Christopher Farrell had two temporary restraining orders issued against him, barring him from any contact with a woman he’d had a brief affair with and her husband.
But on Nov. 13, San Diego police say Farrell ambushed the married couple, Rachael Martinez, 31, and Jose Medina, 39, as they sat in their car near the downtown San Diego Superior courthouse. Within the hour, Farrell, 26, was killed in a shootout with Harbor Police officers in nearby Little Italy.
The court orders, records show, were not successfully served, and he was never forced to surrender or sell his personal firearm as the orders required.
RELATED: Following five domestic violence homicides, San Mateo County launches co-response pilot
The incident highlights some of the limits of restraining orders as a protective tool.
Court documents and law enforcement sources show how Farrell was still able to wield a handgun downtown and later in Little Italy despite multiple protective orders being in effect.
The legal process began more than a month before the shooting.
According to a statement that Martinez wrote to apply for the domestic violence restraining order, she and Farrell had had a brief affair, which her husband, Medina, had discovered.
Medina, in a statement provided with his application for a restraining order of his own, said he confronted Farrell about the affair on Sept. 28.
Farrell allegedly communicated with Martinez after the confrontation, leading Martinez to travel to his apartment on Sept. 30 “so that we could talk,” Martinez said in a statement.
Martinez said she entered the apartment, and Farrell sexually assaulted her before allowing her to leave. A few days later, on Oct. 4, she went to the hospital to receive treatment for lingering pain. While there, she filed a police report.
San Diego police arrested Farrell at a Metropolitan Transit System office where he worked as a contract security guard.
Farrell was subsequently fired, and his work firearm was confiscated, according to police. He was eventually released from custody, and charges against him were never filed.
It is unclear if Martinez was ever informed or learned that Farrell was no longer employed at the MTS location.
An emergency protective order was issued against Farrell on behalf of Martinez on Oct. 4. The order was set to expire on Oct. 23.
But court documents show that Martinez wasted little time in seeking further protection from Farrell. On Oct. 7, she filed her request for a domestic violence restraining order, which would have extended her protections for a longer period.
“I am afraid of what Respondent (Farrell) might do next,” Martinez wrote.
The San Diego Central Courthouse downtown. (Meg McLaughlin / The San Diego Union-Tribune)
In her request, Martinez said that Farrell had access to one personal firearm and one “from work.”
A temporary restraining order was granted, with the court ruling that the county Sheriff’s Office serve the order. Another hearing date was set for Oct. 23, when Martinez and Farrell could present evidence for the court to decide if the more expansive restraining order was appropriate.
At the same time, Medina was also granted a temporary civil harassment restraining order.
Upon being served, the restraining orders would have prohibited Farrell from possessing or owning a firearm. He would have been forced to surrender the gun to authorities or sell it.
But the restraining orders were not successfully served, court records show.
On Oct. 10, a sheriff’s deputy filed a statement with the court that detailed an attempt to serve Farrell at the MTS office from which he had been fired less than a week before.
For the Sheriff’s Office to serve a restraining order, the person requesting it must fill out a form in which the agency is given information on the person who is to be served. The information includes the person’s description, if the person has any firearms and where the person should be served.
The form is a confidential document and not publicly accessible, and the San Diego Superior Court said it could not reveal if one was filed for Martinez’s or Medina’s orders.
In a statement to the Union-Tribune, the Sheriff’s Office said both Martinez and Medina had given specific instructions on where to serve Farrell — the MTS office where he had worked.
“The plaintiffs provide specific service instructions regarding the locations for service,” the Sheriff’s Office said. “Although Farrell’s home address was possible, it was not included in the service instructions provided to the deputies for both restraining orders.”
Deputies are required to attempt service on three separate occasions at different times, the Sheriff’s Office said.
Related Articles
Bay Area woman sentenced to prison for attack on father
17-year-old California boy arrested on suspicion of killing ex-girlfriend
Former girlfriend of Stanford professor denounces dismissal of domestic violence case
California man sets bush on fire, flees from police and crashes — killing woman, authorities say
Bay Area man charged with attempted murder of pregnant woman
“In this case, Deputy learned that Farrell was no longer employed by MTS during the first service attempt, which constitutes an exception to this rule,” the agency said. “The deputy made two calls to Mrs. Martinez for clarification on service instructions but was not advised to attempt service at an alternative address.”
Just under two weeks later, on Oct. 23, the domestic violence restraining order hearing was held — Martinez appeared but Farrell did not, according to court records.
That hearing, and a firearm relinquishment hearing, did not go forward and was continued to provide time for Farrell to be serviced with the restraining orders.
The hearings were rescheduled for Nov. 13.
On that day, police say Farrell shot Martinez and Medina as they were parked near the courthouse before traveling to Little Italy, where a bystander reported a suspicious-looking person to Harbor Police officers.
The officers approached Farrell, who allegedly opened fire, striking and injuring one officer.
Two harbor officers returned fire, striking Farrell multiple times.
The gun used in the shootout with police, a semi-automatic handgun, was registered to Farrell under a previous name, Christopher Fluty, San Diego police investigators said. Court records show Farrell legally changed his name in 2022.
Investigators think it is likely that the same gun was used to kill Martinez and Medina.
Even if Farrell would have been served with the restraining order, the incident shows the limits of such protective orders.
“If (a person) is not concerned with the law for physically violating you, they for sure won’t be concerned with this little piece of paper that says they have to stay away from you,” said San Diego-based attorney Dante Pride, whose firm handles dozens of domestic violence cases per year.
“I don’t know that there’s anything else that could have been done when you have a situation with a man who was willing to shoot and kill people, including police officers,” Pride said.
But Pride noted that this incident was “a special circumstance” and should not discourage people from seeking restraining orders.
“I still recommend people do it because the type of individual that will act and respond like this guy did are very few and far between,” Pride said.
Most people, even those accused of abuse or harassment, can be made to “come back to normal,” Pride said.
“A restraining order is very helpful in that regard,” he said.
The day after the shooting, documents show, the court received a package from Farrell. The package contained “responsive pleadings and exhibits” and had been postmarked on Nov. 12 — the day before the rampage.
It was turned over to San Diego police.