I have reviewed videos, the scene, and the interviews conducted in the investigation referenced above for the purpose of determining whether any criminal laws were violated by Officer Eric Rose employed by the Idaho Falls Police Department. For the reasons described below, I find no evidence to suggest that this officer committed a criminal offense in relation to the incident described below, and further find his actions were JUSTIFIED as an act of self-defense.

STANDARD OF CRIMINAL REVIEW

Pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-109, “a crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, [an enumerated] punishment.” Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 19-505 and 19-506, in order to charge a crime, there must be sufficient facts which tend to establish there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. In other words, there must be both a prohibited act and sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that an individual violated a law, which requires or proscribes an act, and provides for a punishment for committing or omitting the act.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I have received and reviewed the report of the Eastern Idaho Critical Incident Task Force (“EICITF”). It is complete with the exception of the full autopsy report which may take several months to complete. Based on the preliminary autopsy report, however, it does not appear that any additional findings would change the analysis for the purposes of this criminal liaibily review. The following statement of facts is based on the summary found in the EICITF report.

1. On December 22, 2025, at approximately 5:05 a.m., the Idaho Falls Bonneville County 911 Emergency Communications Center was contacted by a male caller who stated he was calling on behalf of his daughter who resided at 737 Cleveland Street #4 in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

2. The caller informed 911 dispatchers that his daughter, who was five months pregnant, sent the caller a text message requesting he call the police, due to an argument between her and her boyfriend.

3. The boyfriend was identified as Eduardo “Eddy” Trejo de Arcos.

4. The caller also stated that due to past incidents with Mr. Trejo de Arcos, he was advised to call the police and have them respond rather than going to the residence himself.

5. The caller stated his daughter also sent a message stating Mr. Trejo de Arcos was making threats toward his daughter, and that the caller should have the police respond.

6. The caller stated that Mr. Trejo de Arcos may have been intoxicated and there may be weapons in the residence, due to knowing that Mr. Trejo de Arcos owned firearms and other weapons.

7. The caller stated he knew Mr. Trejo de Arcos had a Concealed Weapons Permit and always had his handgun with him.

8. The caller stated that he believed the threats made toward his daughter were “…if you leave, it’s just not gonna happen…”

9. The caller reiterated that Mr. Trejo de Arcos may be intoxicated and that he is an avid user of marijuana, as well as having multiple weapons in the home.

10. The caller stated he would be driving over to his daughter’s residence but would stay out of the way of law enforcement until he was told otherwise.

11. At approximately 5:10 a.m., Idaho Falls Police were dispatched to 737 Cleveland Street #4 in Idaho Falls for a possible disturbance in progress.

12. Dispatch advised responding officers of the messages received by the caller from his daughter regarding the threats Mr. Trejo de Arcos made toward his daughter.

13. They were also advised that Mr. Trejo de Arcos was possibly intoxicated and possible had weapons in the home.

14. At approximately 5:14 a.m., IFPD officers begin arriving on scene, with Officer Rose as the Primary Officer.

15. Several other IFPD officers responded to the scene as well, due to the nature of the call.

16. As officers arrive on scene, they parked their marked IFPD patrol vehicles down the street from the address and approached on foot.

17. As officers located the apartment, they approached quietly, and listened to any yelling, screaming, or any signs of an active disturbance taking place.

18. Officers could hear the couple arguing through a partially opened window.

19. At approximately 0519 a.m., Officer Rose made contact at the front door of apartment #4.

20. As the door opened, officers found that the lights in the apartment were off, with the exception of a light coming from one room in the back of the apartment.

21. Officer Rose identified himself to Mr. Trejo de Arcos at the door, which was only held partially open, and only a portion of Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ body was visible.

22. Officer Rose advised Mr. Trejo de Arcos of the reason why they were at the residence, stating there was a call for a disturbance at that apartment.

23. Mr. Trejo de Arcos nodded his head and admitted the couple was having an argument regarding some messages and other relationship issues.

24. Officer Rose asked Mr. Trejo de Arcos if the officers could come into the apartment and make sure everything was okay, to which Mr. Trejo de Arcos consented.

