ote ‘ OFFICE OF THE ae Mi 4 0 DistRICT ATTORNEY CouNTY OF NEVADA CHRISTOPHER WALSH CurroRD H. NEWELL ASSTANT DISTT ATTORNEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RANDALL BILLINGSLEY MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 2019 To: Nevada County Sheriff's Department From: Christopher Walsh cc Mastagni & Holstedt Re: Christopher Mills: Officer Involved Shooting Review Preamble The summary of this incident is drawn from reports prepared by the Nevada County Sheriff's Office and the Nevada County District Attorney's Office. The submission included audio and video recorded interviews, photographs, and crime scene details. The reviewing prosecutor also visited the scene where the shooting took place. Factual Summary In the early morning hours of February 22, 2018, deputies from the Nevada County Sheriff's Office responded to a report of a residential burglary in progress. Information was given that a goldish colored Ford F-250 pickup, with a washer and dryer in the bed of the truck, was suspected as being involved. Deputies approached the address on foot and observed the described truck leaving. Deputy Wenger approached the passenger side of the truck while Deputy Haack went to the driver side. Both deputies were in uniforms clearly identifying them as law enforcement officers. Cpl. Sonnier used his marked patrol vehicle to block the path of the truck. The truck stopped but the driver, later identified as Christopher Mills, did not comply with further commands. Deputies yelled for him to shut off the truck and put his hands up. He did not. Deputy Wenger tried to open the passenger side door of the vehicle but it was locked, He used his baton and broke the window. As soon as the window broke Christopher Mills 201 COMMERCIAL STREET, NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA 95959 PuoNe: (530) 265-101 Fax: (530) 478-1671threw the gearshift into reverse, stomped the gas, and quickly sped off in reverse. Deputies Wenger and Haack ran back to their marked patrol vehicles. A chase ensued involving three marked patrol units. Deputy Cody was doubled in Cpl. Sonnier’s patrol unit. Each unit activated overhead emergency lights and sirens as a part of the pursuit. After a short distance Christopher Mills abruptly put his truck in drive, accelerated forward, and rammed it into the front of Cpl. Sonnier’s patrol car; causing extensive damage. Christopher Mills then sped past the other deputies in their patrol cars. The streets in this area are narrow and the location is a populated residential type neighborhood. As the deputies continued to give chase, Christopher Mills drove his truck fast and recklessly. He turned down a road that dead-ended into a driveway and then a residence. Christopher Mills drove through the driveway and entered into the side yard of a residence where young children lived. He drove onto the grass, and closely past a trampoline that was in the yard. Christopher Mills drove the truck down a small hill in the side yard and into a ravine that was thick with bushes and trees, The truck became temporarily stuck. Deputies exited their patrol vehicles, and surrounded the truck. They drew their service weapons and yelled commands at Christopher Mills to stop and shut off his vehicle. He did not comply but instead put the truck into reverse and rewed the engine. Deputy Wenger fired several shots at the front passenger tire of the truck to try and disable it. Christopher Mills continued to rev the engine and began placing items up in the windows of the truck as if to barricade himself, He continued to rev the engine loudly and attempt to dislodge the truck. As the deputies approached on foot with their service weapons drawn Christopher Mills began to reach around inside the cab of the truck as if to grab something. Deputies Wenger, Cody and Cpl. Sonnier simultaneously fired several shots into the interior of the truck. Christopher Mills immediately stopped rewing the engine. He yelled out that he had been shot and for the first time held his hands up in compliance. Deputies removed Christopher Mills from the truck. He had several gunshot wounds to his arm, hand and hip area. They performed lifesaving efforts on him until relieved by medical staff. Christopher Mills continued to curse and spit on the deputies as they aided him. He was eventually transported to the hospital and recovered from his wounds. Later tests showed that Christopher Mills had three different drugs in his system at the time of the incident. He also had an outstanding warrant out of Yuba County for attempted murder. Relevant Legal Principles The District Attorney's Office conducted an independent assessment of the circumstances surrounding the use of deadly force in this case. This review does not examine issues such as compliance with the policies and procedures of any law enforcement agency, ways to improve training or tactics, or any issues related to civil liability. Accordingly, such a review should not be interpreted as expressing an opinion on these matters,In order to convict an officer of any possible charges arising from a shooting, it would be necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no legal justifications existed for the officer's actions. (People v. Banks (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 378.) Penal Code Section 196: Use of Deadly Force by Public Officer When a police officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, itis not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. (Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 11.) This limitation was subsequently clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Conner (1989) 490 U.S. 386, wherein the Supreme Court explained that an officer's right to use deadly force is to be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's “objective reasonableness” standard The test of reasonableness in this context is an objective one, viewed from the vantage of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. (Graham, supra, 490 U.S. at 396.) Itis also highly deferential to the police officer’s need to protect himself and others, The calculus of reasonableness 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.) The “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: 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. (Id.) As one court noted, “[U]nder Graham we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. 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.” (Smith v. Freland (6" Cir. 1992) 954 F.2d 343, 347.) The Supreme Court's definition of reasonableness is, therefore, “comparatively generous to the police in cases where potential danger, emergency conditions or other exigent circumstances are present.” (Roy v. Inhabitants of City of Lewiston (1* Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 691, 695.) 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. (Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4"" 334, 343-344.) The test for determining whether a homicide was justifiable under Penal Code section 196 is whether the circumstances reasonably created a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another. (Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 334, 349.) Officers may reasonably use deadly force when they confront an armed suspect in close proximity whose actions indicate intent to attack. (/d. at 345.) In such circumstances, the courts cannot ask an officer to hold fire in order to ascertain whether Guzman-Lopez will, in fact, injure or murder the officer. (Ibid.) A peace officer does not have to wait until a gun is. pointed at the officer before the officer is entitled to take action. An officer is entitled to use deadly force when the officer has reason to believe Guzman-Lopez is armed, even if the officer 3