@ COUNTY OF SiskIYou OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY 4: Yama ANoRUS, DstRICT ArToRNEY April 26, 2016 District Attorney Releases Findings in Officer Involved Shooting from July, 2015 For Immediate Release. Yreka. On April 26,2016 District Attomey Kirk Andrus released his official findings to Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko and CHP Acting ‘Commander Lt. Brent Giordano in which he informed them of his decision not to file charges against any ofthe officers involved in the fatal shooting of Matthew Ryan Grabarm on July 13, 2015. ‘The letters attached P.0.80x986 - Yao, Carona 96097-0986 - (530) 842-8125 - Fax (530) 842.8137‘County oF Siskiyou Orrice OF THE District ATTORNEY J. King ANORUS, DIsnicr ATTORNEY April 26, 2016 SherifTJon Lopey Siskiyou County Sterif?s Department Yreka, CA 96097 Sheriff Tom Boserko Shasta County Sheriff's Department Redding, CA. 96001, Commander Lt. Brent Giordano California Highway Patol Mount Shasta, CA 96067 RE: Fatal Officer Involved Shooting of Matthew Ryan Graham on July 13, 2015. Gentlemen, {have reviewed the reports and materials, including forensic, scientific and toxicological ‘materials, compliec by Special Agent Heather Nelson of the California Department of Justice concering the fatal shooting of Matthew Ryan Graham at approximately 7:45 am on July 13, 2015. The final item was the Medical Legal Autopsy Report, dated April 12, 2016 and received ‘week later. Ihave reviewed and considered all ofthe evidence, though only a small portion is referred to herein. Factual Summary Reports indicate that Matthew Ryan Graham was, as of July 13,2015, a person of interest inthe Aisappearance of his 6 month old daughter Ember Graham, who he had reported missing on July 2,2015 in Shasta County. Graham was prominently featured in heavy lee! publicity surrounding the disappearance of his daughter. On Iuly 11, 2015 a relative of Graham calle law enforcement to report that Graham had stolen from them a 40 Springfield handgun, In dion, Grahams had fled to repor tothe Shasta County Probation Department on that same date. Law enforeement sought to arrest Graham for these violations beginning inthe afternoon of July 1% 0, Bux 886 ~ Yau, Carew 94007-0906 - 530) 882-0125 ~ FalSO IDOLS?(On July 13, 2015 Graham was still at larg, though sightings by various citizens had been confirmed in the Shasta County area. At approximately 6:30 am on July 13 Graham committed ‘carjacking by taking a vehicle at gunpoint from the victims t their home in Shasta Lake City, ‘The gun used matched the description of the handgun he had previously stolen, Within the hour Graham was located by satellite, using a tacking feature inthe stolen vehicle Officers were eventually prompted toa location near the intersection of Katherine Street and Francis Stret in Dunsmuir, Siskiyou County, California. Officers from several Shasta and Siskiyou County agencies converged on to the site and an active search ensued. Shasta County Deputy Fleming was utilizing his K9 partner, who had obtained a strong scent a te stolen vehicle and was approaching a garage on Francis Street with other officers nearby. As they approached the garage opening a single gunshot was discharged from within the garage. Officers responded witha velley of gunfire into the garage and then took positions outside the ‘rage while issuing commands to Graham, who could still not be seen due to the near complete darkness ofthe garage and asport utility vehicle parked inside and taking up almost all ofthe interior garage space. Unknown to the officers at the time, Graham had discharged the firearm at himself likely by putting his head back and firng upward through the underside ofhis chin, According to the medical examiner, this “selFinflicted gunshot wound to the head,” due to its trajectory, was “not immediately fatal or ineapactating,” Ballistics testing would later definitively match this ‘expended bullet to the firearm Graham had stolen earlier and had on his person at the time, ‘Adding to the confusion waste fact that Deputy Fleming suffered a non-gunshot injury during this time and many officers en seene believed that he had been shot as they observed him retreat to get care for his wound. Approximately $ minutes later, afer countless commands from officers to give up and come out, Graham was seen moving tovard the garage door on the left side of the vehicle. He was on his ‘knees and had his hands forward and extended, He was holding an item in his right hand thet did not appeat to be a weapon. While moving out of the garage his shirt moved up s0 as to expose a small portion ofthe area above