25. Inside the apartment, officers continued their investigation into the reported disturbance.

26. During this time, the interior lights to the apartment’s main living space remained off, which made it difficult for officers inside the apartment to make a complete observation of the state of the room, as well as identifying any possible threats to the safety of themselves or others.

27. Officer Rose asked Mr. Trejo de Arcos what the argument was about and if it was verbal or whether it ever turned physical.

28. Mr. Trejo de Arcos stated they were arguing over some relationship issues and some text messages.

29. Mr. Trejo de Arcos also stated that the argument was only verbal and no physical fighting took place.

30. During this time, Mr. Trejo de Arcos was calm as he answered the officers’ questions.

31. Officer Rose then spoke with a woman in the apartment, who was standing in the master bedroom, from where the light was protruding.

32. Two officers remained with Mr. Trejo de Arcos while Officer Rose met with the woman in the bedroom, leaving the door open.

33. The woman informed Officer Rose that she and Mr. Trejo de Arcos had been fighting all night long.

34. She stated throughout the night there had been pushing and shoving.

35. She also reported that she was choked by Mr. Trejo de Arcos and was threatened with a knife while being choked.

36. The knife was placed against her face and her stomach.

37. This victim was currently five to six months pregnant with Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ child and they were engaged to be married.

38. Officer Rose was informed that Mr. Trejo de Arcos became upset regarding a text the victim sent to her father, which resulted in Mr. Trejo de Arcos forcefully taking her cell phone and he attempted to delete any video recordings of what took place and to keep her from calling 911.

39. The victim stated Mr. Trejo de Arcos made threats to kill her father once he arrived at the apartment using the knife he had been threatening to use on her.

40. She described the knife as having a large blade approximately 12 inches long with ridges on it and was silver in color.

41. The victim stated that the knife was usually located in the bedroom, but Mr. Trejo de Arcos took the knife out to the living room when he heard knocking on the door.

42. The victim stated that once Mr. Trejo de Arcos saw it was the police at the door, he quickly hid the knife in a dresser drawer on the couch, located next to the front door.

43. The victim stated the dresser drawers with clothing were on the couch next to the front door because Mr. Trejo was attempting to throw her personal items out, to kick her out of the residence.

44. After speaking with the victim, Officer Rose quietly advised another officer that he intended to take Mr. Trejo de Arcos into custody.

45. Before doing so, Officer Rose wanted to speak with Mr. Trejo de Arcos again to confirm the statements made by the victim.

46. Officer Rose returned to the living room and asked to turn the lights on in the room.

47. After doing so, Officer Rose can see the state of the room, with boxes and other clutter around the edges of the room and the dresser drawers on the couch.

48. The silver handled knife was partially visible in the front portion of the bottom drawer located on the couch.

49. The drawer was tilted with the face of the drawer upward, making it difficult to see inside the drawer.

50. Mr. Trejo de Arcos admitted he moved all the dresser drawers and other items out to the living room for the victim to take her personal items and leave, due to the argument over relationship issues.

51. Mr. Trejo de Arcos also admitted to pushing the victim but denied any other physical involvement.

52. When asked about the knife in the drawer, Mr. Trejo de Arcos admitted he threatened to kill the victim’s father, because he knew they were going to fight, and he brought the knife out to the living room, placing it in the drawer.

53. Mr. Trejo de Arcos denied any threats were made with the knife toward the victim.

54. Mr. Trejo de Arcos remained calm, standing with his arms folded.

55. At that time Mr. Trejo de Arcos was advised by Officer Rose that he was being placed under arrest.

56. As officers placed his hands behind his back, Mr. Trejo de Arcos suddenly lunged forward toward the couch, and was able to pull his arms free, and pull the knife out of the drawer.

57. Officer Rose saw the knife in Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ hand and called out “knife” warning the other officers.

58. Officer Rose let go of Mr. Trejo de Arcos and drew his department issued .45 caliber handgun.

59. A second officer also drew his department issued handgun.

60. One officer was able to wrap his arms around Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ arms and waist temporarily pinning his arms to his sides, limiting the movement of the knife.

