DA Letter_Redacted - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 Thus, in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 3, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer is entitled to use deadly force only when “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” This limitation was, however, clarified subsequently by the High Court in the seminal case of Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, wherein the Supreme Court explained that an officer’s right to use force [i.e., his/her weapon] is to be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. The Supreme Court further stated that the determination of the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force “must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” (Id. at 396-397.) The United States Supreme Court’s analysis and teachings in Graham appear applicable to the circumstances surrounding the interactions of SAPD Officer Roelof with Taylor. LEGAL ANALYSIS The issue in this case is whether the conduct of Officer Roelofs on July 1, 2018, was criminally culpable and without justification. As stated above, in order to charge Officer Roelofs with a criminal violation, it is required that the prosecution be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no legal justification existed for the police officer’s conduct. Therefore, in order to lawfully charge Officer Roelofs with a crime, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. As the Court of Appeal held in the Brown case, it is well settled that “unlike private citizens, police officers act under color of law to protect the public interest. They are charged with acting affirmatively and using force as part of their duties, because ‘the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effectuate it.’ Police officers are, in short, not similarly situated to the ordinary battery defendant and need not be treated the same. In these cases, then, the [ ] police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order and he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense.” (Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 527.) Where potential dangerous, emergency conditions or other exigent circumstances exist, the California Court of Appeal have noted that the United States Supreme Court’s definition of reasonableness is comparatively generous to the police. The court in Brown noted that in effect, “the Supreme Court intends to surround the police who make these on-the-spot choices in dangerous situations with a fairly wide zone of protection in close cases. A police officer's use of deadly force is reasonable if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Thus, an officer may reasonably use deadly force when he or she confronts an armed suspect in close proximity whose actions indicate an intent to attack.” (Brown v. Ransweiler, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 528.) Based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Roelofs could have reasonably believed Taylor posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to himself and others at the moment he fired his handgun. This conclusion is based on the totality of the circumstances, but mainly based on the conduct of Taylor in the moments leading up to the shooting. Officer Roelofs was dispatched to reports of a suspicious male in the parking garage, who was carrying metal objects in both hands, and appeared to be attempting to break into the locked vehicles in the garage. Upon arrival to the parking garage, Officer Roelofs encountered Taylor, who was carrying a metal object in one hand and a strip of metal in the other. As Officer Roelofs exited his patrol car, Taylor began advancing toward the back of the patrol car, with both metal objects in his hands. This confirmed the veracity of the initial report to the police. Officer Roelofs yelled at Taylor numerous times to drop the pipe, but Taylor kept moving towards the rear of the patrol car, with the metal bars raised. This clearly presents a very dangerous and potentially violent situation. Taylor stopped walking at the rear of the patrol car, positioning himself with his left side facing Officer Roelofs. Taylor, in a position similar to a baseball batter’s stance, began to swing the metal bars. Officer Roelofs gave multiple orders to