FROM A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT TO A FATAL ARMED-SUSPECT RESPONSE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT TO A FATAL ARMED-SUSPECT RESPONSE

Faces of Success Radio and Nevada Justice Coalition, With Reno/Sparks NAACP Board Media Representation, Call for a Full, Independent and Transparent Investigation Into the Death of 22-Year-Old Anthony Porter
Written by Pearl J.

The family of 22-year-old Anthony Porter continues to seek answers following his death after a rollover crash on Interstate 80 near Mogul and a subsequent encounter with Reno police officers that ended with multiple officers opening fire.

Anthony’s parents personally requested assistance from representatives associated with the Nevada Justice Coalition and Reno/Sparks NAACP. Representatives accompanied the family to a meeting with the Sparks Police Department to hear information concerning the investigation and ask questions about what occurred.

Pearl J., representing Faces of Success Radio and the Nevada Justice Coalition and serving in a Reno/Sparks NAACP board media capacity, has reviewed and documented information provided during that meeting as well as the Reno Police Department’s subsequent public presentation containing selected portions of body-worn camera footage.

Formal Reno/Sparks NAACP co-sponsorship or organizational issuer status for this release should not be inferred unless separately authorized.

This release does not assert that any officer committed a crime. It does, however, maintain that the circumstances surrounding Anthony Porter’s death require careful independent examination and that statements made by law enforcement must be tested against the complete evidence.

THE INCIDENT BEGAN WITH A ROLLOVER CRASH
According to information provided during the recorded Sparks Police meeting, the incident began at approximately 11:30 p.m. on August 23, 2026, when Anthony’s vehicle rolled over on Interstate 80.

Sparks Police relayed information from a civilian witness who reportedly estimated that Anthony’s vehicle had been traveling approximately 85 mph before the crash. That speed estimate is a witness account relayed by police and should not be treated as an independently established speed unless confirmed by physical or electronic evidence.

In its subsequent public presentation, Reno Police Chief Corey Solferino stated that at approximately 11:32 p.m., a Reno police sergeant traveling westbound observed the overturned vehicle in the eastbound lanes.

According to Reno Police, the sergeant immediately notified dispatch and requested medical assistance, turned around, and went to check on the occupant.

This is important: emergency medical assistance was requested at the beginning of the encounter. The unresolved medical question is therefore not whether REMSA was called, but whether Anthony—who had just been involved in a rollover crash—received or could have received a medical assessment for possible crash-related injuries before the encounter escalated into an armed-suspect response.

FROM CRASH VICTIM TO ARMED-SUSPECT RESPONSE
During the recorded Sparks Police meeting, investigators said Anthony appeared to be in what was described as a “zombie-like” state following the rollover.

Police said Anthony then announced words to the effect of:

“Officer, officer, I have a gun.”

Reno Police’s public presentation describes the arriving sergeant as encountering “an adult male armed with a handgun.”

Those descriptions should be distinguished carefully. The complete original footage and other evidence should establish precisely what the sergeant saw, what Anthony said, when the firearm became visible, and how Anthony was behaving at that point.

During the Sparks Police meeting, a representative acknowledged that merely stating that one possesses a firearm does not automatically establish an immediate threat. The representative stated:

“We deal with people with guns all the time.”

The central issue is therefore not simply whether Anthony possessed a firearm. The critical question is what Anthony did with it and when officers reasonably perceived an immediate threat requiring deadly force.

THE HAWK FIRE BROUGHT AN UNUSUAL NUMBER OF OFFICERS TO THE AREA
Both accounts indicate that the ongoing Hawk Fire emergency contributed to the unusually large police presence in the area.

Reno Police stated that several officers were nearby assisting with Hawk Fire patrols and began responding, with officers arriving within approximately four minutes of the initial call.

Sparks Police similarly explained during the family meeting that the Hawk Fire had resulted in additional officers being deployed in affected and evacuated areas.

Ultimately, Sparks Police stated that 16 officers fired their weapons during the encounter.

When asked whether that number of officers firing was unusual, the representative acknowledged that it was.

NEGOTIATION AND ATTEMPTS AT DE-ESCALATION
The Reno Police public release contains substantial audio of officers attempting to persuade Anthony to put down the weapon.

Officers can be heard telling him:

“I’m here to help you. Put the gun down.”

They repeatedly tell Anthony that they do not want to hurt him and want a peaceful resolution.

A negotiator tells him that whatever he is experiencing can be worked through and attempts to persuade him that he still has choices.

Those efforts should be acknowledged.

