What the rules required.
Could the agency demonstrate that its required review of training, equipment and safety practices was actually carried out?
07CASE STUDY / MURPHY v. CLALLAM COUNTY
When training, policy
and accountability collide.
A catastrophic firearms-training injury and a 2026 jury verdict show why policy, equipment, instruction and review cannot be treated as separate silos.
Discuss your agency’s programSEPTEMBER 17, 2026 · KITSAP COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT$30,176,905
Gross jury verdict, including a spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim. The jury assigned 95% of fault to Clallam County and 5% to the deputy; this is not a net recovery figure.
THE HUMAN CONSEQUENCE
A former Clallam County deputy suffered a training injury during a required firearms qualification and, after multiple surgeries, underwent a below-the-knee amputation. The impact on the deputy and his family is the reason this work matters.
TODD’S ROLE
An expert review of the system—not just the moment.
J. Todd Nunley served as a law-enforcement expert witness in Murphy v. Clallam County. He reviewed agency policies, training materials and records, reports, depositions and other case materials. He provided opinions and testified at deposition and trial.
His work examined how policy requirements, firearms training, equipment and documentation related to the events at issue.
WHAT THE CASE BROUGHT INTO FOCUS
The architecture behind one training day.
According to the plaintiff’s counsel, a county-issued three-point sling caught on over-the-head hearing protection during a required support-side transition. The lawsuit alleged that the equipment combination and required maneuver created a hazard, alongside concerns about safety policies and the absence of documented program evaluation.
What the program taught.
Were the required exercise, supervision and training methods evaluated against current practice and risk?
What personnel were issued.
Did the equipment work safely with the maneuver personnel were directed to perform?
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
A written requirement is not a completed evaluation.
Todd’s account of his review describes more than 20 years without a formal firearms-program review. Plaintiff’s counsel reports that the county lacked documentation showing the regular evaluation its safety policies called for.
These are case-specific accounts of the evidence. They do not mean every agency faces the same conditions or outcome.
THE CONTINUOUS-IMPROVEMENT CHAIN
- Policies
- Training
- Instructors
- Documentation
- Evaluation
- Corrective action
THE LESSON FOR LEADERS
Review before an incident forces the question.
An independent audit cannot eliminate every risk or predict litigation. It can help agencies find where policy, instruction, equipment and documentation have drifted apart—and create a more defensible path toward improvement.
The goal is not perfection. It is continuous improvement, accountability and preparedness.
START A CONVERSATION
No agency should need a verdict to find a gap.
Discuss an independent look at your training system, especially its firearms policies, records, equipment and evaluation practices.