61. Officer Rose twice commanded Mr. Trejo de Arcos to drop the knife.

62. The officer could not maintain a solid hold on Mr. Trejo de Arcos as they entered the kitchen.

63. Mr. Trejo de Arcos aggressively struggled with the officer, attempting to get free from him.

64. Mr. Trejo de Arcos then attempted to use the knife by bringing it up in a slashing/stabbing motion.

65. The officer pushed Mr. Trejo de Arcos away from him, into the corner of the kitchen, in order to create space between them.

66. Mr. Trejo de Arcos, with the knife still in his right hand, and in what officers described as an “athletic stance,” raised the knife, and appeared as though he was about to charge the officers.

67. At that point, Officer Rose fired a single shot from his handgun, which struck Mr. Trejo de Arcos on the left side of his chest.

68. Officer Rose again commanded him to drop the knife.

69. Mr. Trejo de Arcos stopped moving forward, dropped the knife, and then fell to the floor.

70. Officers advised dispatch over the radio of shots fired, and requested medics.

71. Officers rendered aid to Mr. Trejo de Arcos soon after the knife was on the ground and this was later continued by other responding officers and EMS.

72. EMS arrived a short time later and took over lifesaving efforts; however, Mr. Trejo de Arcos was declared deceased on scene.

73. The EICITF responded to conduct an external investigation into the shooting.

STATEMENT OF THE LAW

An otherwise violent act is justifiable if a person was acting in self-defense and/or the defense of another.  In this case, it appears that at the time of the shooting there was an apparent, imminent threat toward Idaho Falls Police Officer Eric Rose.

If an act involving asserted self-defense results in death, the analysis proceeds under Idaho Code § 18-4009, which states in pertinent part, “Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person when resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.”  Essentially this permits self-defense with a deadly weapon only where the accused has reasonable cause to believe, and does believe, she (or a third person) is in danger of great bodily injury or death.

However, self-defense is further justified, “(d) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed … or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers when reasonably necessary in overcoming actual resistance in the discharge of any legal duty including preserving the peace. Use of deadly force is justified in overcoming actual resistance when the officer has probable cause to believe that the resistance poses a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

In order to find that a person acted in self-defense, all of the following conditions must be found to have been in existence at the time of the use of deadly force:

1. A person must have believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

2. In addition to that belief, a person must have believed that the action they took was necessary to save themselves from the danger presented.

3. The circumstances must have been such that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would have believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and believed that the action taken was necessary.

4. A person must have acted only in response to that danger and not for some other motivation.

5. When there is no longer any reasonable appearance of danger, the right of self-defense ends.

In deciding upon the reasonableness of a person’s beliefs, it should be determined what an ordinary and reasonable person might have concluded from all the facts and circumstances which existed at that time, and not with the benefit of hindsight.

The danger must have been present and imminent, or must have so appeared to a reasonable person under the circumstances. A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a homicide or use of deadly force. The person must have acted under the influence of fears that only a reasonable person would have had in a similar position.

Under the law of self-defense, a person has the right to defend himself from “the infliction of great bodily injury,” but “the exercise of that right must be grounded upon a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, and a reasonable belief that the killing is necessary to protect against such injury.”

The kind and degree of force which a person may lawfully use in self-defense is limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation, seeing what that person sees and knowing what that person knows, would believe to be necessary at that time. Any use of force beyond what is necessary is regarded by the law as excessive. Although a person may believe that they are acting, and may act, in self-defense, a person is not justified in using a degree of force clearly in excess of that apparently and reasonably necessary under the existing facts and circumstances.

Bare fear alone is not a legally sufficient reason to act in self-defense. In addition to one’s perception of the situation, there must be circumstances sufficient to excite the fears of “a reasonable man.”  The Idaho rule of self-defense is not premised upon a subjective test. It is grounded in the objective concept of the actions of a “reasonable person.”  

The defense of self or of another does not require a person to wait until he or she ascertains whether the danger is apparent or real. A person confronted with such danger has a clear right to act upon appearances such as would influence the action of a reasonable person.

In Idaho, no person shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself by reasonable means necessary, from becoming the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.

