Investigators say multiple forms of evidence place the accused outside the vehicle’s path when three shots were fired toward the driver.
MARANA, Ariz. — The criminal case stemming from a shooting outside a Marana In-N-Out Burger is built around three categories of evidence described by police: surveillance footage, witness accounts and what officers saw when they arrived to find a wounded driver on the ground with an armed man standing nearby.
Charles Whipple, 55, was arrested on allegations of attempted homicide in the second degree and endangerment after the Sept. 28 shooting at 8180 N. Cortaro Road. Police say he fired three rounds toward the driver’s side window of a vehicle that was moving through the parking lot, striking the driver with a bullet or bullet fragment. The victim survived with injuries described as not life-threatening. Whipple has not been convicted, and the allegations against him remain subject to the criminal court process.
The evidence described by authorities begins before the gunfire. Investigators say the victim’s vehicle had been stopped for an extended period in the drive-thru lane. An employee approached and found the man asleep, according to local reports describing an interim complaint. Whipple was waiting about two cars behind him. The employee tried to wake the driver, and Whipple later became involved. He told investigators he believed he smelled alcohol coming from the driver or the vehicle, according to those reports.
That claim provides context for why Whipple said he was concerned, but the sources reviewed do not say police confirmed that the driver was intoxicated. Nor do they report that the driver was charged with an impairment-related offense. The distinction is significant because police initially were responding to a welfare check, not a confirmed report of drunken driving. The driver’s name and a fuller account of his condition before the shooting have not been publicly released in the reviewed reports.
A witness account from an In-N-Out employee adds another layer. The employee said she was trying to delay the driver until police could arrive, Arizona’s Family reported. Whipple told police that he heard a worker say something similar to “we can’t let him leave.” Separately, the employee said Whipple told her to back away because he did not want her to get hurt. The Arizona Daily Star reported that the complaint said he then unzipped a bag he was carrying. The available accounts do not say an employee instructed Whipple to use force.
The surveillance footage described by investigators addresses what happened next. The driver proceeded through the drive-thru and stopped again, police said. Whipple crossed the parking lot to the end of the lane. When the vehicle began moving through the lot, Whipple fired three rounds toward its driver’s side window. Investigators said the video showed the vehicle moving slowly and Whipple positioned outside its direct path. Local reports say detectives concluded he was not in immediate personal danger from the vehicle at that point.
Those video-based observations are among the most consequential assertions in the public record because they concern the physical circumstances at the instant Whipple allegedly fired. Authorities have not publicly released the surveillance footage in the sources reviewed, so the public account comes through the Police Department and reports describing the interim complaint. A court ultimately would determine what evidence is admissible and what weight it deserves if the case proceeds to contested hearings or trial.
Police say the conduct continued after the driver was wounded. Once the vehicle stopped, Whipple approached, ordered the driver out at gunpoint and directed him to lie on the ground. The injured man remained there until officers arrived. That part of the sequence is supported in the Police Department’s account not only by the investigation but also by what responding officers said they encountered when they reached the restaurant.
Officers had first been dispatched at about 2:52 p.m. for the welfare check. Other Marana police were already nearby on an unrelated investigation when they heard multiple shots. They rushed toward the In-N-Out and, according to the department, found the victim suffering from a gunshot wound and Whipple pointing a firearm at him. Whipple was taken into custody without incident, and officers provided first aid before the victim was transported to a hospital.
The scene itself factors into the separate endangerment allegation. Investigators said multiple customers were on the restaurant patio, including small children, according to Arizona’s Family. Authorities have not reported that any of those bystanders were struck. The three shots were directed toward the moving vehicle’s driver’s side, police said. The reviewed sources do not contain a later charging document explaining whether prosecutors modified or expanded the original allegations.
The case also contains statements attributed directly to Whipple. In addition to saying he smelled alcohol and heard the employee’s remark about not letting the driver leave, Whipple told the court at his initial appearance that he had served in the Navy and had previously been a police officer, local news outlets reported. Those statements may provide personal background, but they do not resolve the legal questions surrounding the shooting. Police have publicly emphasized the physical evidence and witness accounts rather than treating Whipple’s prior experience as justification for the encounter.
A judge set bond at $150,000 after the arrest. The Arizona Daily Star reported that a preliminary hearing was tentatively scheduled for Oct. 9. The public sources reviewed through Nov. 10 did not provide a confirmed final disposition of the new case. Early reports that described Whipple as being held on bond reflected his status immediately after the arrest and should not be treated as proof of his custody status weeks later without a current jail or court record.
The unanswered questions are narrower than the basic chronology. Police have not identified the victim, released a detailed medical update beyond saying the injury was not life-threatening, or publicly confirmed the suspicion that alcohol was involved. The reviewed reports also do not provide a detailed public statement from Whipple explaining his decision to fire beyond the circumstances attributed to him in the complaint. No motive beyond the immediate encounter should be inferred from the existing record.
What authorities have made clear is the sequence they believe the evidence establishes: a driver remained stopped long enough to prompt concern; employees sought police help; Whipple became involved; the driver began moving; Whipple crossed the lot; three rounds were fired; the driver was struck; and Whipple then held the man at gunpoint until police arrived. Each of those steps carries different evidentiary support, ranging from witness statements to video and officers’ direct observations.
That structure also explains why the case is not simply a dispute over whether someone believed a driver might be impaired. The criminal allegations focus on what police say happened after that concern arose. Investigators said the vehicle was moving slowly, Whipple was outside its path and the shooting occurred while other people were present at the restaurant. Those assertions would be central to any later evaluation of the charges, while the defense would have the opportunity to challenge the state’s evidence and present its own account.
Much of what happens next depends on evidence already identified by investigators rather than on unanswered speculation about the driver. Surveillance footage, witness statements and the observations of arriving officers form the backbone of the accusations described so far. Whether that evidence is sufficient to prove the charges against Whipple remains a matter for the courts, and no final case outcome was identified in the sources reviewed.
Author note: Last updated Nov. 10, 2026.