ST. LOUIS, MO – October 2, 2026 (STL.News) The St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office will not file criminal charges against the police officer who fatally shot 17-year-old Emeshyon Wilkins in 2024, concluding that prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s decision to use deadly force was objectively unreasonable.
The decision resolves the criminal review of the shooting, but it does not end scrutiny of what happened.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said Friday that its Internal Affairs Division will now conduct an administrative review to determine whether it followed departmental policies and procedures. Civil litigation brought by Wilkins’ parents also remains pending in federal court.
The case has taken on additional significance because authorities now acknowledge that information SLMPD initially provided to the public did not accurately reflect what the investigation and review of body-worn camera footage later established.
According to the Circuit Attorney’s findings, SLMPD has specifically acknowledged that an initial public statement that Wilkins turned and pointed a firearm at the officer who shot him was not consistent with the actual events. Prosecutors also said SLMPD determined that statement did not originate with the officer who fired the shots.
The discrepancy between the original account and what investigators later established has already prompted SLMPD to change its procedures for releasing information following officer-involved shootings.
Encounter began with stolen Mazda
The shooting occurred June 18, 2024.
According to the chronology released by Circuit Attorney Gabe Gore’s office, plainclothes SLMPD officers assigned to the Anti-Crime Task Force were patrolling in unmarked vehicles in the Baden neighborhood at approximately 12:56 p.m. when they noticed a silver Mazda SUV.
The vehicle had been reported stolen in St. Louis County, was included on SLMPD’s stolen-vehicle list, and displayed a stolen license plate, according to prosecutors.
Wilkins was driving the Mazda. A 16-year-old boy was riding in the front passenger seat.
Officers followed the vehicle into the Penrose neighborhood, where a 17-year-old girl entered the Mazda.
At approximately 1:03 p.m., officers activated emergency lights and sirens near Athlone Avenue and Penrose Street to stop the vehicle.
The Mazda did not stop.
Officers deployed spike strips during the pursuit. The vehicle initially traveled at a high rate of speed before eventually continuing on damaged tires at approximately 15 mph, according to the Circuit Attorney’s account.
As the pursuit continued on Margaretta Avenue, Wilkins opened the driver’s door and then quickly closed it.
An officer in the lead police vehicle radioed that the driver had a gun in his hand. The same officer subsequently reported that the firearm had a flashlight attached.
Those transmissions alerted officers participating in the pursuit that Wilkins was believed to be armed.
Three occupants flee Mazda
The pursuit continued into The Ville neighborhood.
In the 4200 block of St. Louis Avenue, all three occupants exited the Mazda while the vehicle was still moving, according to prosecutors.
Officers detained the 17-year-old female without incident.
The 16-year-old male passenger ran east on St. Louis Avenue, jumped a fence and fled between houses before encountering another officer approaching from Maffitt Avenue.
That officer ordered the teenager to drop the firearm he was carrying. He complied, and officers took him into custody.
Wilkins also ran east on St. Louis Avenue before turning south through a driveway and then west into an alley.
There he encountered another SLMPD officer, who began pursuing him on foot.
Other officers were moving through the surrounding area as police attempted to apprehend the fleeing occupants. The Circuit Attorney’s findings state that 14 officers were in the vicinity during the pursuit.
Officer fires three shots
The final portion of the encounter unfolded within seconds.
Body-worn camera footage recorded the pursuing officer repeatedly ordering Wilkins to drop the gun and get on the ground.
According to the Circuit Attorney’s chronology, approximately five seconds after the officer began directly pursuing Wilkins, the officer fired three shots.
The shots were fired at approximately 1:12 p.m.
Wilkins fell to the ground and was subsequently handcuffed. He was fatally wounded.
Reporting on body-camera footage released publicly in April 2026 renewed questions about SLMPD’s original description of the shooting. The footage does not clearly show Wilkins at the precise instant the shots were fired, according to reporting at the time, limiting what the video alone establishes about his movements in those final seconds.
What is now established by the prosecutor’s findings, however, is that SLMPD’s original statement that Wilkins turned and pointed his firearm at the shooting officer was not consistent with what actually occurred.