In the exercise of the right of self-defense or defense of another, a person need not retreat from any place that person has a right to be. A person may stand his ground and defend himself or another person by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.  This law applies even though the person being attacked might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene.

The idea of a requirement of “retreating to the wall” or “retreating as far as he can, or disabling his adversary without killing him, if it be in his power” has never been the law of the land. A person placed under an apparently threatening and menacing danger is only expected to act as a reasonably prudent person would act under similar circumstances and surroundings. “Under such circumstances they ordinarily have but a moment for deliberation and decision. It might so happen that as a matter of fact they could have done any one of a number of other things, and thereby have avoided the danger and refrained from committing the homicide. After they have acted, they cannot be judged from the theoretical standpoint of the man who is resting in both apparent and real safety, confronted by no danger, and menaced by no threats or demonstrations of sudden violence and felonious import. He must act quickly. He must act as a reasonable and prudent man would be likely to act under similar conditions and circumstances, and this is all the law, reason, or justice demands.”  

For centuries now, it has been the law of the United States that if a person is where he has the right to be, when someone advances upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if that person did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

Constraints on Evaluating Reasonableness

Because “police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments [about the amount of force necessary],” the reasonableness of the officer’s belief as to the appropriate level of force should be judged from that on-scene perspective.

Graham explicitly cautions deference to the law enforcement perspective:

“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.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has described Graham’s deference this way:

[W]e 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.  

In evaluating reasonableness, some leeway must be given the officer for on-scene judgments made during the uncertainty of a confrontational encounter. Unlike judges and juries, “officers on the beat are not often afforded the luxury of armchair reflection.”  

In assessing the officer’s decision to use force, including deadly force, fact-finders are strictly forbidden from using “the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”  Instead, Graham mandates a tightly constrained frame of reference within which to calculate reasonableness. The required perspective is that of the “reasonable officer on the scene,” standing in the defendant-officer’s shoes, perceiving what he then perceived and acting within the limits of his knowledge or information as it then existed.  When the prosecutor reviews the officer’s action against the standard applicable to the force used, he must do so from that viewpoint. This constraint is unique to police-defendant cases, in contrast to the normal freedom to envision the dynamics of a confrontation through the eyes of other parties or witnesses.  

Facts learned or discovered later, and actions taken afterward, are irrelevant in this review, even if they would be relevant for some other purpose.  Graham warns specifically against the prohibited territory of second-guessing and “armchair reflection.” This includes comparative speculation, couched in backward-looking terms, about what the officer “could have” or “might have” done differently, and whether he “should have” employed alternate or lesser means of force, or different tactics.  This is because the relevant legal consideration is not what this defendant-officer “should have” known or done, but rather what the reasonable officer, placed in his shoes, “ could have believed “ about the situational need for deadly force in reacting to an imminent threat.  

A person placed under an apparently threatening and menacing danger is only expected to act as a reasonably prudent person would act under similar circumstances and surroundings. “Under such circumstances they ordinarily have but a moment for deliberation and decision. It might so happen that as a matter of fact they could have done any one of a number of other things, and thereby have avoided the danger and refrained from committing the homicide. After they have acted, they cannot be judged from the theoretical standpoint of the man who is resting in both apparent and real safety, confronted by no danger, and menaced by no threats or demonstrations of sudden violence and felonious import. He must act quickly. He must act as a reasonable and prudent man would be likely to act under similar conditions and circumstances, and this is all the law, reason, or justice demands.”  

The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the asserted act of self-defense was not justifiable. If there is a reasonable doubt whether the asserted act of self-defense was justifiable, a person cannot be found guilty under the law.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

This case is analyzed to determine whether Officer Rose’s actions were justified or conversely, if without justification, arise to the level of a manslaughter or murder. A primary element of either offense is that the use of force was unlawful. In this case, as an element of the criminal prosecution, the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Rose was not justified under principles of self-defense in shooting at Mr. Trejo de Arcos.

Justifiable Homicide. This case is being reviewed as a use of force that resulted in death and thus a homicide. The standard in this case, is whether Officer Rose was confronted with the present and imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury or was otherwise justified by Idaho statutes in using the force which resulted in the death.

