ÅÝֱܽ²¥

That’s because he was able to retrieve his gun when a Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office deputy failed to show up to a court hearing that could’ve prevented Wetmore’s death, Wetmore’s sister recently alleged in a tort claim notice filed with the county. The hearing could have upheld the red flag law that was used to confiscate Wetmore’s gun. Such laws, also called extreme risk protection orders, are meant to keep firearms out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.

Sarah Greenwood, Wetmore’s sister, notified Deschutes County May 3 she intends to sue Deschutes County and the Sheriff’s Office on behalf of Wetmore’s estate, alleging wrongful death. She and the rest of Jesse’s family also want to see policy change, she said.

“To see a law or a system that is supposed to protect fail is an area that as a family we are dedicated to doing what we need to do to make sure that to the best of our ability no family experiences that, no loved ones experience that again,� Greenwood said. “And it’s a way that we bring Jesse along with us.�

The tort claim notice alleges “the Sheriff knew or should have known that Jesse was a danger to himself and others, and that danger would be exacerbated if Jesse had access to firearms.�

Gun taken away

Wetmore, 34, was a man of service, his sister, Greenwood, said. He rarely said no to someone’s ask for help. He loved adventuring and nature and animals, and he felt emotions very deeply, she said.

He had struggled with his mental health for several years, but he was always connected to his family.

He was ornery at times, as most brothers are, Greenwood said. But Wetmore’s warmth, his deep belly laugh and his kindness to family and strangers alike is what Greenwood remembers him by.

On June 7, 2023, a Wednesday afternoon, Wetmore drew a large law enforcement response to the Phil’s Trailhead area, popular among mountain bikers, in the Deschutes National Forest west of Bend. He appeared to be having a mental health crisis.

He had called an FBI hotline saying he was “the messiah,� and he was going to die by July 4 “and would take others with him,� according to the extreme risk protection order filed the same day. He also told law enforcement they “would have to kill him prior to being arrested.�

The sheriff’s office responded with an armored SWAT vehicle and a trained negotiator. Law enforcement was able to coax Wetmore to relinquish his gun. He was arrested, taken to St. Charles Bend for evaluation and cited for disorderly conduct, the notice said.

Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Mangin filed the extreme risk protection order the same day, citing Wetmore’s history of suicidal statements made to mental health staff in Canby, Wetmore’s hometown.

Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection Order , or red flag law, permits law enforcement, close family members and intimate partners to request a court order to have someone’s weapons removed. That request is typically reviewed within 24 hours, and if the judge agrees with the requestor, all weapons must be surrendered within a day of the order being issued.

A Deschutes County judge granted the order for Wetmore, and he surrendered his .44 caliber handgun to the sheriff’s office.

Two months later, after Wetmore had challenged the order in Deschutes County Circuit Court, Mangin didn’t show up to the Aug. 10 objection hearing despite Sheriff’s Office policies mandating that he do so.

Order dismissed after no-show deputy

“On several occasions leading up to August 10, 2023, Jesse’s family continued to notify the Sheriff and the Deschutes County District Attorney’s office regarding their concerns that Jesse was still a risk for suicide or other harm,� the claim notice said.

The sheriff and the county dismissed those concerns, the notice alleged. The sheriff’s office also made no efforts to fight Wetmore’s objection to the order, it said.

Court records indicate the court waited 11 minutes for Mangin to show up either in person, by phone or via video conference to the Aug. 10 hearing.

In Mangin’s absence, Wetmore’s request to get his gun back was granted, and Judge Beth Bagley dismissed the extreme risk protection order.

One week after the hearing, Wetmore, who was living in Canby at the time, drove to Deschutes County. By 4 p.m. on Aug. 17, he had retrieved his handgun from the sheriff’s office.

“At approximately 4:30 p.m., Jesse checked himself into a hotel in Deschutes County, where he shot himself in the head with the same firearm that he had just received from the Sheriff...� the tort claim notice alleged.

Hotel staff found Wetmore a day later, said Sheila Miller, Bend Police spokesperson.

Sheriff’s protocols not followed

An internal investigation at the sheriff’s office ensued.

At one point, the sheriff’s office shared with Greenwood that the office had been “properly informed� of the Aug. 10 hearing and Mangin “didn’t show up to Court because it ‘slipped (his) mind,’� the notice said.

Greenwood thought Wetmore’s death was the worst that could happen.

“And then to be told that it slipped his mind in that way. I just — like I did not think that this wound could be any deeper than it already is for my family,� she said.

She added: “And to have this experience where you lose someone whose significance is indescribable be reduced to those words is just beyond comprehension at times.�

It felt like Wetmore’s 34 years of life were minimized to an “oops,� Greenwood said.

According to the notice, the sheriff’s office’s internal investigation took place between October 2023 and April 2024, and it was conducted by Jim Ferraris, who now operates his own investigations and consulting .

It found that protocols were not followed in the case of Wetmore’s protective order, the notice said. It also found that Mangin had been suspended without pay for one day for failing to attend the Aug. 10 hearing, the notice said.

Potential ERPO policy change

The claim notice outlines the possibility for Wetmore’s family to be awarded monetary awards for the wrongful death claim if litigated. The family could also seek revisions to the sheriff’s office’s policies and practices for extreme risk protection orders, also called ERPOs, “so individuals like Jesse and the public are protected from future acts of negligence and neglect that lead to needless harm,� the notice said.

Greenwood and the rest of Wetmore’s family continue to focus on how they can move forward, with Wetmore in mind, while trying to prevent any family or single person from experiencing what they did.

“That’s where we’re putting our energy into, ensuring that systems that are inherently built to protect continue to do that, and that there is accountability for protection of vulnerable people,� Greenwood said.

If litigated, Wetmore’s case could be a novel challenge to the way

Since Oregon’s red flag law was enacted in 2018, Deschutes County has issued extreme risk protection orders more frequently than most other Oregon counties, according to a review of Oregon Judicial Department data. Deschutes County led the state in emergency protection orders, also called ERPOS, filed in 2023, making up nearly a quarter of all orders filed that year. That trend has continued in 2024 with Deschutes County making up roughly 30% of all orders filed in Oregon as of May 9.

Despite their frequency in Deschutes County, Wetmore’s case is unique, said Zachary Walker, a lawyer representing Wetmore’s estate.

“Primarily because you have the sheriff department taking the correct steps of filing and pursuing the ERPO, but then completely failing in every regard to follow through with the prosecution and the prophylactic protections that are required by the ERPO,� Walker said.

Embedded in the statute that governs extreme risk protection orders are provisions for sheriff’s offices. But lawmakers would’ve be hard-pressed to envision a situation such as the one Wetmore’s family is in now when crafting the statute in 2018, said Julie Parrish, a lawyer for Wetmore’s estate and a former House District 37 representative who was in the Legislature at the time.

“It certainly could never have been envisioned that once law enforcement affirmatively took the duty to step in and seek out a risk protection order that they would have neglected to see it through to its completion and for the intended purpose,� she said.

That’s particularly true in Wetmore’s case, Parrish said. He wasn’t a one-off 911 call, she said. The entire community was aware he was at risk because of the public nature of his crisis on June 7.

If litigated, Wetmore’s case could bring individual accountability, but it could also make clear best practices for how law enforcement agencies across the state handle extreme risk protection orders, Parrish said.