From the DA’s Desk 
By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (ret.) 

The Law of Summary Judgments: 

• Deadly Force Used on a Mentally Disturbed Person Armed with a Knife 

• Use of a Taser in an Attempt to Subdue a Violent Person Armed with a Knife 

• The Reasonableness of Pre-Shooting Conduct and the Fourth Amendment 

• Failing to Warn a Person That She is About to be Tased 

County of Nevada v. Superior Court (A.C., Real Party in Interest) (May 12, 2025) Cal.App.5th (2025 Cal.App. LEXIS 299) 

Rule: An officer’s shooting and killing a mentally disturbed person who is actively threatening officers with a knife is lawful as a matter of law. Closing the distance between a mentally disturbed person who is actively threatening officers with a knife for the purpose of tasing her is lawful. Warning a person that she is about to be tased is not necessary where the circumstances make it impractical to do so. 

Facts: In the early afternoon of February 4, 2021, the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department received several 911 calls from different people concerning a woman acting “really weird,” “really scared,” and appeared to be “not well,” as she walked along Alta Sierra Drive. The woman, later identified as Ariella Sage Crawford, had two small children with her (the ages of whom were never reported in this case decision, but who were old enough to walk along with Crawford on their own). One of the callers reported that Crawford was “out there alone in the cold with the two little kids,” had told others she was being followed and asked for a ride to “Nevada” (whether she meant the state or the county is unknown), telling the caller that someone was hurting her children. Two Nevada County deputy sheriffs responded to the area and found her with the children walking along a street that intersected with Alta Sierra Drive. Deputy #1 pulled up behind Crawford and got out of his patrol car, asking her if she would stop and talk with him. Crawford ignored him, continuing to walk away with the children in tow. Upon Deputy #2’s arrival, Deputy #1 followed the woman as far as the front of his patrol car, assuring her that she was “not in trouble or anything like that.” With that, Crawford turned to face the deputies, unsheathed a knife, and told them: “I know what you did to my babies.”  

Given this turn of events, Deputy #1 drew his service pistol, but held it in a “low ready” position pointed at the ground in front of him. Deputy #2, standing back a bit, drew his Taser and held it by his side while telling Deputy #1, “I got Taser.” At this point, Crawford said, “Don't hurt my babies.” Deputy #1 repeatedly told her that he was not going to hurt her children.  

Crawford continued to hold the knife in front of her, in her right hand, with the blade extending from the little-finger side of her hand. As she held the knife, she also pointed her index finger at the deputies and raised her voice, yelling several times that “everyone in the whole world” would know if anything happened to her and her babies. Continuing to scream, she advanced on Deputy #1. As she did so, the deputy backed up to around the left-middle of his vehicle, giving her some space. Meanwhile, Deputy #2 walked around the back and up the right side of the patrol car. Surrounded by the two deputies, Crawford alternated her focus between them, repeatedly telling them both not to touch “my babies.”  

At this point, one of the children suddenly stepped in front of her, put one hand out toward Crawford and the other toward Deputy #1, yelling, “Stop!” Crawford pulled the child away and continued to yell at the deputies. Deputy #1 continued telling Crawford that he just wanted to help her. Crawford yelled in response, “I know who you are! Everyone knows who you are! You can’t hide from God!” At this point, one of the children again started walking toward Deputy #1 with Crawford quickly following, holding the knife at her side. Deputy #1 again stepped back to maintain a distance from her, moving past the left rear of his patrol vehicle. Meanwhile, Deputy #2 came around to the front of the car, attempting to maintain a line of sight with Deputy #1. As he did so, Crawford turned to face him while raising her knife. Deputy #2 told her twice to put the knife down. Crawford screamed in return, “No!” Deputy #1 told Crawford “I need you to put the knife down.” Crawford responded, “I don’t give a f**k.”  

As Deputy #1 asked Crawford to “talk to us,” Crawford collected the child that was between her and Deputy #1 while making her way back to the front of the patrol car, still holding the knife out toward Deputy #1. Crawford continued to yell, “Everyone knows who you are. Everyone f**king knows who you are.” But then the same child approached Deputy #1 again with Crawford close behind, still yelling, causing that deputy to back up further past the back of his patrol car. As he did so, Deputy #2 rounded the front of the car, still with his Taser in hand. This left Crawford surrounded by the two deputies. Crawford suddenly turned and quickly advanced toward Deputy #2 while raising the knife. Deputy #2 attempted to stop her by discharging his Taser at her. However, it had no effect. Crawford began to run toward Deputy #2 with her knife in hand, chasing him into the street. As she did so, Deputy #1 followed close behind and shot Crawford in the back, killing her.  

All this occurred in less than two minutes. The children, through their guardian ad litem (plaintiffs), sued both deputies as well as the County of Nevada County, alleging a Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 52.1, violation in state court, asserting causes of action for negligence, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, under the theory that the deputies’ use of force against their mother was unreasonable. The civil defendants moved for summary judgment (to dismiss the lawsuit.) The trial court granted the motion as to Deputy #1, reasoning that that deputy’s actions in shooting and killing Crawford were reasonable, but denied it as to Deputy #2, who attempted to subdue Crawford by tasing her. (Go figure.) The trial court judge also denied Nevada County’s motion for summary judgment under the theory that the Bane Civil Rights Act made the County liable for Deputy #2’s alleged negligent actions. Deputy #2 and the county of Nevada appealed. 

Held: The Third District Court of Appeal reversed. The issue on appeal in this case is obviously whether or the remaining civil defendants’ (Deputy #2 and Nevada County) motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The appellate court first noted why the law on “summary judgments” was passed: “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “A (civil) defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted if no triable issue exists as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law...The burden of persuasion remains with the party moving for summary judgment...” (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1002–1003.)  