The officer’s action was within the discharge of the officer’s legal duty as a peace officer. Officer Rose was on duty and was responding to a report of domestic violence. When Officer Rose believed he had sufficient probable cause concerning a felony crime, he notified Mr. Trejo de Arcos he was under arrest. In this case, it was reasonable and within the scope of his duties to respond to this investigation and to place Mr. Trejo de Arcos under arrest.

The officer was in a place where he had a right to be. Officer Rose was invited by Mr. Trejo de Arcos into the apartment. There does not appear to be any indication that this consent was withdrawn. Once Officer Rose had probable cause, he had a right to take Mr. Trejo de Arcos into custody. There is not indication there was any attempt to exclude the officer from the apartment where Officer Rose was lawfully attempting to take Mr. Trejo de Arcos into custody.

The officer was resisting a public offense. Officer Rose was in uniform and identifiable as a police officer and gave Mr. Trejo de Arcos a lawful order to submit to custody and to “drop the knife.” Without provocation, Mr. Trejo de Arcos lunged and acquired the knife, apparently in an attempt to resist the lawful arrest. He struggled with an officer over the knife, and finally turned to confront the officers within close proximity. Under Idaho law, Attempted Murder is the attempt to kill a human being without legal justification or excuse and with malice aforethought.  Assault is defined as, “an unlawful attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another,” or an “intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.”  An assault becomes defined as aggravated when it is committed with a deadly weapon or instrument without intent to kill; or by any means or force likely to produce great bodily harm.  Therefore, in this case, whether or not Mr. Trejo de Arcos actually intended to kill Officer Rose or any other officer with his actions does not change the legal analysis of whether Officer Rose’s response was justified.

The officer did not provoke the threatening behavior. Officer Rose was attempting to take Mr. Trejo de Arcos into custody, and gave Mr. Trejo de Arcos a lawful law enforcement command. Prior to Mr. Trejo de Arcos acquiring the knife, the officers made no threatening or provocative statements (“fighting words”) and made no unjustifiably threatening gestures. Upon review of the video from an officer’s body camera, I conclude all statements and acts by Officer Rose were consistent with common law enforcement training for dealing with the arrest of a suspected felon. I found nothing that Officer Rose said or did that would have reasonably provoked a rational person to react in the violent and threatening manner Mr. Trejo de Arcos exhibited. Mr. Trejo de Arcos acquired the knife and threatened the officers without legal provocation.

Garner Factors

The severity of the crime at issue. The threatening behavior and physical violence (attempted strangulation) described by the victim and corroborated by the presence of the knife and admissions of Mr. Trejo de Arcos rase to a felony level and can present clear risks to the safety of the victim, the officers and the public.

Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. The immediate arrest of Mr. Trejo de Arcos was necessary because of the risk he posed to the victim, her family and eventually the officers. Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ action to use his knife to avoid arrest by threatening the officers who were attempting to place him in handcuffs.

Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The available videos show efforts by Mr. Trejo de Arcos to escape the grip of the officers, obtain the knife, resist an officer’s actions to gain control of the knife, and threatening posture with the knife were all actions toward resisting his lawful arrest and an attempt to evade the arrest.

Objectively Reasonable Fear

The officer reacted to a reasonable appearance of danger. Mr. Trejo de Arcos obtained a knife and actively threatened the officers. Indisputably, a knife of this size and design can be used to cause serious bodily injury or death. Mr. Trejo de Arcos was actively struggling with officers and then turned to face the officer’s direction. Officer Rose’s perception that Mr. Trejo de Arcos constituted an immediate threat to Officer Rose and other officers was objectively reasonable.

Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ actions created a present and imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to the officers. Mr. Trejo de Arcos was within a short distance when he obtained the knife. An officer heroically tried to disarm Mr. Trejo de Arcos, which would have alleviated the threat, but Mr. Trejo de Arcos actively resisted. It was reasonable to perceive that Mr. Trejo de Arcos continued to present a deadly risk to the officers.