his belt, where some officers observed a small bulge, At that time one officer saw the buttof a gun in Graham's waistband and alerted the other officers. At the same time, another officer was able to see the same handgun extending from Graham's ‘waistband and loudly annourced “gun in the waistband” several times. Graham exited the garage and lay prone on the road directly in front ofthe garage as he was commanded todo, ‘As a contact team was being selected fo take Graham into custody they were seen on video to lower thei firearms as they prepared to advance, under the cover of other officers, on Graham, Graham then pushed himselfup from the ground with both arms and came up to his knees with his left hand sill teaching the ground. Officers were heard loudly shouting instructions not to go for the gun, to stay down and to keep his hands up. The contact team was seen again bringing their weapons to bear. Aftera brief hesitation Graham clearly reached his right hand forthe 2firearm in his waistband, even taking effort to reach below his shirt hanging over the waistband area, 12 law enforcement offices fired their Weapons virtually simultaneously and Graham died in the volley before he was able to pull his firearm completely out ofits holster that had been in hhis waistband and oriented fora right-handed draw. Applicable Law ‘This eview is to set forth the established facts and to analyze those facts against the applicable law to determine whether the officers wll face charges in the shooting incident. The review does not examine such issues as compliancs with the policies and procedures of ther aw enforcement agencies, use of force training or issues related to civil liability. Nothing contained herein should be intepveted a expressing an opinion on these matters, ‘Under California law peace officers may use deadly force to protect themselves from the threat of death or great bodily injury. Penal Code § 83Sa provides that an officer may use reasonable force to make an arrest and to overcome resistance by a person for whom he had reasonable ‘cause to believe had committed a public offense. An officer need not retreat or desist inthe effort to effect an arest because ofthat person's resistance. Penal Code § 196 states that homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers, “when necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance... inthe discharge of any... legal duty.” Furthermore, homicide bby public officers is justified “when nevessirily committed in retaking felons who ... have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest” This is true when “the officer has probable cause to believe thatthe suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury tothe officer or others." All determinations of unreasonable force ‘must embody allowance for the fac 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." Scott v. Henrich (Sth Ci. 1994) 39 F.34 912. Furthermore, the law of self-defense is available to all persons, including peace officers ‘Homicide is justifiable in accordance with Penal Code § 197 when defending oneself or another person from any attempt to inflict death or great bodily injury on any person. This requires that a person actually and reasonably believes that tha they, or another person, are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death. People v. Williams (1977) 75 Cal.App.34 731. In protecting ‘oneself or another, one may use all force which they believe reasonably necessary and which ‘would appear toa reasonable person, in thesame or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the apparently imminent injury Furthermore, homicide is justifiable, and not unlawful, when committed by any person when resisting an attempt to commit a felony. Penal Code section 197(1). The threatened felony must bea “forcible and atrocious crime.” These are defined as crimes that threaten, or are believed bythe defender tc threaten, life or great bodily injury, and instil a reasonable fear of the same. People v. Cebellas (1974) 12 Cal.34 470 Conclusion Having reviewed the statement of every witness and every officer, ind the consisteney between them to be remarkable. This is further striking given that many of the officer from different ‘agencies did not know each other—not even the names of those they trusted to support them in this dangerous environment, Aside from the physical evidence and witness statements, [have been aided chiefly by two video recordings. One shows the officers to Graham's north atthe time of the shooting, and has a clear audio portion. Repeated commancs, and “gun in the waistband” are clearly and repeatedly heard