Douglas R. Lloyd EATON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Chief Assistant Prosecutor: Christopher N. Anderson Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor: Adam H. Strong. smostourae Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys: ae Ryan J. Tetlff Robin L. Narlock ‘Ansrea T, Marti ‘Brenna J. Hedrick Christopher R, Candela Kelly A. Fletcher Jacob W. Hoppe Kayla M. Obetleite Vietim/ Witness Unit: Jody Strang & Frika Baker Investigators: Bryan Seratt (Main O'ice) & Redney Beals (ECU) PRESS RELEASE Date: May 3, 2024 From: Douglas R. Lloyd, Baton County Prosecuting Attorney Deputies Ju: din Use of Deadly Force in January 11, 2024, Shooting A fatal shooting is traumatic for all involved. An incident that involves the use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer is difficult for the family and friends of the individual who lost their life, and can have long-lasting impacts on the officers involved, their loved ones, their fellow officers and their families, and the community as a whole. Law enforcement officers know that each shift has the potential to include encounters with the public — whom they are duty-bound to protect — that necessitate them to make split- second, life or death, decisions, that can result in life-changing results. Police are trained for these events, but they are moments each officer hopes they will never actually experience. On January 10, 2024, members of the Eaton County Sheriff's Office (CSO) were involved in an incident that resulted in the use of deadly force and the death of Eaton County resident Garrett Freeman, The incident involved Freeman and three members of the ECSO, and involved all four individuals firing a pistol in the direction of another human being. The incident was investigated by the Michigan State Police (MSP) and on March 21, 2024, MSP submitted their investigation to our office for review of the matter. ‘The submi horoughly reviewed by myself, as well as Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Christopher N. Anderson and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Christopher Candela, to determine whether a crime was committed by any of the members of the ECSO or whether the involved deputies were legally justified in using deadly force during the incident that resulted in the death of Garrett Freeman, on was As explained below, I have determined that the involved deputies were legally justified in using deadly force, and no criminal charges are warranted. Legal Standard: As your Eaton County Prosecutor, I am ethically-bound to review the investigation objectively. When I review an incident to determine if a crime has been committed, I begin my analysis with an open mind and knowing that every potential accused person is presumed to be innocent. Charges cannot be issued unless I believe sufficient evidenceexis s to prove violation of a criminal law beyond a re: view of this incident is not to determine whether the deputies involved could have done something differently during the incident. Rather, the question to be answered is whether the involved deputies acted in a legal manner during their interaction with, and subsequent use of deadly force against, Garrett Freeman, Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a police officer must have an articulable, reasonable suspicion that a vehicle, or an occupant of the vehicle, is violating the law in order to conduct a traffic stop. Furthermore, under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) § 764.15, a police officer may make a warrantless arrest of an individual when the officer has probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime that is punishable by 93 days in jail or more. In the State of Michigan, the police may use force, including deadly force, in the performance of their job. They are permitted to use that degree of force which is reasonable under the circumstances to effectuate an arrest, and may take reasonable action to protect themselves in the course of making an arrest. Further, a police officer has the same rights as a private citizen to use the force that is reasonably necessary to defend himselfhherself, or others. In Michigan, any person may use deadly force to defend themselves or others if that per onable belief that there is an immediate danger of someone being killed or seriously injured. To determine whether a person acted in lawful self-defense, thei cording to how the circumstances appeared to them at the time they What constitutes reasonable force depends on the facts and circumstances in a particular situation. ‘The reasonableness of the force used must be considered in the light of the circumstances as they appear to the officer at the time he or she acted, not in hindsight or with the benefit of information learned after the incident. A police officer has discretion, within reasonable limits, to determine the amount of force that the circumstances require and is not guilty of any wrongdoing unless he or she arbitrarily abuses that power. A determination of whether the force used is reasonable under the 4% Amendment requires a careful