Objectively Reasonable force

Officer Rose was justified in using deadly force because the officer had probable cause to believe that Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ actions posed a threat of death or serious physical injury to himself and other officers. There can be no dispute that a knife of this size and design constitutes a threat of serious bodily injury or death. Officers were initially within a short distance of Mr. Trejo de Arcos when he obtained the knife. Mr. Rose ordered Trejo de Arcos to drop the knife, and its nature was easily recognizable. Officer Rose fired his weapon only after Mr. Trejo de Arcos had escaped the grasp of the other officer. Once the assailant turned in their direction within the tight confines of the kitchen, Officer Rose had reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ actions in this case posed a threat of death or serious physical injury to himself, or other officers. As a matter of law, Officer Rose had a right to fire his weapon at Mr. Trejo de Arcos after Mr. Trejo de Arcos turned in the direction of the officers and when it appeared to Officer Rose that Mr. Trejo de Arcos was a further threat to Officer Rose and other officers in the area.

The officer’s action was necessary to save himself and other officers from the apparent danger presented. Officer Rose had to act quickly to stop the threat. It was a reasonable perception by Officer Rose that Mr. Trejo de Arcos presented a continuing threat to Officer Rose and other officers. These threats justified the use of deadly force.

As described above, the law allows that Officer Rose was entitled to “meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”  I find no evidence that Officer Rose “failed to react as a reasonable and prudent man would be likely to act under similar conditions and circumstances,” and “this is all the law, reason, or justice demands.”  I likewise find no reason based on the circumstances reviewed in this case to believe that any such reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force even existed.

The officer’s actions are judged on the facts and circumstances which existed at the time of the officer’s actions. Although it is difficult to guess what Mr. Trejo de Arcos intended by arming himself with the knife, there was no reasonable way Officer Rose should have speculated he somehow did not constitute an immediate threat to the officers. In fact, it would have been unreasonable to believe that Mr. Trejo de Arcos did not constitute an immediate deadly threat. As stated above, I must review the facts reasonably known to the officer at the time, and not with the benefit of any suggestion that Mr. Trejo de Arcos did not intend to harm the officers based on his personality or character traits which simply were not known to the officers. To the contrary, the information they received both from the victim and Mr. Trejo de Arcos himself indicated threatening behavior with the knife.

Graham Factors

In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, several relevant considerations exist:

The incident occurred at night. Mr. Trejo de Arcos was contacted at about 5:00 a.m. in the morning. The apartment was lit with limited lighting. Mr. Trejo de Arcos was described as making several threats throughout the night that preceded the officer’s attempts to arrest him.

The suspect’s demeanor. Perhaps the most significant consideration is the aggressive behavior of Mr. Trejo de Arcos. The video shows Mr. Trejo de Arcos intentionally lunge and acquire the large “Rambo” style knife that has few reasonable alternative uses other than violence towards people The actions observed on the body cam support the officers’ perception that Mr. Trejo de Arcos was acting in an erratic, irrational and threatening manner.

Whether the suspect was intoxicated and noncompliant. As of the date of this memorandum, the toxicology of Mr. Trejo de Arcos has not been received. However, his attempt to resist and evade physical arrest was clearly non-compliant. His actions created a reasonable fear that his behavior could be a threat to the officers and the victim.

Whether the suspect is, or appears to be, violent or dangerous. Mr. Trejo de Arcos was described as threatening both the victim and her father. His actions were reasonably perceived as dangerous and threatening. This is confirmed by the body cam footage which showed Mr. Trejo de Arcos intentionally resisting an officer who was trying to disarm him.

The duration of the confrontation. While the struggle lasted only a few seconds, this was more than sufficient for the officers to understand the nature of the threat. The confrontation ended only after Mr. Trejo de Arcos was pushed away from the officer who was attempting to disarm him.

Whether it occurs during a chase or an arrest. There is no question Mr. Trejo de Arcos was refusing to submit to arrest though he acknowledged the attempt of the officers to place him handcuffs. Further, Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ actions indicated he intended to flee if he was able to threaten the officers with the knife. Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ arrest in a safe manner was obstructed by his actions and failure to comply with the lawful instructions given by the officer for him to submit to arrest and drop the knife.

The possibility that the suspect may be armed. In this case the officers observed the knife and knew that the suspect was armed once he acquired it from the dresser drawer on the couch.