At the same time, the released audio establishes that communication conditions were difficult.

At one point an officer says:

“It’s really hard to hear you over the road noise.”

Officers are also heard asking:

“What’s he saying?”

Later, shortly before the shooting, an officer says:

“I can’t hear him anymore.”

These statements raise legitimate questions about how effectively Anthony and officers could communicate during the critical minutes preceding the shooting.

13 MINUTES OR APPROXIMATELY 16 MINUTES?
During the Sparks Police meeting, investigators described approximately 13 minutes between the reported firearm disclosure at roughly 11:35 p.m. and the shooting at approximately 11:48 p.m.

Reno Police’s public presentation states that the shooting occurred approximately 16 minutes after the initial call for assistance.

These figures are not necessarily contradictory because the departments appear to be using different starting points.

The original dispatch records, body-camera metadata and synchronized timecodes should establish an exact second-by-second timeline.

ANTHONY WALKED FARTHER AWAY DURING PART OF THE ENCOUNTER
During the recorded Sparks Police meeting, a police representative stated:

“He did walk away for a while.”

The representative also said Anthony “did walk further away” and stated:

“His back was facing them after he said, ‘I have a gun.’”

Those statements do not establish that Anthony was walking away or had his back turned at the moment officers fired.

Police maintain that immediately before the shooting Anthony subsequently turned toward officers and raised or pointed the firearm.

That claimed transition—from Anthony having his back toward officers during an earlier portion of the encounter to allegedly presenting an immediate deadly threat—is one of the most important portions of the evidence requiring independent review.

SCENIC PULL-OFF AND OCCUPIED VEHICLES
Reno Police stated that Anthony moved toward a scenic pull-off area containing occupied vehicles.

If civilians were present, their safety was unquestionably important.

But the complete evidence should establish exactly where Anthony was positioned in relation to those civilians, how many occupied vehicles were present, whether Anthony approached or threatened any occupant, whether he pointed the firearm toward civilians, and what efforts were made to move or protect those individuals.

THE CRITICAL QUESTION: WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OFFICERS FIRED?
Reno Police states:

“Approximately 16 minutes after the initial call for assistance, the suspect raised the firearm towards our officers, which resulted in the officer-involved shooting.”

Similarly, during the Sparks Police meeting, a representative was specifically asked whether Anthony was fired upon only after allegedly leveling the firearm toward officers.

The response was:

“Correct.”

That makes the alleged raising or pointing of the firearm the critical event in law enforcement’s stated justification for deadly force.

The complete, original evidence should therefore be examined to determine precisely:

when Anthony allegedly raised the firearm;
which officers actually observed that movement;
which body-worn cameras captured it;
whether the firearm and its orientation can be clearly identified in the original footage;
Anthony’s distance from the officers;
the officers’ positions and lines of sight;
whether visual enhancements, arrows, zooming or other annotations were added to publicly released footage;
and whether the original, unenhanced footage depicts the same movement characterized in the police narration.
“CAN YOU SEE THE GUN?”
The released Reno Police audio contains another important exchange.

An officer can be heard asking:

“Can you see the gun?”

Another officer responds that Anthony “still has it in his right hand.”

This exchange should not be taken out of context to prove either that officers could or could not see a firearm.

Instead, it reinforces why the original footage, officer positions, distance, lighting, visibility and individual lines of sight matter.

Sparks Police previously described the distance as approximately 60 to 80 yards.

At that distance, investigators should establish what each officer could actually observe and what information was being communicated among officers.

“HE’S KIND OF BENDING OVER A LITTLE BIT”
Immediately before the shooting sequence in the released material, an officer can be heard saying:

“He’s kind of bending over a little bit.”

Because Reno Police separately characterizes Anthony’s decisive action as raising a firearm toward officers, the seconds between this observation and the first gunshots deserve especially close examination.

The public deserves to know what movement occurred, how it was perceived, and which cameras captured it.

DID ANTHONY’S FIREARM ACTUALLY DISCHARGE?
This remains an important unresolved forensic question.

During the Sparks Police meeting, a representative stated:

“We do have an officer that says that Anthony fired, but from what we’re looking at, the gun was malfunctioning. So we don’t know the answer yet.”

The representative said the firearm would be test-fired through the Washoe County laboratory and stated there were “definite issues with that gun.”

Police also indicated that the firearm was not empty but was not fully loaded.

Reno Police’s public presentation states that a handgun was recovered at the scene.

Recovery of a firearm, however, is separate from the forensic question of whether Anthony actually discharged it during the encounter.