balancing of the intrusion on the person's 4' Amendment interest and the opposing governmental interest at stake. Ultimately, the police may use the force that is necessary, including deadly force, if they have sufficient evidence to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others In determining whether the use of deadly force was appropriate, all of the surrounding circumstances must be considered including: the conditions of the people involved, their relative strength, whether the other person was armed with a dangerous weapon, or had some other means of injuring others, the nature of the other person's attack or threat, and whether the actor knew about any previous violent acts or threats made by the attacker. Lastly, the actor must have an honest and reasonable belief that what they did was immediately necessary. Under the law, a person may use as much force as they believe is needed, at that time, to protect themselves or others. Ultimately, the actor does not have to prove that they acted in self-defense; instead, it is the Prosecution’s responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor did not act in reasonable self-defense.cident. During the tigation, MSP conducted numerous interviews and canvassed the neighborhood for witnesses. MSP collected video of the incident from the Eaton County Sheriff's Office, examined the cellphone of Garrett Freeman, and utilized the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division to process the scene and Freeman's truck for evidence. That investigation is summarized as follows: On January 10, 2024, the ECSO issued an I-Bulletin/Officer Safety Caution e-mail indicating that Garrett Freeman had recently indicated that he is ready for a shootout with the police. The I-Bulletin further indicated that Freeman was known to possess multiple firearms and to reside on W. Saint Joe Hwy. in Mulliken, MI. The I-Bulletin was generated following an investigation of an altercation that occurred on January 10, 2024, between Freeman and his ex-girlfriend. In that incident, Freeman had struck the female's parked vehicle with his truck and sent her text messages indicating his intention to engage in a shootout. On January 11, 2024, the same female called 911 and reported that Garrett Freeman was on his way to her residence in the City of Charlotte and had threatened to start hooting before the police could arrive. Charlotte Police Department (CPD) offi dispatched to her location where they assisted the female and her infant daughter in vacating the premi: Information regarding the threat was transmitted county-wide by central dispatch, information that included a description of Freeman’s vehicle. Shortly after the information was broadcast, Lt. Preston Dahlgren of the ECSO began heading in the direction of Freeman's residence in an attempt to intercept Freeman prior to his arrival in the more heavily populated area of Charlotte. Deputy Shelby Studley, along with Deputy Randi Lane, also responded towards Freeman's residence. were Upon arrival at Freeman's residence, Lt. Dahlgren observed fresh tire tracks in the driveway leaving in a westbound direction. Approximately ten minutes later, Lt. Dahlgren located a vehicle hauling a trailer heading north on Dow Rad. that matched the description of Freeman's truck. As Freeman turned east onto Mount Hope Hwy., deputies attempted to initiate a traffic stop by activating their emergency lights and sirens. Freeman accelerated before turning northbound onto Gates Rd. As Freeman neared the intersection of Gates Rd. and St. Joe Hwy., Lt. Dahlgren rammed the rear of Freeman's trailer, causing Freeman to veer off the road and strike the stop sign located at the intersection, Freeman unsuccessfully attempted to continue fleeing, attempting to exit the ditch and re-enter the roadway; however, the truck appeared to lose traction in the snow, At that point, Lt. Dahlgren positioned his patrol vehicle perpendicular to the driver's side door of Freeman's vehicle. Lt. Dahlgren, Deputy Studley, and Deputy Lane all exited their vehicles and verbally ordered Freeman to show his hands. The police chase, vehicle contact, and ensuing incident were captured on dash-mounted cameras from both patrol vehicles and by body-worn cameras from all three deputies. A review of that video footage clearly shows that after being given commands to show his hands, Freeman raised a handgun, pointed the handgun towards Lt. Dahlgren’s position, then pointed the handgun towards Deputy Studley and Deputy Lane’s position, and thenaimed back at Lt. Dahlgren, before firing his handgun in the direction of Lt. Dahlgren. A plume of smoke can be seen coming from the barrel of Freeman's firearm, followed by the shattering of his driver's side window. At that time, all three deputies returned fire and Freeman can be seen twisting and slumping onto his right side across the seat of his truck. Deputy Studley immediately radioed out “shots fired,” and all three deputies backed up to cover and checked for injuries. Lt. Dahlgren advised he was able to see that Freeman was still breathing and that he still had the