The facts and circumstances are legally conclusive and frankly difficult to dispute given the objective and irrefutable video recordings of the incident, and the corroborating statement of a civilian witness who was present in the apartment. I therefore find no reason to believe that anything learned through further investigation could change the legal analysis of Officer Rose’s actions.

FAMILY CONCERNS

During the pendency of the investigation, the family of Mr. Trejo de Arcos raised two concerns related to the investigation. First, they presented a video taken by a family member indicating there were sutures to the back of Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ head. Second, after the crime scene had been cleaned by a professional service, they photographed a defect in the kitchen floor which they believed could have been a bullet hole.

Injuries Documented in the Autopsy

During the autopsy, the forensic pathologist conducted a scan of the decedent’s body for foreign objects. Additionally, I received a diagram prepared during the autopsy describing each of the wounds found by the forensic pathologist. Based on this information, it is conclusive that there was a single entry wound consistent with a gunshot wound and no exit wound. A single bullet was found fundamentally intact in the body. A wound to the knee is the only other wound documented by the forensic pathologist. The scan shows no other foreign bodies in the decedent’s body. During the autopsy, the scalp was partially removed to inspect the skull, which was found to be intact. This supports the following conclusions:

1. The decedent was struck by a single bullet in the left upper chest near the clavicle (collarbone).

2. This bullet travelled through the decedent’s body from left to slightly right, top to bottom, and front to back.

3. The entire bullet was found near the thoracic spine and near the decedent’s back. No other bullets were found during the autopsy or investigation.

4. There were no other entry or exit wounds, or damage to the body which could have been caused by a bullet.

These conclusions are consistent with the body worn camera video.

The scuff mark on the floor was analyzed by a nationally recognized crime scene expert and in his opinion, it was inconsistent with a bullet striking the floor. Even if it was made by a bullet, the directionality would have been at a very shallow angle, and in the direction where the officers were standing in the video, not toward the decedent. Additionally, there was a hole next to the scuff mark which, if made contemporaneously to the scuff mark, would have been inconsistent with a bullet. Investigators interviewed the co-tenant of the apartment who stated that damage to the floor pre-dated this incident. Investigators saw a picture from prior to the incident which showed the damage already in the floor.

Based on this information, there is no evidence to support that Mr. Trejas de Arcos was injured by the police in any way beyond the single shot fired by Officer Rose, or in a manner inconsistent with the police video.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

There is no evidence that Officer Rose was acting with any motivation other than self-defense.

Under Idaho law, Officer Rose cannot be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself by reasonable means necessary, from becoming the victim of aggravated assault or attempted murder.  As described above, I conclude that Officer Rose was protecting himself and other officers from an aggravated assault and/or an attempted murder.

The evidence also supports the finding that after committing this offense, Mr. Trejo de Arcos resisted arrest and apparently attempted to escape, and posed a threat of serious physical injury to the officer or others. Thus, deadly force was reasonable under I.C. § 18-4009(d).

It is now the law in the United States that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused defendant did not act in self-defense. In this case, I conclude, given the state of the evidence to the contrary, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Rose in fact acted reasonably in self-defense.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, it is my conclusion that Officer Rose’s actions at 737 Cleveland Street Apartment 4, in Idaho Falls, on December 22, 2025, were JUSTIFIED under Idaho law as an act(s) of self-defense. Further, I conclude that Officer Rose was protecting himself and others by reasonable means necessary from an aggravated assault and/or attempted murder, and thus Idaho law prohibits placing the officer in “legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever.”  Therefore, any prosecution for his actions must be DECLINED.

I likewise commend Officer Rose and the other officers for their selfless bravery. One officer in the apartment placed himself at tremendous risk in the attempt to disarm Mr. Trejo de Arcos and thereby eliminate the threat he posed. If these actions had been successful, it likely would have saved Mr. Trejo de Arcos’ life. It is clear by the way they acted, these officers were not seeking a reason to use deadly force, but to the contrary hoped to avoid its use. I believe the entire community is relieved that no harm came to Officer Rose or any of the other officers on the scene, or to the victim whom they were duty bound to protect.

‍