upon Greham exiting the garage. This video and audio clearly exablish that Graham initially complied with commands and then ceased to comply. The fatal volley followed heightened commands when Grahen began to reach for his ‘gun, putting the officers’ ives in danger and necessitating the use of deadly force. ‘The second vigeo was the MVARS dashboard-mounted camera on a CHP vehicle which had been advanced toward the garage to offer cover tothe officers minutes defore the fatal volley. In this video the camera detail is insufficient to record the presence of the gun, or even the blood that was coursing from the wound to Graham’s face and neck area, but Graham can be clearly seen exiting the garage and the area between his shirt and the waistline of his pans is clearly, if briefly, visible. Graham is then seen to lie prone onthe ground, push himself up by his hands to ‘a kneeling position, then reach under hs shirt directly for his gun. When the gunshots ceased, ‘officers are seen securing the garage while leaving Graham’s face-dowa body untouched but attended. Gratam’s body was rolled onto his back, and the 40 Springfeld with serial number ‘matching that of the gun he had stolen 2 days earlier was recovered from his front waistband area, by independent investigators some 55 minutes after he had been shot and killed, Given the circumstances known tothe officers that Matthew Ryan Gratam was person of interest in a potential murder case, was exhibiting desperate behavior, had stolen & firearm, had used the firearm to commit a violent and desperate crime, had fired the firearm in close proximity to investigating officers, had placed the easily-accessible firexm in an unsecured holster in his waistband area—abserved by many officers as a bulge, ore as the butt of a hhandgun, and one as a handgun, that “gun in the waistband” was announced and heard by many officers, that Graham initially complied with commands and then unambiguously acted in dtect contravention tothe commands (exposing some officers to danger atthe expectation that he was surrendering), and was immediately given direct commands not to reac int the waistband area, ‘to go back to the ground and to move his hands, the use of deadly forceon the part ofall twelve ‘officers who fired their weapons was clearly justified. ‘Each officer believed that his life and/or the life of other officers was in danger a the time that ‘shots were fired. This belief was clearly reasonable under the circumstances. Its also clear thatthe officers took pain, and all appropriate actions, to avoid the death of Matthew Ryan Graham, ‘The strong suspicion that Graham was armed witha firearm, as shown by these circumstances, coupled with the action of reaching toward his waistband as shown on the MVARS video, together provide exceptionally trong evidence that the officers’ decisions to use deadly force ‘was not only pemissible but the only prudent course of action. Shasta County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Brian Jackson, Deputies Dave Foff, Mike Nelson, Jason. ‘Thatcher and KS Deputy Tom Fleming ace the officers who fired during the intial volley in response to the gunshot fired by Graham. Their actions were clearly reasonable and justified by the need to protect themselves and their fellow officers from the danger and likelihood of great ‘bodily injury and death from the shooter who was unscen a that time, Shasta County Steriff's Office Lieutenant Troy Clegg, Sergeants Brian Jackson and Steve Grashoff, Deputies Dave Eoff, Mike Nelson, Jason Thatcher, Nick Thompson, Garrett Baldwin, Siskiyou County Sheriff's Office Corporal Hoyt Bradley and Deputy Jason Jones, and California Highway Patrol Officers Jeffrey Bell and Eric Degraffenreid are the officers who fired during the volley that proved fatal © Matthew Ryan Graham. The use of deadly force by each ofthese “officers was reasonable, justified and necessary to protect themselves and theit fellow officers from the danger and likelihood of great bodily injury or death which was imminent upon Graham ‘placing himself ina position to retrieve and fire the gun with which he had armed himself Accordingly the use of deadly force was justified and each ofthe 13 named offices who fired ‘his weapon during the volleys of gunfire described herein are discharged and cleared from. ‘criminal ability in this matter. “This concludes the inquiry into the lawfulness ofthe officers’ actions inthis matter. 1 wish them all well after their tragic involvement with Mr, Graham. 1 also wish the loved ones of Me. ‘Graham well and express condolences to ll involved. Very Truly KIRK ANDRUS DISTRICT ATTORNEY