Segura Mercado SA 20-002 FINAL August 6 2020_Redacted

Home Browse Search

9 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.) Additional analysis, pursuant to Penal Code section 835a, permits deadly force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary, based upon a totality of the circumstances, to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Certainly, it would have been preferable if the OCDA were able to obtain voluntary statements from Officers Roelofs and Espadas regarding their observations and respective states of mind at the time of the shooting. However, Officers Roelofs and Espadas’ decisions to decline to give the OCDA a voluntary statement may not legally and ethically be used to draw negative evidentiary inferences regarding their conduct and state of mind. Without their statements, the OCDA must look to other competent evidence to determine if Officers Roelofs and Espadas were justified in using deadly force. The OCDA looks to the totality of the circumstances when evaluating this evidence. In order for Officers Roelofs and/or Espadas to be justly and lawfully charged and convicted with a crime, it is the OCDA’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers in question did not act in reasonable and justifiable self-defense or defense of another at the time of the shooting. Officers Roelofs and Espadas were lawfully discharging their duties when they went to Mercado’s residence to try to interview him, and to arrest him for violations of Penal Code section 288(a), Lewd and Lascivious Act with a Minor. The Officers wore traditional SAPD uniforms with SAPD patches and metal badge. When they first saw Mercado, they identified themselves as SAPD officers and asked to speak to him. The evidence also shows that Mercado had been made aware of serious accusations being made against him by family members and he was expecting the police to come contact him. These facts present a reasonable inference that Mercado knew the officers were there to arrest him and he was not entitled to use a weapon to resist arrest. Officers Roelofs and Espadas pursued Mercado through a poorly lit apartment and patio. Given that a gun was not mentioned by any officer until Sergeant Lima was holding Mercado back from fleeing the patio, it is reasonable that Officers Roelofs and Espadas were unaware at the beginning of the encounter that Mercado was carrying a firearm. The evidence shows they knew he was a security guard applicant but had no information about his employment or whether he carried a weapon. Furthermore, based on the close proximity of all parties – Officers Roelofs and Espadas holding Mercado inside the patio and Sergeant Lima holding him from outside the patio, once the officers had information that Mercado now had a gun- it is reasonable that the Officers deemed Mercado an imminent threat. The firearm that Mercado was holding was pointed directly at Sergeant Lima’s mid-section, below his ballistic vest. Had Mercado fired his weapon, it would have likely hit Sergeant Lima where his vest does not protect him. Sergeant Lima, who could not fire his weapon, feared for his life. It was a reasonable belief for all officers that the gun was real and loaded given the lighting and quick manner in which the events unfolded. This, along with Mercado’s decision to point the gun at Sergeant Lima’s mid-section, gave the officers a legally justified belief that Mercado not only posed a significant threat to Sergeant Lima, but also to their own lives and potentially that of the public. Based on the above-described facts available at this time, and the foregoing analysis, the prosecution would be unable to carry the legal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that