DA Letter_Redacted - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

may apply; they are provided by Penal Code sections 196, 197, and 835a. California Penal Code section 196 states that use of deadly force by a public officer is justifiable when necessarily used :,, arresting persons who are "charged with a felony" and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest. Section 196 applies both where the suspect in question is "charged with a felony" and where the officer has "reasonable cause" to believe that the person has committed a felony . People v. Kilvington (1894) 104 Cal. 86, 89. The felony must involve violence or the threat of violence. Kortum v. Alkire (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 325, 333. California Penal Code section 197 provides that use of deadly force by any person is justifiable when used in self- defense or in defense of others. California Penal Code section 835a allows any police officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a felony to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. The section further provides that a police officer "who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance." As with Penal Code section 196, section 835a only allows use of deadly force by the police officer when the suspect's felony involves violence or the threat of violence . Kortum v. Alkire (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 325, 333. The Kortum court further held that deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect is justifiable only when the felony "is of the violent variety, i.e., a forcible and atrocious one which threatens death or serious bodily harm, or there are other circumstances which reasonably create a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another." Kortum v. Alkire , supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 333. In addition, Penal Code section 834a requires that if a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that he or she is being arrested by a peace officer, that person must refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest. Similarly, the relevant Criminal Jury Instruction as written by the Judicial Council of California and set forth in CALCRIM 3470 permits a person being assaulted to defend himself from attack if, as a reasonable person , he had grounds for believing and did believe that bodily injury was about to be inflicted upon him or upon another person. In doing so, such person may immediately use all force and means which he believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person , in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to defend against that danger and to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent. The law as detailed in CALCRIM 3470 and in well-settled case law therefore permits a person, if confronted by the appearance of danger which arouses in his mind, as a reasonable person, an honest fear and conviction that he or another person is about to suffer bodily injury, to act in self-defense or defense of others upon such appearances, and from such fear and honest convictions. The person's right of self-defense is the same whether the danger is real or merely apparent. People v. Jackson (1965) 233 Cal.App .2d 639, 641 -642. Nevertheless, the above justifications must be interpreted in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent that limits the right of a police officer to use deadly force . People v. Martin (1985) 168 Cal.App .3d 1111, 1124. The U.S. 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 bodily injury to the officer or others." Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 3. This limitation was, however, subsequently clarified by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated that any determination about the reasonabl eness of force used by an officer "must emb ody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgments-in circumstances that are tense , uncertain , and rapidly evolving." Graham v. Connor (1 989) 490 U.S . 386, 397. Thus , "the reasonableness of a parti cular use of '1 rce must be judged from the pers pective of a reasonable officer on the scene , rather than with the 20/2 0 vision of . ,mdsight." Id . at 396. 8