Glock recovered from Wilkins’ pocket
Officers recovered a 10mm Glock equipped with a flashlight protruding from Wilkins’ back pants pocket, according to the Circuit Attorney’s findings.
Police also found a black cellphone near his right hand and recovered a backpack.
The Glock did not have a magazine inserted when officers recovered it.
Three magazines were found in Wilkins’ backpack, including one containing 10mm ammunition.
Another potentially important detail concerned the Glock’s condition.
The firearm’s slide was detached when officers removed the gun from Wilkins’ pocket.
Investigators, however, could not determine when the slide became detached.
According to the Circuit Attorney, the available evidence does not establish whether the slide separated from the firearm when Wilkins fell after being shot or whether it was already detached.
That distinction matters because claims in the subsequent civil litigation have focused on whether the firearm could have been fired during the pursuit.
The prosecutor’s findings do not establish that the firearm was inoperable while Wilkins was running. They establish only its condition when officers recovered it.
The National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, known as NIBIN, also associated the Glock recovered from Wilkins with a shots-fired incident from the previous day, June 17, 2024.
That ballistic association concerns the firearm. The Circuit Attorney’s public findings do not establish that Wilkins personally fired the weapon during that earlier incident.
Officer describes perceived threat
The officer who shot Wilkins was interviewed by SLMPD’s Force Investigation Unit nine days later, on June 27, 2024.
According to the Circuit Attorney’s summary of that interview, the officer said he saw a firearm in Wilkins’ hand during the pursuit.
The officer also knew other officers were positioned in the direction Wilkins was running.
He told investigators he believed Wilkins could encounter those officers and potentially shoot them or turn and shoot at him.
The officer said concern for his own safety and the safety of detectives toward whom Wilkins was running led him to fire three shots.
That explanation is important because the Circuit Attorney ultimately evaluated the shooting principally as a claimed use of deadly force in defense of others.
It is also materially different from the version initially presented publicly after Wilkins was killed.
SLMPD acknowledges the initial account was inaccurate
In the immediate aftermath of the June 2024 shooting, an SLMPD spokesperson said Wilkins turned and pointed his firearm at the officer.
The Circuit Attorney’s findings now formally address that claim.
According to Gore’s office, SLMPD has acknowledged that the statement did not match the actual events.
The department also determined that the information did not originate from the officer who fired the shots.
The discrepancy attracted renewed attention after Wilkins’ family released body-worn camera footage in April 2026.
At the time, SLMPD told First Alert 4 that the department had received incorrect information from a third party following the shooting and that the shooting officer’s own statements were consistent with the investigation.
Friday’s SLMPD statement went further in acknowledging the problem with information released after the shooting.
“We also recognize that information shared in the immediate aftermath of this incident did not fully reflect what was later established through the investigation and review of body-worn camera footage,” the department said.
Shooting prompted change in SLMPD procedures
SLMPD says the Wilkins case prompted a change in how the department handles information following officer-involved shootings.
A member of the department’s body-worn camera unit now responds to officer-involved shooting scenes.
This allows investigating commanders to review available footage before providing detailed accounts of what happened to the public.
The change is intended to improve the accuracy of information released during the early stages of critical-incident investigations.
SLMPD said its responsibility is to provide accurate, transparent information while protecting the integrity of investigative processes.
The department said it would continue evaluating its practices and learning from critical incidents.
Why prosecutors declined charges
Gore’s office emphasized that the criminal review addressed a specific legal question: whether available evidence could establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer committed a criminal offense when he used deadly force.
Prosecutors reviewed video, witness statements, officer statements, and physical and forensic evidence.
The Circuit Attorney concluded officers had reasonable suspicion to stop, detain, or arrest the suspects and investigate the stolen vehicle.
Prosecutors also considered several circumstances confronting the shooting officer.
Officers involved in the incident had received information that Wilkins was armed.
The officer directly pursuing Wilkins told investigators that he personally saw a firearm in Wilkins’ hand.
The officer knew other officers were nearby attempting to apprehend Wilkins and the other male passenger.