That question should be answered by laboratory examination, cartridge and casing evidence, firearm-function testing, body-camera audio/video and other physical evidence—not assumption.

APPROXIMATELY 90 POLICE ROUNDS
During the Sparks Police meeting, the representative stated that 16 officers fired.

Asked about the number of shots, the representative said:

“I don’t have exact number, but close to 90.”

When asked whether all 16 officers began firing at once, the representative answered:

“Yes.”

These statements make a comprehensive firearms reconstruction essential.

Investigators should determine the precise number of rounds fired, the number fired by each officer, the timing and duration of the volley or volleys, the direction and trajectory of each recoverable round, and whether officers continued firing after Anthony ceased presenting the threat they perceived.

ANTHONY WAS REPORTEDLY STRUCK 11 TIMES
During the Sparks Police meeting, the representative stated that Anthony was struck 11 times, including wounds to the torso and peripheral areas such as the arms or legs.

The exact wound locations and trajectories should be established through the final autopsy and forensic evidence rather than approximated from preliminary discussion.

The Washoe County Regional Medical Examiner’s Office classified Anthony Porter’s manner of death as homicideand identified multiple gunshot wounds as the cause of death.

A medical examiner’s classification of homicide means the death resulted from the actions of another person. It does not, by itself, constitute a finding that a murder occurred or that the officers’ use of force was unlawful.

MEDICAL AID AFTER THE SHOOTING
The Reno Police footage documents officers transitioning to emergency medical care after the shooting.

Officers can be heard requesting a medical kit, checking Anthony for a pulse, examining his chest, applying or requesting chest seals and discussing tourniquets. At one point an officer reports what appears to be a faint pulse.

Reno Police states Anthony was ultimately pronounced deceased at the scene.

Reno Police also reports that one officer sustained a blood exposure while providing medical assistance and was transported to Renown for evaluation.

Those lifesaving efforts should be accurately acknowledged.

LESS-LETHAL OPTIONS AND TACTICAL RESPONSE
During the Sparks Police meeting, investigators stated that conventional less-lethal options were considered ineffective because Anthony was approximately 60 to 80 yards away.

When asked whether a tactical team had been requested, the representative responded:

“They never did. Not that I’m aware of.”

The investigation should therefore establish what specialized resources were available, what was considered, what was requested and what could realistically have arrived within the timeframe of the incident.

DRONE DEPLOYMENT MUST BE CLARIFIED
There is presently insufficient clarity in the recorded Sparks Police discussion to responsibly state as fact whether a drone was or was not deployed.

The final investigative record should establish whether any law-enforcement drone was requested, deployed or available; when it arrived, if applicable; what it recorded; and whether any drone footage exists.

Any such footage should be preserved.

FREEWAY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
The timing of the Interstate 80 closure or traffic restrictions remains significant.

In Reno Police audio, an officer discusses the need to stop traffic farther back because of concern that rounds could travel toward the roadway.

The complete timeline should establish when eastbound and westbound traffic was stopped or restricted, where roadblocks were established, whether civilian vehicles remained within the scene, and how those conditions affected officers’ tactical decisions.

FIREARM PURCHASE RECORDS
During the Sparks Police meeting, investigators stated that paperwork located in Anthony’s vehicle indicated that Anthony had purchased the firearm.

The representative stated:

“It was purchased by Anthony.”

That supports police’s statement regarding purchase. Any separate determination concerning registration, lawful possession or other firearm status should be based on the applicable official records rather than assumption.

PHONES, NOTE AND ALLEGED SUICIDAL INTENT
Police reported recovering an Apple iPhone, another phone described as a Samsung, and a note that investigators characterized as a suicide note.

Police said the note contained a passcode for Anthony’s phone.

At the time of the Sparks meeting, investigators said the phone examination was not complete.

Police also said an initial view of the phone showed material concerning what happens to the soul after suicide and discussed Anthony’s grief following the reported suicide of his girlfriend.

These circumstances may be relevant to the investigation, but they should not be presented as independent proof of Anthony’s intent at the moment officers fired.

The authorship, context and significance of any note should be established through evidence.

Anthony’s family also described plans he had been making for his future, including obtaining his diploma and birth certificate and taking steps connected to military service.

Those facts deserve consideration alongside—not exclusion because of—evidence concerning emotional distress.

PROPERTY AND FAMILY QUESTIONS
Anthony’s family raised concerns during the Sparks Police meeting about law-enforcement activity around family property, vehicles and a fenced area.

