LAKEPORT, Calif. – The District Attorney's Office on Friday released the final investigative report detailing its findings in a deputy's shooting of a suspect who rammed a police officer's car in January, ruling the shooting was justified.
District Attorney Don Anderson's report focused on sheriff’s Deputy Jay Vanoven's shooting of James Ellis Smith of Santa Rosa early on the morning of Friday, Jan. 3.
Eastham found Smith in the process of burglarizing Hillside Honda in Lakeport, with a chase ensuing and leading outside of the city limits, with Vanoven joining the pursuit along the way, officials reported.
When Smith went off the road in the area of Riggs Road, he rammed his pickup into Eastham's patrol car. Anderson said Eastham got out of the car and Smith appeared to be about to ram into the vehicle again – and possibly hit Eastham in the process – when Vanoven shot Smith.
Vanoven fired six rounds at Smith, striking him in the body cavity, elbow and head, Anderson reported.
Vanoven “fired his firearm as a result of what he believed to be a credible threat to the life and safety” of Lakeport Police Officer Joe Eastham, according to Anderson's report.
Smith was flown to an out-of-county trauma center before being returned to the Lake County Jail.
Jail staff found him unresponsive in his cell on May 10. Despite attempts to revive him, the 37-year-old Smith was pronounced dead.
A few days before he died, Smith had been offered a plea agreement that would have had him facing prison time for burglary and the vehicle pursuit, but not for the ramming incident, as Anderson said it was going to be a challenge to prove Smith had the intent to harm Eastham.
The sheriff's office has not disclosed the results of Smith's autopsy, which took place within the days after his death.
Anderson's full report on the shooting is 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 OF
JAMES ELLIS SMITH ON JANUARY 3, 2014
INTRODUCTION
On January 3, 2014, officers of the Lakeport Police Department and Lake County Sheriff’s Department conducted a vehicle pursue of James Ellis Smith that started at Hillside Honda on Main Street Lakeport and concluded on Riggs Road in Lakeport. James Ellis Smith had been found in the act of burglarizing Hillside Honda.
At the conclusion of the chase, James Ellis Smith ran his vehicle off the roadway. Smith then rammed his vehicle into the patrol car of the Lakeport Police Officer. When it appeared that Smith would be ramming the patrol vehicle and/or officer again, a Lake County Sheriff’s Deputy fired his service weapon at Smith striking him three times. Smith was taken into custody without further incident.
It is the findings of this office that the Lake County Sheriff’s Deputy was justified in discharging his firearms in defense of the other officer.
FACTS
On Friday, January 3, 2014 at about 4:17 a.m., Officer Joe Eastham of the Lakeport Police Department was dispatched to a report of an alarm activation at Hillside Honda on Main Street, Lakeport. On his arrival Officer Eastham observed near the front door of Hillside Honda a Chevrolet pick-up parked facing south in the northbound lane of Main Street.
A subject, later identified as James Ellis Smith was placing a rope in the back of the pick-up. Smith got into his vehicle and started to flee the area with Officer Eastham following. Information was later developed that James Smith was in the process of burglarizing Hillside Honda.
James Smith fled north on Main Street, then west on C Street. Smith made a U-turn proceeded east of C Street then south on Main Street. Smith proceed at a very high rate of speed on Main Street, then turned west on Lakeport Blvd. continuing at a high rate of speed. Smith turned north bound on Highway 29 with Officer Eastham in pursuit.
Hearing the call for assistance from Officer Eastham, Deputy Jay Vanoven and Robert Murray respondent from the Sheriff’s Department on Martin Street. Deputy Vanoven was the lead car and Deputy Murray behind him. Deputy Vanoven joined the pursuit as Smith and Officer Eastham sped north on Highway 29 at speed in excess of 100 m.p.h.
