DA Letter_Redacted - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As the California Court of Appeal held in a recent case: "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 effect 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 defendant 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 .... ''The test is highly deferential to the police officer's need to protect himself and others .... "The question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable " in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. In calculating whether the amount of force was excessive, a trier of fact must recognize that peace officers are often forced to make split-second judgments , in tense circumstances , concerning the amount of force required .... "We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes 'reasonable' action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure." Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 527-528. LEGAL ANALYSIS In order for Officer Ayala or Officer Esquivel to be justly and lawfully charged and convicted of a crime in this incident, it is the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers did not act in reasonable and justifiable c;elf-defense or defense of others when they shot at Gonzalez. As applicable to the facts in this case, the justification of self-defense or defense of others has several legal elements : 1. Officer Ayala and Officer Esquivel actually believed themselves or others to be in imminent danger of being killed by Gonzalez; 2. Officer Ayala and Officer Esquivel reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others against Gonzalez; and 3. Officer Ayala and Officer Esquivel used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend themselves against the danger posed by Gonzalez. We will analyze these elements in turn. 1) Actual Belief in Necessity of Self-Defense The question here concerns the officers' state of mind -did Officer Ayala and Officer Esquivel actually believe that Gonzalez posed a danger to themselves or to others? In his statement to investigators, Officer Ayala said that he shot bullets toward the garage near Gonzalez because he saw that Gonzalez was holding what looked like a semiautomatic weapon, he recognized her as a wanted person for a recent homicide , and he was standing in an open alley in close range to Gonzalez and her weapon. He stated that, given his proximity to Gonzalez and her apparent weapon , he feared for his life . Officer Esquivel told investigators that the combination of hearing Officer Ayala shout in a scared tone, seeing Officer Ayala fire his weapon , and seeing Gonzalez walk out into the street like she was "going after" Offi cer Ayala caused him '' believe that Officer Ayala was in a life-threatening situ ation. These facts sufficiently in dicate tha t Officer Ayala .Jually believ ed his life was in danger and that Officer Esquivel believed Officer Ayala's life to be in danger. 9