- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On
DA finds Clearlake Police officer justified in January shooting
The Jan. 24 shooting involved Clearlake Police Officer Jared Nixon, who shot at a Honda Accord that accelerated at him while he was investigating stolen vehicle cases.
No one was arrested in the case, which still remains under investigation, and Anderson’s report said it’s unknown if anyone in the car was hit.
Although no deaths or injuries have so far been reported, Anderson investigated the incident under the auspices of the county’s 2016 Law Enforcement Fatal Incident Protocol, he said.
“In this matter, it is the findings of the Lake County District Attorney's Office that the officer had been assaulted with a deadly weapon, namely the Honda Accord. The officer believed the driver of the vehicle would inflict serious bodily injury on him or death. The officer's fear that he would suffer great bodily harm or death, was reasonable in both his state of mind and in fact,” Anderson’s report said.
Anderson’s report said that Officer Nixon was walking along the east side of Oregon Avenue in Clearlake when he heard a red 1992 Honda Accord start up. It then backed out of an area surrounded by bushes and onto Oregon Avenue. The driver steered the car in the direction of NIxon, who held up his hand in a gesture to get the vehicle to stop.
The vehicle accelerated toward Nixon, who had no place to get to safety. “Officer Nixon could see the driver looking directly at him and turning the vehicle in his direction in an attempt to hit him. The vehicle accelerated with the tires spinning and breaking traction. It was obvious to the officer that the driver of the vehicle was trying to hit him,” according to Anderson’s report.
Anderson said Nixon fired a total of eight rounds from his Glock .40-caliber semiautomatic firearm. “It was later determined that one round entered the vehicle driver’s side bumper, three round entered the vehicle’s hood and three round entered the front windshield.”
Nixon jumped into the bushes and the Honda continued west on Oregon Avenue. Anderson said the vehicle was found abandoned later that day on Sonoma Way, approximately one mile from the shooting scene. No suspects were located in the area.
He said the Honda later was towed to the District Attorney’s Office vehicle storage area and processed for evidence by the California Department of Justice.
Anderson said Nixon’s testimony during the investigation was consistent with his activated body camera, some witnesses located near the area, physical evidence located at the scene and evidence observed on the vehicle.
No arrests have been made in the case, which Anderson said is still being investigated.
“It is the finding of this office that actions of Officer Jared Anthony Nixon were justified in that he was acting in self defense,” Anderson concluded.
Anderson’s full report is published below.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINAL REPORT
REGARDING OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING
INTRODUCTION
On January 24, 2018, Clearlake Police Officer Jared Anthony Nixon was investigating a series of stolen vehicles in the Clearlake Park area, at about 11:48 AM he located a stolen vehicle with two occupants in it. The occupants drove the vehicle back and aligned it with the officer. The occupants accelerated at a high rate of speed towards the officer. The officer fired 8 rounds from his service firearm at the vehicle. The vehicle continued at a high rate of speed as the officer dove into the bushes. It has not been determined if anyone in the vehicle was hit from the officer’s rounds.
It is the finding of this office that actions of Officer Jared Anthony Nixon were justified in that he was acting in self defense.
PROCEDURES
Pursuant to the Lake County Law Enforcement Fatal Incident Protocol of 2016, the Lake County District Attorney Investigation Division conducted an independent investigation into the incident. Also, an internal investigation into the incident was conducted by the administration at Clear Lake Police Department.
This report and findings are conducted pursuant to California State law and the Lake County Law Enforcement Fatal Incident Protocol of 2016.
FACTS
Prior to the incident on January 24, 2018 the area of Clearlake Park commonly known as the “Gobbie Desert” was a high crime rate area. Commonly this area is used to steal and/or strip stolen vehicles.
On January 21, 2018, a 1992 Honda Accord, California license 3MIC421 was stolen from the area of 3812 Old Highway 53. In Clearlake. The victim had no suspects who could have taken the vehicle.
On January 24, 2018, in the late morning hours Officer Jared Anthony Nixon was patrolling the area of the “Gobbie Desert” with the intent of locating stolen vehicles. He had earlier spotted two individuals in the area and was watching their actions.
Officer Nixon abandon his patrol vehicle and went on foot in the remote area of Oregon and Mint Street in Clearlake. The roads in this immediate area are very narrow and covered with trees and brush. It is possible, but not easily passable by vehicles.
