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 Oscar Rosales 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

1. On January 8, 2024, sometime shortly after 3 a.m., an Idaho Falls Police Officer attempted to stop a vehicle driven by Jesus Rosas.

2. Wyatt Landon was the passenger in the vehicle and there were no other occupants.

3. Mr. Landon had multiple warrants for his arrest, and it was believed that he had eluded county deputies earlier the day before.

4. The officer initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle based on an obstructed license plate while the vehicle was eastbound on 3rd Street approaching its intersection with Lee Avenue.

5. The vehicle turned slowly southbound onto Lee Avenue.

6. The passenger leapt from the passenger side of the vehicle and began running on foot southbound on Lee Avenue.

7. Officer Oscar Rosales was on duty, in a dark blue police uniform, and was parked on 4th Street just west of Lee Avenue in an unmarked minivan, surveilling a home which was believed to be associated with Mr. Landon.

8. Officer Rosales exited the minivan when he heard over the radio that the passenger was fleeing on foot in his general direction, and the direction of the residence.

9. Officer Rosales began moving on foot eastward on 4th Street toward the intersection with Lee Avenue.

10. In less than a minute, Mr. Landon rounded the corner at the intersection of 4th Street and Lee Avenue.

11. Officer Rosales yelled, “show me your hands.”

12. Mr. Landon fired one round from a handgun at Officer Rosales.

13. Officer Rosales then fired his service weapon, striking Mr. Landon four times.

14. A loaded magazine from Mr. Landon’s firearm was later discovered near the location where Mr. Landon had exited Rosas’ vehicle.

15. This area was not visible from where Officer Rosales had been parked on 4th Street.

16. Mr. Landon was transported to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center where he was pronounced deceased.

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 Oscar Rosales.

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.

This case also presents the issue of Idaho’s codification of the common law fleeing felon rule.  Despite this codification, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”  The court declared, deadly force may not be used in such circumstances unless “it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”  Thus, in order to apply the fleeing felon statute, 1) the officer must be preventing an escape and 2) the suspect must pose a significant threat of serious physical injury to the officer or others.

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 Rosales’ 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 Rosales was not justified under principles of self-defense in shooting and/or shooting at Mr. Mr. Landon.

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 Rosales 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 Rosales was on duty and was responding to an urgent call for assistance by a fellow officer in pursuit of a fleeing felon. In this case, it was reasonable and within the scope of his duties to respond to this call for assistance.

The officer was in a place where he had a right to be. Officer Rosales was on a public roadway responding to an urgent call for assistance after a fellow officer was attempting a lawful traffic stop on a public roadway. This roadway and its adjacent sidewalks are open to the public. There is no basis to believe that Mr. Landon had any right to exclude the officer from the public roadway where Officer Rosales was lawfully standing.

The officer was resisting a public offense. Officer Rosales was in uniform and identifiable as a police officer and gave Mr. Landon a lawful order “show me your hands.” Without provocation, Mr. Landon produced a semi-automatic firearm and fired one round. 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.  Assault with Intent to Commit a Serious Felony is defined as an assault upon another with intent to commit murder, rape, mayhem, robbery, or lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor child.  Therefore, in this case, whether or not Mr. Landon actually intended to kill Officer Rosales with his actions does not change the legal analysis of whether Officer Rosales’ response was justified.

The officer did not provoke the threatening behavior. Officer Rosales was responding to the report of a fleeing felon, was identifiable as a police officer, and gave Mr. Landon a common law enforcement command. Prior to Mr. Landon firing the firearm at Officer Rosales, the officer made no threatening or provocative statements (“fighting words”) and made no unjustifiably threatening gestures. Upon review of the video from an officer’s dash camera, I conclude all statements and acts by Officer Rosales were consistent with common law enforcement training for dealing with a fleeing felon. I found nothing that Officer Rosales said or did that would have reasonably provoked a rational person to react in the violent and threatening manner Mr. Landon exhibited. Mr. Landon fired his weapon at Officer Rosales without legal provocation.

Objectively Reasonable Fear

The officer reacted to a reasonable appearance of danger. Mr. Landon produced a firearm and actively shot at Officer Rosales. Indisputably, a firearm can be used to cause serious bodily injury or death. Mr. Landon was actively shooting in the officer’s direction and Officer Rosales’ perception that Mr. Landon constituted an immediate threat to Officer Rosales, other officers and the public was objectively reasonable.

Mr. Landon’s actions created a present and imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to the officer. Mr. Landon was within a short distance when he fired at Officer Rosales. There was no way for Officer Rosales to know that Mr. Landon had apparently dropped the magazine from his firearm. It was reasonable to perceive that Mr. Landon continued to present not only a risk to the officers but to the public.

Objectively Reasonable force

Officer Rosales was justified in using deadly force because the officer had probable cause to believe that Mr. Landon’ actions posed a threat of death or serious physical injury to himself and other officers. There can be no dispute that shooting a firearm at a person constitutes a threat of serious bodily injury or death. Officer Rosales was initially within a short distance of Mr. Landon when he fired the shot in his direction. Mr. Rosales heard the gunshot and observed the muzzle flash from the firearm, and its nature was easily recognizable. Officer Rosales fired his weapon only after Mr. Landon had already fired at him. Once the assailant fired a deadly weapon, Officer Rosales had reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Landon’s actions in this case posed a threat of death or serious physical injury to himself, other officers, and the public. As a matter of law, Officer Rosales had a right to fire his weapon at Mr. Landon after Mr. Landon fired in his direction and when it appeared to Officer Rosales that Mr. Landon was a further threat to Officer Rosales and other officers in the area.

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

As described above, the law allows that Officer Rosales 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 Rosales “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 Mr. Landon’s firearm was empty after he discharged the only round left in the firearm, there was no reasonable way Officer Rosales could have known this. In fact, it would have been unreasonable to believe that any modern firearm was limited to firing only one shot. As stated above, I must review the facts reasonably known to the officer at the time, and not with the benefit of a methodical, deliberate investigation which later revealed that Mr. Landon’s firearm was quite fortunately empty after he fired the first shot.

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 heard the incident from their home. I therefore find no reason to believe that anything learned through further investigation could change the legal analysis of Officer Rosales’ actions.  

Final Considerations

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

Under Idaho law, Officer Rosales 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 Rosales 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. Landon continued to attempt to escape, and posed an apparent 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 that to the contrary, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Rosales in fact acted reasonably in self-defense.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, it is my conclusion that Officer Rosales’ actions at the intersection of Lee and 4th Street in Idaho Falls on January 8, 2024, were JUSTIFIED under Idaho law as an act(s) of self-defense. Further, I conclude that Officer Rosales 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 Rosales for his selfless bravery. I recognize that had the magazine from Mr. Landon’s firearm remained in the firearm, the outcome of this shooting may have been gravely in question. Mr. Landon was approaching a parked vehicle which may have provided him with some cover and concealment, which would have placed Officer Rosales in even more dangerous circumstances.  I believe the entire community is relieved that no harm came to Officer Rosales or any of the other officers near the scene.

‍