The police representative did not provide complete answers during that discussion and clarified that he initially understood the family’s use of the word “search” to mean an interior search of a residence.

Accordingly, this release does not assert without documentation that officers searched the interior of the family home.

The appropriate records should establish precisely what property officers entered or examined, what vehicles were accessed, what legal authority was relied upon and what evidence was collected.

COMPLETE EVIDENCE — NOT SELECTED EXCERPTS
Reno Police expressly states at the beginning of its public presentation that it is showing “portions of body-worn camera footage.”

The department also appropriately cautions that body-worn cameras provide only one perspective and may not capture everything an officer sees, hears, perceives or experiences.

Those limitations make comprehensive review—not less review—essential.

The family and public deserve an investigation based upon the complete evidentiary record, including:

original, unedited body-worn camera recordings from relevant officers;
original audio and video metadata and synchronized timecodes;
dispatch and radio communications;
audit logs identifying any editing, redaction, enhancement, zooming, arrows or annotations used in public presentations;
dash-camera footage;
surveillance or civilian recordings;
highway closure and traffic-control records;
scene diagrams and distance measurements;
drone deployment records and any drone footage;
crisis-negotiation recordings and reports;
tactical-resource requests and availability;
REMSA dispatch and medical records;
statements from all officers and civilian witnesses;
firearm round counts for every officer who fired;
cartridge casing and projectile recovery;
firearms and trajectory reconstruction;
Anthony’s firearm laboratory/function testing;
autopsy and final forensic reports;
toxicology results;
forensic examination of Anthony’s phones;
documentation concerning the note attributed to Anthony;
and evidence establishing which rounds caused Anthony’s fatal injuries.
QUESTIONS THAT STILL REQUIRE ANSWERS
The central questions are no longer simply whether Anthony had a firearm or whether officers attempted to negotiate with him.

The evidence now available makes the more precise questions unavoidable:

What exactly happened during the seconds immediately preceding the first gunshot?

What movement did Anthony make?

Can that movement be clearly seen in the original, unenhanced footage?

Which officers actually observed the firearm being raised or pointed?

What could each officer see from his or her position 60 to 80 yards away?

Why are officers heard asking whether the gun could be seen?

How did road noise and acknowledged communication difficulties affect negotiations?

What did Anthony say that officers could not hear?

Did Anthony’s firearm actually discharge?

If an officer believed Anthony fired, what physical evidence supports or contradicts that belief?

Why did 16 officers fire?

Exactly how many rounds did each officer fire?

How quickly were those rounds fired?

What caused the firing to stop?

Which rounds struck Anthony?

Which wounds were fatal?

When was Interstate 80 closed or traffic stopped?

How many occupied civilian vehicles remained in the scenic pull-off?

Were any civilians directly threatened by Anthony?

Was a drone deployed?

Were specialized tactical resources requested or available?

Could additional time, distance, containment or other resources reasonably have changed the outcome?

These questions are not accusations. They are precisely the kinds of questions that an independent investigation should answer.

THE POLICE ACCOUNT IS NOT THE FINAL WORD — AND NEITHER IS THIS RELEASE
Reno Police itself states that its public presentation is based on evidence available “at this stage of the investigation” and is not intended to determine whether officers acted consistently with department policy or law.

That distinction is important.

The Nevada Justice Coalition and Faces of Success Radio are not asking the public to prejudge the officers.

We are asking that the public not be asked to prejudge Anthony Porter either.

Anthony was a 22-year-old human being whose night began with a violent rollover crash and ended with 16 officers firing their weapons.

Police say Anthony was armed.

Police say officers attempted to negotiate with him.

Police say Anthony repeatedly asked officers to shoot him.

Police say that immediately before deadly force was used, Anthony raised or pointed the firearm toward officers.

Those assertions must now be tested against the complete evidence.

At the same time, the released audio documents officers trying to communicate with Anthony, expressing that they did not want to hurt him, and attempting to persuade him to surrender peacefully. It also documents difficulty hearing Anthony and questions among officers concerning what could be seen.

Both realities belong in an accurate account.

The family deserves the complete evidence.

The officers deserve a determination based on the complete evidence.

And the public deserves transparency sufficient to understand how a rollover crash became an encounter in which 16 officers opened fire and a 22-year-old man lost his life.

The purpose of transparency is not to predetermine guilt.

It is to make sure that evidence—not assumptions, edited excerpts, public pressure or competing narratives—determines the truth.

Faces of Success Radio
Nevada Justice Coalition
Pearl J. — Reno/Sparks NAACP Board Media Representation