And the officer said he believed Wilkins could use deadly force against either him or the other officers.
Under the criminal standard applicable to the review, prosecutors said they would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s decision to use deadly force was objectively unreasonable.
After reviewing the complete Force Investigation Unit investigation, Gore’s office concluded there was insufficient evidence to meet that burden.
No criminal charges will therefore be filed against the officer based on the Circuit Attorney’s review.
No charges does not resolve every issue
The Circuit Attorney’s determination should not be interpreted more broadly than the decision itself.
It does not find that every aspect of the encounter complied with SLMPD policies.
It also does not resolve whether the officer or other defendants could face civil liability.
Those are separate questions governed by different standards.
SLMPD said Friday that with the Circuit Attorney’s criminal review complete, its Internal Affairs Division will begin an administrative review to determine whether departmental policies and procedures were followed.
The department said the pending administrative review and continuing civil litigation limit what it can publicly discuss about the incident.
Wilkins’ parents pursuing federal lawsuit
Wilkins’ parents filed a federal lawsuit in May 2025 against the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners and the officer who shot their son.
The family disputes the justification for the shooting and alleges that excessive force was used against Wilkins.
Those allegations remain contested and have not been adjudicated.
A trial date has not been set, according to current local reporting.
Attorney Albert Watkins, who represents Wilkins’ family, sharply criticized the Circuit Attorney’s decision Friday.
Watkins described the decision as an act of “appalling incompetence” and criticized prosecutors for declining to pursue charges.
His comments represent the position of Wilkins’ family and its attorney and do not constitute findings of fact.
Prosecutor reviewed extensive evidence
The Circuit Attorney’s decision followed a lengthy investigative process.
Gore’s office said SLMPD’s Force Investigation Unit provided body-worn camera recordings, police vehicle camera footage, officer and witness statements, police reports, surveillance video obtained through the Real Time Crime Center, medical examiner findings, laboratory reports, photographs, cellphone information, medical records, social-media records, government records and dispatch communications.
The Circuit Attorney’s Office received the completed investigative file on Oct. 20, 2025.
The office said it began its review in April 2026 and handles officer use-of-force cases in the order it receives completed investigations.
That review resulted in Friday’s determination that the available evidence would not support proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s decision to use deadly force in defense of others was objectively unreasonable.
Questions remain after criminal decision
The Circuit Attorney’s announcement answers one of the largest outstanding questions surrounding Wilkins’ death: the officer who fired the fatal shots will not face criminal prosecution based on Gore’s review.
But the case is not over.
SLMPD must still conduct its administrative investigation into compliance with department policies. Wilkins’ family continues pursuing its federal civil lawsuit. Neither process is resolved by the Circuit Attorney’s decision.
The record also now provides a substantially more precise account than the one initially presented to the public in June 2024.
Wilkins fled from a stolen vehicle. Officers had been warned that he was believed to be armed. The officer who pursued him said he saw a firearm in Wilkins’ hand and believed Wilkins posed a threat to other officers.
A Glock equipped with a flashlight was later recovered from Wilkins’ pants pocket. It had no magazine inserted, and police found the slide detached when they recovered it, although investigators could not determine when it became detached.
The officer fired three shots approximately five seconds after beginning the direct foot pursuit.
And authorities now acknowledge that something the public was originally told about those final seconds was wrong: Wilkins did not turn and point his firearm at the officer who shot him, as SLMPD initially reported.
That acknowledgment has already resulted in a procedural change within the police department.
Now the criminal investigation is finished, while two separate questions remain: whether departmental policies were followed and whether the circumstances surrounding Wilkins’ death create civil liability.
SLMPD’s administrative investigation and the pending federal litigation will address those questions.
Editor’s note: The allegations made by Emeshyon Wilkins’ family in federal court have not been adjudicated and should not be treated as established findings of wrongdoing. The Circuit Attorney’s decision not to pursue criminal charges concerns criminal liability under Missouri law. It does not determine whether SLMPD policies were violated or whether civil liability exists.
Read St. Louis Local News at STL.News
Featured Local News Articles:
