November 05, 2026
LANSING – Today, the Michigan Department of Attorney General announced it has concluded its review of the officer-involved shooting death (PDF) of John Jenuwine, then 34, of China Township, on January 6, 2026, without issuing charges against the Washtenaw County sheriff’s deputies involved, finding their conduct lawful under state self-defense laws and that the deputies’ belief that their lives were in danger met a legal standard of reasonableness when reviewed, as required by law, in accordance with how the circumstances appeared to those officers at the time they acted. The matter was investigated by Michigan State Police and referred to the Department of Attorney General for review by the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office.
Between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. on January 6, 2026, multiple 9-1-1 callers reported a white construction van being driven erratically and at high speeds in Ypsilanti. Callers reported similar descriptions of the type of van and driving behavior alongside conflicting reports on the number and race of occupants, and in one instance reported the driver was armed and brandished a gun at another driver on the road. By radio, dispatch reported to officers the descriptions of the van and driving behavior reported by callers, stated that the multiple calls pertained to “likely the same van,” and indicated there was a handgun in the van. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Deputies located a white construction van matching the description given at 1:53 a.m., driving erratically and without headlights, and activated their vehicle lights and sirens. The driver of the van, John Jenuwine, immediately fled the deputies’ attempted traffic stop and initiated a police chase that would last approximately 14 minutes.
The police pursuit can be viewed here, in full, in video captured by a camera inside a police vehicle. The footage documents the pursuit, its conclusion, and the subsequent fatal shooting by officers. Viewer discretion is advised.
During the ensuing attempt to flee, Jenuwine several times put his vehicle in reverse, attempted to ram his vehicle into deputies’ vehicles, twice forcing deputies to reverse their own vehicles to avoid a collision, and at times drove on the wrong side of the road. After 2:00 a.m., Jenuwine led the pursuing deputies behind an elementary school, where he reversed off the roadway onto a snowy embankment. Attempting to immobilize the van, one deputy drove into an intentional collision with the van, and multiple deputies exited their vehicles to effectuate an arrest. At this point, Jenuwine again drove away and fled arrest.
At 2:06 a.m., a deputy ended the roadway chase by performing a precision immobilization techniques (PIT) maneuver, using his own vehicle to make contact with Jenuwine’s van, causing the van to partially roll once onto its side and come to a stop. Deputies exited their vehicles and approached the van. One deputy, approaching the front of the van and with a view through the windshield into the illuminated interior of the van, wherein Jenuwine stood in the rear of the van, began instructing Jenuwine to show his hands and suddenly announced “he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun, gun, gun.” Another deputy repeated the call of “gun.” Three deputies then fired their weapons into the van, firing approximately 34 times across 7 seconds.
The deputy who first called out the presence of a gun then declared over the radio that the driver was “armed with a shotgun.” Deputies on-scene observed continued movement from Jenuwine inside the van and from that point treated the situation as a barricaded gunman and additional law enforcement officers arrived, including from the Ann Arbor Police Department (AAPD). An officer from the AAPD Negotiation Team attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with Jenuwine, by megaphone and telephone. Around 4:00 a.m. officers entered the van and determined John Jenuwine was deceased.
Michigan State Police (MSP) responded that morning to investigate the use of force by officers and process the scene. Though the van did contain significant debris, some of which was long and black, likely dislodged and scattered when the van rolled onto its side, MSP evidence technicians found no firearm inside the van. The Washtenaw County Medical Examiner later determined that two of the seven gunshot wounds inflicted upon John Jenuwine would have caused death within seconds to minutes, and that on the night of his death he had high levels of cocaine in his body.
Attorneys at the Department of Attorney General reviewed police reports, 9-1-1 calls, dispatch audio recordings, body worn camera footage from officers on-scene, video footage from police vehicles, the Washtenaw County Medical Examiner’s report, the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office use of force and vehicular pursuit policies, and other material. The Michigan Department of Attorney General did not examine any civil complaints or litigation filed in any court concerning this matter. Legal standards for determining civil and criminal liability are significantly different in the courts. The Michigan Department of Attorney General reviews officer-involved shootings only for potential criminal violations of the law.
While it was eventually determined that the deputies present that morning were mistaken as to the presence of a firearm in the van, the law requires prosecutors, the courts, and juries in a criminal trial to view the circumstances as the officers did on January 6, 2026, at 2:00 a.m., with the limited and conflicting information they had. This is the exact circumstance contemplated by Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 7.15, which says a person may act in self-defense, “even if it turned out later that [he/she] was wrong about how much danger [he/she] was in.” Here, the officers were wrong about the presence of a firearm in the vehicle, but this belief was not unreasonable based on the totality of the circumstances as they knew them.
