Florida Judge Clears 3 Miami-Dade Officers in Fatal UPS Truck Shootout Citing Stand Your Ground Law
A Florida judge this week cleared three Miami-Dade police officers of manslaughter charges in the deaths of two innocent bystanders during a chaotic 2019 shootout, ruling that the officers were justified in using deadly force under the state’s controversial Stand Your Ground law.
Broward Circuit Judge Ernest Albert Kollra Jr. granted immunity to officers Richard Santiesteban, Leslie Lee, and Rodolfo Mirabal on Monday, March 23, 2026. The decision follows a similar ruling in September 2025 that cleared a fourth officer, Jose Mateo, in the same case. The ruling has sparked strong reactions from prosecutors, victims’ families, and observers debating police accountability and self-defense laws in high-risk situations.
The tragic incident unfolded on December 5, 2019, after two armed suspects, Lamar Alexander and Ronnie Jerome Hill, robbed a jewelry store in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County. During the robbery, one suspect fired a shot that ricocheted and injured a female employee. The store owners returned fire, wounding Hill. The suspects then hijacked a UPS delivery truck driven by 27-year-old Frank Ordonez, taking him hostage at gunpoint.
A high-speed pursuit involving multiple law enforcement agencies stretched across Miami-Dade and into Broward County. The chase ended during evening rush hour when the UPS truck became stuck in heavy traffic at the intersection of Miramar Parkway and Flamingo Road. A fierce gunbattle erupted, with officers firing more than 200 rounds in under 25 seconds.
When the shooting stopped, four people were dead: the two suspects, UPS driver Frank Ordonez, and 70-year-old motorist Richard Cutshaw, who was struck in the back of the head while sitting in his car in traffic. Court records and investigations determined that police bullets killed Ordonez and Cutshaw. A fifth victim had been wounded earlier by a ricocheted bullet inside the jewelry store.
Judge Kollra ruled that the officers reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or others. In his opinion, he stated the officers were responding to a threat started and continued by two armed convicted felons who had already shot at civilians and law enforcement. He placed ultimate blame on the suspects’ actions for creating the dangerous situation that led to the bystanders’ deaths.
The Broward County State Attorney’s Office strongly disagreed with the ruling and announced plans to appeal, just as it is already appealing the earlier decision for Officer Mateo. Prosecutors argued that Stand Your Ground immunity should not apply when innocent bystanders who posed no threat are killed. They emphasized that the case should have gone before a jury rather than being dismissed by a judge alone.
“It is our belief that Stand Your Ground immunity does not apply in matters involving innocent bystanders, like Frank Ordonez and Richard Cutshaw, who presented no danger to officers,” the state attorney’s office said in a statement. “In this incident, two innocent men were killed, and the lives of numerous other innocent bystanders were endangered.”
Family members of the victims expressed deep disappointment. Ordonez’s stepfather, Joe Merino, told local media there is “no faith in the judicial system” and that Frank “is never gonna get any type of justice that he deserves.”
The case has reignited national debate over Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, police use of force in chaotic situations, and the challenges of distinguishing threats during fast-moving, high-stress incidents involving hostages and heavy traffic. Supporters of the ruling argue officers faced life-threatening gunfire and had a duty to stop armed, fleeing felons. Critics question whether firing hundreds of rounds into a crowded rush-hour intersection was reasonable when it resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians.
For many Americans, especially in urban areas with heavy traffic and frequent police pursuits, the incident highlights the real risks faced by both law enforcement and everyday citizens caught in the crossfire. It also raises questions about pursuit policies, de-escalation tactics, and accountability when tragic outcomes occur despite officers acting under perceived imminent threat.
The officers, who had been suspended without pay after their 2024 indictment, pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter charges. With all four now granted immunity by the same judge, the focus shifts to the appeals process in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
This high-profile case continues to draw attention as it touches on broader issues of public safety, judicial interpretation of self-defense laws, and trust in the justice system when innocent lives are lost during law enforcement operations.
By Mark Smith Follow us on X @realnewshubs and subscribe for push notifications
Follow and subscribe us for push notifications to never miss breaking updates.