firearm in his hand. A short time later, backup arrived on scene and deputies approached the vehicle, secured the weapon, and rendered aid to Freeman. Examination of the deputies’ video and duty weapons showed that Lt. Dahlgren fired six rounds, Deputy Studley fired three rounds, and Deputy Lane fired one round ~ all after Freeman fired his weapon at Lt. Dahlgren. A review of Lt. Dahlgren’s body-camera shows that he fired two rounds before stumbling backwards. Lt. Dahlgren then recovered his position, re-cycled his firearm, and fired four more rounds. A review of Deputy Studley’s body-camera shows her ordering Freeman to show his hands. Freeman then fired at Lt. Dahlgren, and Deputy Studley returned three shots. Deputy Lane's body- camera does not provide much additional information due to its angle during the shooting. However, a review of Deputy Studley’s dash-camera shows that Deputy Lane fired one shot while standing slightly behind and to the right of Deputy Studley before ide of the command vehicle to provide cover for Lt. Dahlgren. Dr. Christopher Hauch, MD, conducted a forensic postmortem examination on Garrett Freeman on January 12, 2024, Dr. Hauch is a deputy medical examiner for Eaton County and is employed by Sparrow Hospital. During the examination, Dr, Hauch identified four gunshot wounds to Freeman's body. Those wounds were found on Freeman's left side of his head, left arm, and left buttock. Dr. Hauch did not identify one specific injury or gunshot wound as the cause of death; rather he determined that the totality of the injuries caused by the gunshots led to Freeman's death. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as gunshot wounds and the manner of the death, medically, as a homicide, In the medical context, a homicide is defined as the death of a person that is directly caused by the intentional actions of another person, ‘The classification is not a legal determination regarding the circumstances of the death, Application of the Law: In applying the law to the facts of this particular situation, it is clear that the deputies’ attempt to stop Freeman was lawful. Deputies were provided with information that Freeman was armed, that he was homicidal, and that he was currently heading to Charlotte to cause harm to another person. They were further aware that on the day prior, Freeman had rammed the same female's vehicle with his truck and had again threatened to use a firearm to cause other harm. This information was sufficient to establish a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity by Freeman to justify the deputies’ attempts to stop Freeman and further investigate the allegations.Freeman's decision to flee from that traffic stop, coupled with the nature of the complaints, further justified the use of force in attempting to stop his vehicle. Failing to stop for law enforcement, and fleeing from that attempt, is a felony pursuant to MCL 257.602a & MCL 750.479a, Law enforcement is permitted to use reasonable force to effectuate an arrest, and the decision by Lt. Dahlgren to use his patrol vehicle to end the police chase was reasonable, At the time of the collision between the patrol vehicle and Freeman's truck, the vehicles were on a sparsely-populated gravel road and no other traffic was observed. Beyond that, the history of weapon possession by Freeman, the allegations of violent threats in recent days, and the recent report of homicidal intent justified Lt. Dahlgren immobilizing Freeman's vehicle in an area where other civilians were unlikely to be harmed. After Freeman's truck was immobilized, Freeman quickly presented an immediate danger of great bodily harm or death to Lt. Dahlgren, Deputy Studley, and Deputy Lane. Freeman ignored the lawful commands of the deputies, instead producing a handgun and aiming it in the direction of the deputies. Freeman then shot his handgun through his vehicle window and in the direction of Lt. Dahlgren, increasing the threat presented and placing the deputies’ lives in danger. At that moment, any person in the deputies’ shoes would have been permitted to respond with deadly force in self-defense or defense of others Conclusion Based on a review of the facts and law, it is clear that all three deputies had an hones and reasonable belief that they were in danger of being killed or seriously injured due to Freeman’s actions. Freemen produced a handgun from within the cab of his truck, pointed it in the direction of deputies, and then shot at them. Such actions justify the use of deadly force in self-defense by anyone, and so justified the decision of Lt. Dahlgren, Deputy Studley, and Deputy Lane to discharge their service weapons during the incident. Therefore, the actions of all three deputies were legally justified under both the doctrine of self-defense and defense of others, and the unfortunate death of Garrett Freeman was not a criminal act. www prosecutingattome 1045 Independence Blvd, + Charlotte, Michigan 48813 + (517) 543-4801 + Fas: (517) 543-3MS + prosecut le Crime Unit Office: $330 W. Saginaw Hwy. Lansing, MI 48917 «(517) 543-4647 + Fax: (517) 43-486 Main Offic Econor