During 'Horseplay'

Officer Shot in Shoulder: Dashcam Video Exposes Department Cover-Up, Triggers Termination and Administrative Leave

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA (June 16, 2026): A Pasadena Police Department officer was accidentally shot in the shoulder by a fellow officer during what has been described as a "horseplay" incident in September 2025. The shooting came to light after dashcam video was publicly released on June 11, 2026, revealing the circumstances of the discharge. The footage identified the firing officer as Roy Alatorre, who was subsequently terminated from the department. In the wake of the video's release and the emergence of new evidence, additional Pasadena Police Department officers were placed on administrative leave. The incident is under internal review by the Pasadena Police Department, and the release of the dashcam footage has raised significant questions about how the matter was initially handled by the agency.

Liability for Los Angeles Accidental Officer-Involved Shootings

When a law enforcement officer is injured due to the reckless or negligent conduct of a fellow officer, the legal landscape involves both state and federal frameworks. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights), individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated under color of law may seek redress in federal court. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable seizures, a standard directly implicated when a firearm is discharged without lawful justification. California Penal Code § 835a (Use of Force by Peace Officers) establishes the standards governing when and how officers may use force, requiring that any application of force be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, the California Civil Code § 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act) provides a state-level cause of action when a person's civil rights are interfered with by threat, intimidation, or coercion. Liability in this matter may extend not only to Officer Roy Alatorre individually but also to the City of Pasadena and supervisory personnel who may have known of prior unsafe conduct and failed to act.

  • Failure to De-escalate: Officers may not have used required de-escalation techniques before the firearm was discharged in a non-tactical, informal setting.
  • Excessive Force: The discharge of a firearm during a "horseplay" scenario represents a use of force wholly disproportionate to any perceived threat or legitimate law enforcement purpose.
  • Lack of Warning: Officers may not have given adequate warning before the firearm was handled in an unsafe or reckless manner.
  • Mental Health Crisis: Persons in mental distress require specialized response, and departments must ensure officers demonstrating erratic or reckless behavior receive appropriate intervention.

Under the objective reasonableness standard established by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, any use of force must be evaluated based on what a reasonable officer would have done under the same circumstances. The casual discharge of a firearm during off-duty or non-tactical "horseplay" would almost certainly fail that standard. The injured officer and their family may be entitled to pursue damages including medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and, where appropriate, punitive damages against the individual officer whose reckless conduct caused the injury.

Steps to Take After a Los Angeles Accidental Officer-Involved Shooting

According to the California Department of Justice's OpenJustice data portal, law enforcement agencies across California are required to report all officer-involved shootings to the state, yet internal accountability mechanisms frequently lag behind public disclosure, underscoring the importance of independent legal action when injuries occur.

  • Request body camera footage and dashcam video through a California Public Records Act request.
  • Seek the involved officer's use-of-force history and prior complaint records.
  • Request the incident report and any internal affairs investigation documents related to the September 2025 shooting and its aftermath.
  • File a government tort claim within 6 months of the incident.
  • Consult a civil rights attorney before making any statements to investigators or department representatives.

Statute of limitations: 2 years, California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. For claims against government entities: Government claim deadline: 6 months, California Government Code § 911.2. Given the serious nature of this incident and the involvement of multiple officers and potential institutional cover-up, it is critical to contact an attorney promptly to protect your rights and preserve all available evidence.

Investigating Los Angeles Accidental Officer-Involved Shootings

We at Carrazco Law, A.P.C. extend our deepest condolences to the officer injured in this preventable shooting and to their family. Did the Pasadena Police Department take immediate corrective action following the September 2025 shooting, or did supervisors allow the matter to go unreported until dashcam footage forced accountability? Were any of the officers now placed on administrative leave aware of the incident at the time and in a position to prevent it from being concealed?

Do you have questions about a Los Angeles accidental officer-involved shooting? Our team is here for you. Call us anytime at (800) 541-3244. Se Habla Español. Free consultation.