The Michigan Self Defense Act provides that an individual, including a police officer, may use deadly force against another, without any duty to retreat, provided they were not engaged in the commission of a crime and they “honestly and reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another.” Pursuant to MCL 780.961, if an individual uses deadly force pursuant to the Michigan Self Defense Act, they have committed no crime in the exertion of that force. A prosecutor may only charge an individual with a crime if the prosecutor can provide evidence “establishing that the individual’s actions were not justified.”
Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 7.15, on the use of deadly force in self-defense, states that if an individual acted in lawful self-defense, their actions would be justified and thus they would not be guilty of a crime. In making this determination one “should consider all the evidence” and should consider three rules, judging the individual’s actions according to how the circumstances appeared to that individual at the time they acted. The first rule provides that the individual must “have honestly and reasonably believed that [they were] in danger of being [killed/seriously injured/sexually assaulted].” The individual need not be correct in their evaluation of the danger presented, so long as their belief was honest and reasonable. Second, the threat against the individual must have been in fear of death, seriously physical injury or a sexual assault. In making this evaluation, one should consider all the circumstances surrounding the action and consider how they appeared to the individual at the time they reacted. Third, the individual must have believed the threat was immediate and they used the amount of force necessary at the time to protect themselves.
The U.S. Supreme Court also analyzed and ruled on the issue of police use of force in Graham v. Connor (1989). In Graham, the Court held that claims alleging police officers have used excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment “reasonableness standard” and not under a “substantive due process” approach. Additionally, “[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.” In determining whether an officer’s actions were reasonable, there must be “allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving…”
Michigan courts have also spoken on the issue of police utilizing deadly force. In Delude v. Raasakka (1974), the Michigan Supreme Court found that police can use “force reasonable under the circumstances to effect [sic] an arrest” and “may take what action is reasonable to protect themselves in the course of an arrest or an attempted arrest.” Further, in People v. Doss (1979), the Court discussed what constituted reasonable force and in the Court’s reasoning they looked to American Jurisprudence 2d, where it is stated that what amounts to reasonable force on the part of an officer making an arrest usually depends on the facts in the particular case, and hence the question is for the jury. The reasonableness of the force used must be judged in the light of the circumstances as they appeared to the officer at the time he acted, and the measure is generally considered to be that which an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, with the knowledge and in the situation of the arresting officer, would have deemed necessary under the circumstances. The officer has discretion, within reasonable limits, to determine the amount of force which the circumstances require, and is not guilty of wrongdoing unless he arbitrarily abuses the power confided in him.
The legal issue under review by the Michigan Department of Attorney General was whether the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Deputies acted in a legal manner during their interaction with Jenuwine when they used deadly force by discharging their weapons. Law enforcement officers have the same privilege of self-defense as anyone else. An officer’s decision about the level of force necessary to control an individual will be based on the officer’s perception of the threat and the subject’s apparent ability to carry out that threat. Per applicable state and federal caselaw, and Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 7.15, the individual’s actions must be judged according to how the circumstances appeared to that individual at the time they acted, and the individual need not be correct in their evaluation of the danger presented, so long as their belief was honest and reasonable.
Deputies had been advised that multiple 9-1-1 callers described a white construction van being driven erratically, and that one caller reported the driver was armed and brandished his weapon threateningly at another roadway user. Deputies were advised by dispatch that the multiple calls, despite some discrepancies, pertained to “likely the same van.” Deputies then located a white construction van driving erratically, matching the vehicle description and roadway conduct described by callers, which then fled police attempts to initiate a traffic stop. The Michigan Department of Attorney General has concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, it would not be able to demonstrate that the deputies’ belief that the driver of the van was armed was unreasonable, as would be required to substantiate criminal charges.
Here, under all of the facts and circumstances presented, the Department concluded that:
The Department of Attorney General is available to lead or support any investigation of an officer-involved shooting at the request of any county prosecutor or law enforcement agency within the state and today renews this commitment and offer.
A full report detailing the Michigan Department of Attorney General review can be found here (PDF).
The police pursuit can be viewed here, in full, in video captured by a camera inside a police vehicle. The footage documents the pursuit, its conclusion, and the subsequent fatal shooting by officers. Viewer discretion is advised.
###
Media Contact:
