No Criminal Charges in the Ypsilanti Police Shooting of John Jenuwine: Why the Attorney General's Decision Is Not the End of the Story
By Ronnie E. Cromer, Jr. | The Cromer Law Group PLLC | Michigan Civil Rights & Police Misconduct Attorney
On November 5, 2026, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that no criminal charges will be filed against the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s deputies who shot and killed John Jenuwine, a 34-year-old Navy veteran from China Township, after a 14-minute police chase in Ypsilanti on January 6, 2026.
Deputies fired approximately 34 rounds into Jenuwine’s van in about seven seconds. Seven bullets struck him. No gun was ever found.
If you are reading this because someone you love was hurt or killed by police in Michigan, the headline probably feels like a door closing. It is not. A prosecutor’s decision not to bring criminal charges has almost nothing to do with whether a family can win a federal civil rights lawsuit. The Attorney General said exactly that in her own announcement. This article explains what the AG actually decided, the legal standard she applied, why that standard is so forgiving of officers, and why the civil case filed by Jenuwine’s family in federal court is governed by entirely different rules.
Key Takeaways
The Michigan AG declined to charge three deputies who fired on John Jenuwine, finding their mistaken belief that he had a gun was “not unreasonable” under Michigan’s Self-Defense Act.
The AG reviewed the shooting only for crimes — not for civil liability, not for policy violations, and not for what happened in the 20 minutes after the shooting.
Jenuwine’s estate has a pending federal civil rights lawsuit against Washtenaw County, four deputies, and two sergeants alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and supervisory liability.
Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that force was not justified. Civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence that force was objectively unreasonable. Those are very different mountains to climb.
Michigan families have deadlines. A §1983 wrongful-death claim in Michigan generally must be filed within three years, and notice requirements for some claims against government bodies can be far shorter.
What Happened on January 6, 2026
According to the Attorney General’s written findings, the night unfolded like this:
The 911 calls. Between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m., multiple callers reported a white construction van driving erratically and at high speed in Ypsilanti. The callers gave conflicting descriptions of how many people were in the van and their race. One caller said the driver had brandished a gun at another motorist. Dispatch relayed to deputies that the calls were “likely the same van” and that there was a handgun inside.
The pursuit. At 1:53 a.m., deputies spotted a white construction van driving erratically with no headlights and activated their lights and sirens. The driver — Jenuwine — fled. During the roughly 14-minute chase, the AG says he reversed toward deputies’ vehicles, drove on the wrong side of the road, and twice forced deputies to back up to avoid collisions. Behind an elementary school, one deputy intentionally rammed the van; Jenuwine drove off again.
The PIT maneuver. At 2:06 a.m., a deputy ended the chase with a precision immobilization technique (PIT) maneuver that caused the van to partially roll onto its side.
The shooting. Deputies approached. One deputy, looking through the windshield into the lit interior where Jenuwine was standing in the back of the van, began ordering him to show his hands and then shouted “he’s got a gun” repeatedly. A second deputy echoed the call. Three deputies then fired approximately 34 rounds in about seven seconds.
The aftermath. The first deputy radioed that the driver was “armed with a shotgun.” Deputies saw continued movement inside the van and treated it as a barricaded-gunman situation. Ann Arbor police negotiators tried to make contact by megaphone and phone. At approximately 4:00 a.m. — nearly two hours after the shooting — officers entered the van and found Jenuwine dead.
The investigation. Michigan State Police processed the scene. The van contained significant debris, some of it “long and black,” which the AG suggests was dislodged when the van rolled. MSP found no firearm. The medical examiner found seven gunshot wounds, two of which would have caused death within seconds to minutes, and high levels of cocaine in Jenuwine’s system.
One fact the AG’s release mentions only in passing deserves emphasis. The 911 caller who reported the gun told dispatch the van had “two Black guys” in it. The family’s amended federal complaint alleges that deputies quickly determined the driver was a white man traveling alone. The family’s lawyers argue the deputies were therefore chasing — and ultimately shooting at — a vehicle that did not match the only report of a weapon. Whether a jury finds that argument persuasive is one of the central questions the civil case will have to answer.
What the Attorney General Actually Decided
It is important to be precise about what the AG’s office did and did not do.
The question was narrow. The AG framed the issue as whether the deputies “acted in a legal manner” when they used deadly force — meaning whether the State could prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The release states plainly that the Department “did not examine any civil complaints or litigation filed in any court concerning this matter” and that it “reviews officer-involved shootings only for potential criminal violations of the law.”
The AG conceded the deputies were wrong. The release acknowledges that “the deputies present that morning were mistaken as to the presence of a firearm in the van.” That concession matters. The State of Michigan has now officially found that an unarmed man was killed because officers believed something that was not true.