The question in this case, therefore, was whether there were any triable issues of material fact that a civil jury needed to resolve. “(W)e can find a triable issue of material fact ‘if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact (a civil jury) to find the underlying fact in favor of the [plaintiff] in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.’” (King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 433.) The trial court had held in this case that as to Deputy #1 (who fired the fatal shot), there were no triable issues, and dismissed plaintiffs’ civil suit as to him. But as to Deputy #2 (and the county), the trial court felt that there was an issue that needed to be resolved by a jury: whether closing the distance between the deputy and Crawford, and then using a Taser on her, was reasonable under the circumstances.  

The appellate court on appeal disagreed. First, however, the court agreed with the trial court that as to Deputy #1, his use of force by shooting and killing Crawford was reasonable under the circumstances as a matter of law. The law is clear: “[A]n officer may reasonably use deadly force when he or she confronts an armed suspect in close proximity whose actions indicate an intent to attack. In these circumstances, the courts cannot ask an officer to hold fire in order to ascertain whether the suspect will, in fact, injure or murder the officer.” (Quoting Villalobos v. City of Santa Maria (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 383, 389.) In this case, Deputy #1 appeared to have done everything he could to avoid shooting Crawford, only doing so when Crawford went after Deputy #2 with her knife and, while in “close proximity,” was about to stab him.  

The parties didn’t dispute that Deputy #1’s use of deadly force under these circumstances was lawful. The plaintiffs only argued that there are triable issues of material fact based on Deputy #2’s pre-shooting conduct. The theory behind this argument was that Deputy #2’s alleged unreasonable conduct (closing the distance with Crawford and then tasing her in an unsuccessful attempt to subdue her) created the need for Deputy #1 to use deadly force. The California Supreme Court has held that an officer’s “pre-shooting conduct” must be reasonable, as a part of “the totality of circumstances.” The court further cited the general rule that: “(T)he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’” Further: “As long as an officer’s conduct falls within the range of conduct that is reasonable under the circumstances, there is no requirement that he or she choose the ‘most reasonable’ action.” “Law enforcement personnel have a degree of discretion as to how they choose to address a particular situation. Summary judgment (dismissing the lawsuit) is appropriate when the trial court determines that, viewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, no reasonable juror could find [the use of force was unreasonable].” “This standard ‘reflects deference to the split-second decisions of an officer and recognizes that, unlike private citizens, officers may use deadly force.’” (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 675, 685.) “(T)he decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and...the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.” (Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 528; see also Pen. Code § 835a(a)(4).)  

The plaintiffs argued that the reasonableness of Deputy #2’s actions in closing the distance between himself and Crawford immediately before deploying the Taser is an issue that should be left for a jury to decide. The court disagreed. Per the undisputed evidence, Deputy #2 testified that he closed the distance between himself and Crawford out of fear that she was about to stab Deputy #1. On this issue, Deputy #2 testified that; “(s)he was going towards (Deputy #1). I could no longer see him. Based on her actions, I had every reason to believe that she was a threat to him. I couldn’t see him and I wouldn’t be able to respond from that position.”  

The plaintiffs presented no evidence to contradict this. Per the court, as such: “(N)o reasonable juror could conclude (Deputy #2’s) movement to maintain line of sight with (Deputy #1) was unreasonable as Crawford screamed and advanced toward (Deputy #1) with a deadly weapon.” Having lawfully closed the distance between himself and Crawford, the court further ruled that Deputy #2 was reasonable in attempting to subdue Crawford by tasing her. As noted by the court: “(N)o reasonable juror could conclude that Crawford would not have been perceived as an immediate threat when she screamed and advanced toward (Deputy #1) with the knife and then suddenly turned and quickly advanced toward (Deputy #2) while raising the deadly weapon.”  

When Deputy #2’s attempt to tase Crawford proved to be ineffective, and she got closer to him, Deputy #1 shot and killed her. This action was also reasonable under the circumstances, as noted above and as conceded by the plaintiffs. Lastly, the court held that given the speed at which the events were occurring, it was not unreasonable for Deputy #2 to have failed to warn Crawford that he was about to tase her. As such, the trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment in Deputy #2’s favor (as well as for Nevada County). 

Note: While I don’t disagree with this case decision based solely upon the legal standards as they exist under the law, I’m still reluctant to put my stamp of approval upon the deputy’s decision to shoot and kill Ariella Crawford, particularly in front of her children. In a not-too-dissimilar circumstance way back in the 1970’s when I was a San Diego P.D. cop, my partner and I were confronted with a 17-year-old drug-crazed female threatening us with a pair of kitchen knives. We were able to successively neutralize the threat by merely spraying her in the face with Mace. While this decision doesn’t say, I have to assume that officers still carry pepper spray. (Someone tell me if I’m wrong.) Either way, from a pure legal standpoint, this case effectively gives officers some idea where to draw the line between a legal shoot (as described above) and an illegal one, such as described in the recently briefed case of Johnson v. Myers (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025) 129 F.4th 1189.  

In Johnson, two officers shot and killed a mentally disturbed man who was merely holding a knife but never threatening the officers with it. The Ninth Circuit ruled in that case that a jury would have to determine whether it was necessary (or at least “reasonable”) to kill the decedent under the circumstances. While there’s still a lot of gray area between these two events, comparing the factual circumstances between them at least gives officers some idea where to draw the line.  

PUBLISHER NOTE:

The full dashcam footage of this incident can be viewed by clicking here. Viewer discretion is advised.

The Nevada County District Attorney's Office released its investigation memorandum on this shooting on June 17, 2022.  It can be read here. 

Image credit: Nevada County Sheriff Dash Camera