Officer Nixon was walking along the east side of Oregon Ave. when he heard a vehicle start up. This vehicle, a red 1992 Honda Accord backed out of an area surrounded by bushes and onto Oregon Ave., with the front of the vehicle facing Officer Nixon. The Honda started forward as Officer Nixon held up his hand in a gesture to get the vehicle to stop.
The vehicle continued to accelerate directly towards Officer Nixon and turned its wheels towards the officer. Officer Nixon started to flee west away from the vehicle; however, because of the speed of the vehicle and the closeness of the trees and shrub he had no place to get to safety.
Officer Nixon could see the driver looking directly at him and turning the vehicle in his direction in an attempt to hit him. The vehicle accelerated with the tires spinning and breaking traction. It was obvious to the officer that the driver of the vehicle was trying to hit him.
In an effort to divert the drive/vehicle from him or distract the driver, Officer fired a total of 8 rounds from his Glock .40 cal. Semi-automatic firearm. It was later determined that one round entered the vehicle driver’s side bumper, three round entered the vehicle’s hood and three round entered the front windshield.
The officer was finally able to leap to safety by jumping in some bushes. No round hit the side or back of the vehicle, indicating the Officer did not fire any further rounds once his immediate safety was secured. The red Honda Accord continued west on Oregon Ave. where the officer lost sight of it.
Early that afternoon the vehicle was located abandon on Sonoma Way approximately one mile from the shooting scene. There were no suspects located in the area. The vehicle was later towed to the District Attorney’s vehicle storage area and processed for evidence by the California Department of Justice.
No arrests have been made at this time; however, the case is still being investigated.
The testimony given by Officer Nixon during the investigation was consistent with his activated body camera, some witnesses located near the area, physical evidence located at the scene and evidence observed on the vehicle.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Although this case is not a homicide, the relevant statutory law and case decisions are best defined in homicide cases. Therefore, the legal analysis below will be as though this was an incident involving a death. The relevant California statutory and case law regarding this matter is set forth below.
California Penal Code Section 197 states in part:
“Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,…
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,…”
The test for determining justifiable homicide is apparent necessity, i.e., an honest and reasonable belief in the apparent peril and the need for self defense is enough. The means used, whether deadly or nondeadly force, must be reasonable under the circumstances. In People v. Sonier (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 277, 278 the court held “The justification of self defense requires a double showing: that defendant was actually in fear of his life or serious bodily injury and that the conduct of the other party was such as to produce that state of mind in a reasonable person.”
California Penal Code Section 196 (Justifiable homicide by public officers) states:
“Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either—
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.”
In Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1102, the court said officers “may use reasonable force to make an arrest, prevent escape or overcome resistance, and need not desist in the face of resistance.” “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 affect it.” Munoz, supra at p. 1109. “‘[Police officers] are, in short, not similarly situated to the ordinary battery defendant and need not be treated the [17] 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.
In California, "a police officer who kills someone has committed a justifiable homicide if the homicide was 'necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty.'" The test for whether homicide was justifiable is "whether the circumstances 'reasonably create[d] a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another.'" Kortum v. Alkire (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 325, 333.
The court held “The test for determining whether a homicide was justifiable under Penal Code section 196 is whether the circumstances ‘reasonably create[d] a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another.” Munoz v. City of Union City supra at p. 340 and Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 533.
In Thompson v. County of Los Angeles (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 154, 165 the court held that "Courts must apply the reasonableness standard objectively, viewing the facts from the perspective of the officer at the time of the incident and not with the benefit of hindsight . Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, 394 and Martinez v. County of Los Angeles supra at p.343.
In this matter, Officer Nixon was on duty and acting in his official peace officer capacities when he was investigating suspicious activity and criminal conduct in the area. He came upon two men fleeing in a stolen vehicle. The driver attempted to run the officer over with the vehicle which could have caused serious injury of death to the officer.
The officer was in genuine fear for his safety and based on all evidence, such belief was reasonable under the circumstances. It does not appear that in weighing all facts of this case the officer had a less potentially dangerous alternative than the action he took.
FINDINGS
In this matter, it is the findings of the Lake County District Attorney's Office that the officer had been assaulted with a deadly weapon, namely the Honda Accord. The officer believed the drive of the vehicle would inflict serious bodily injury on him or death. The officer's fear that he would suffer great bodily harm or death, was reasonable in both his state of mind and in fact.
It is therefore my finding that the conduct of Officer Jared Anthony Nixon was justified.
Don A. Anderson
Lake County District Attorney