Smith exited the freeway at the 11th Street/Scotts Valley road off ramp. Smith and the pursuing officers turned west bound on Scotts Valley road and accelerated to a high rate of speed. Smith turned west off on to Riggs road. At the first 90 degree turn Smith failed to navigate the curve and drove off of the road in a corral. In going through the corral Smith drove through a telephone pole size fence post and became entangled in thick cable being used as a fence.
Smith briefly came to a stop as Officer Eastham drove to a position behind Smith’s vehicle and started to exit his patrol vehicle. Deputy Vanoven parked his vehicle to the south of Officer Eastham and exited his vehicle, anticipating a foot pursuit. The total time of the pursuit was 3 minutes and 23 seconds.
Smith immediately put his vehicle in reverse and quickly accelerated at a high rate of speed for the distance. With Officer Eastham still in the vehicle, Smith rammed the back of his Chevrolet pick-up truck with the left front of Officer Eastham’s patrol vehicle. The collision appeared to be very violent crash for the distance traveled by Smith’s vehicle. The collision caused substantial damage to the patrol vehicle.
James Smith later stated that he was attempting to flee the crash scene and drive to Cow Mountain in order to escape to Ukiah.
Smith then put his vehicle in drive and then in four wheel drive, then accelerated forward. The vehicle’s forward movement was prohibited by the cables being wrapped around the front and rear axles. As the Smith vehicle lunged forward it was quickly stopped by the cable. Smith’s vehicle veered to the right as he continued to try and break free.
Deputy Vanoven from his position believed Officer Eastham was out of his vehicle and standing somewhere near it. Deputy Vanoven from his position was able to see Smith looking back at Officer Eastham. He also observed what appear to be the Smith’s quick movements toward Officer Eastham. Deputy Vanoven believed at that time that Smith was attempting to ram Officer Eastham’s vehicle or Officer Eastham himself.
Deputy Vanoven fired six rounds at James Smith. Smith was hit in the body cavity, elbow and head. From the time of the collision between Smith’s vehicle and Officer Eastham’s vehicle to the time of the shots were fired by Deputy Vanoven was three seconds.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The relevant California statutory and case law regarding this matter is set forth below.
Although no person died in this incident, the principals found in Penal Code Section 196 are relevant “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 held that an officer “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 effect it.”
“‘[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. Munoz, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1109.
In Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 334, 349, 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.” citing Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 334, and Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 533
In this matter, the officers were involved in a high speed pursuit of a fleeing felon at speeds over 100 m.p.h. When the vehicle drove off the roadway it immediately drove through fencing and became entangled in thick cable. At this point the vehicle would not have been able to proceed forward. The officers at the scene would not have been able to know the vehicle could not escape.
James Smith intentionally backed his vehicle up at a high rate of speed crashing violently into Officer Eastham. Smith later tells officers that he only intended to escape to Cow Mountain. If this was Smith’s true intentions, it is impossible for the officers to have known. It is more practical and within the scope of good police work for the officers to react as though Smith intentionally rammed the patrol vehicle.
After Smith rammed the patrol vehicle he accelerated forward. Again his forward progress was limited due to the cable being wrapped around his axles.
Deputy Vanoven sees Smith looking back at Officer Eastham. The slowing forward movement of Smith’s vehicle, the abrupt stopping along with the drifting to the right would reasonable have made it appear that Smith’s vehicle was slowing, stopping and starting to reverse direction in the direction of Officer Eastham. This gave the perception that Officer Eastham was under attack from a vehicle being used as a deadly weapon and that his life was in immediate danger.
The above information has been verified by MAV tape recordings, statements of officers and the scene and the suspect’s own statements.
FINDINGS
It is the findings of the Lake County District Attorney that Deputy Jay Vanoven fired his firearm as a result of what he believed to be a credible threat to the life and safety of Officer Eastham. Deputy Vanoven’s conduct under this extreme stressful situation was motivated by his desire and duty to protect a fellow officer. The perception of Deputy Vanoven was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, it is the findings of this office that Deputy Vanoven’s use of his firearm was justified.
________________________________
Don A. Anderson
Lake County District Attorney