The AG found the mistake was legally excused. Under the Michigan Self-Defense Act, a person — including a police officer — who “honestly and reasonably believes 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 individual” may use deadly force with no duty to retreat. MCL 780.972(1)(a). And under MCL 780.961(1), a person who uses deadly force in compliance with that section “commits no crime.” If a prosecutor wants to charge anyway, MCL 780.961(2) requires the prosecutor to present evidence “establishing that the individual’s actions were not justified.”
The AG also relied on Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 7.15, which the release quotes as allowing self-defense “even if it turned out later that [he/she] was wrong about how much danger [he/she] was in.”
Put simply: the AG concluded that, given the 911 report of a gun, the dispatch broadcast, the erratic driving, the flight, and the deputy’s shouted warning, prosecutors could not prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the deputies’ belief was unreasonable. So no charges.
The Legal Standard the AG Applied — and Where It Comes From
The AG’s analysis leaned on three sources of law that every Michigan police-misconduct lawyer knows by heart.
Graham v. Connor and the “reasonable officer on the scene”
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that all claims that police used excessive force during an arrest or seizure are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. The Court wrote that reasonableness “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” and that the analysis must allow for the fact that officers “are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” Id. at 396–397.
Here is what the AG’s release does not say about Graham: the same opinion also holds that reasonableness requires “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396. And the inquiry is objective — “without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Id. at 397. A deputy’s sincere belief is not the end of the analysis; the question is whether a reasonable officer, with the information actually available, would have perceived an immediate threat of death or serious injury.
Michigan case law on police force during arrests
The AG cited Delude v. Raasakka, 391 Mich 296, 303 (1974), for the proposition that police “have the right to use that force reasonable under the circumstances to effect an arrest” and “may also take what action is reasonable to protect themselves in the course of an arrest or an attempted arrest.” She also cited People v. Doss, 406 Mich 90 (1979), in which the Michigan Supreme Court, quoting American Jurisprudence, explained that what amounts to reasonable force “usually depends on the facts in the particular case, and hence the question is for the jury,” and that an officer “is not guilty of wrong unless he arbitrarily abuses the power confided in him.” Id. at 102.
Two things about Doss are worth knowing. First, Doss was a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated a manslaughter charge against a Detroit police officer who shot a fleeing burglary suspect who turned toward him holding what turned out to be a chair leg. The Court held that whether the officer’s belief in danger was reasonable “was properly left for the jury.” Id. at 103. Second, Doss makes clear that an officer claiming self-defense “must have reasonably believed himself to have been in great danger and that his response was necessary.” Id. at 102. The authority the AG relied on to decline charges is, on its own facts, a case about sending a police shooting to a jury.
The Michigan Self-Defense Act
As discussed above, MCL 780.972 and MCL 780.961 give officers the same self-defense privilege as any citizen and place the burden on the prosecutor to prove the force was not justified. In a criminal case, that burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest burden in American law, and it is the reason criminal charges against officers in mistaken-threat shootings are rare in Michigan and nationally.
Why “No Charges” Does Not Mean “No Liability”
This is the part families most need to understand.
1. The burden of proof is completely different
In the criminal review, the State had to ask whether it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the deputies’ belief was unreasonable. In a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the family needs only to prove by a preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not — that the force was objectively unreasonable under Graham. The AG’s release itself warns that “legal standards for determining civil and criminal liability are significantly different in the courts.”
2. The civil case looks at facts the AG did not consider
The Attorney General reviewed one question: the moment the trigger was pulled. The family’s lawsuit, pending in federal court as Estate of John Jenuwine v. Washtenaw County, raises claims the AG expressly did not evaluate:
Deliberate indifference to medical needs. The amended complaint alleges that body-camera footage shows Jenuwine moving, kicking, and calling for help inside the overturned van; that deputies told him over a loudspeaker to raise his left leg if he needed medical attention; that he did; and that deputies nonetheless characterized his movements as unintentional and kept ambulances that were “minutes away” from approaching. Nearly two hours passed between the shooting and officers entering the van. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, officers who know a person has a serious medical need and consciously disregard it can be liable even if the initial use of force was lawful.
Supervisory liability against two sergeants for the decisions made on scene.
State-law assault and battery.
The pursuit and ramming decisions themselves. The complaint characterizes the chase as a pursuit for traffic offenses once deputies could see the driver did not match the gun report. Whether the Sheriff’s Office’s own pursuit and use-of-force policies were followed is a question the AG did not reach.
3. The mistaken-identity problem
The only report of a gun came from a caller who described two Black men. The family alleges deputies could see a lone white driver. The AG’s release concedes the 911 descriptions were “conflicting.” In a civil case, a jury will be asked whether a reasonable officer would have carried the “armed” assumption from one description onto a vehicle whose occupant plainly did not match it — and whether shouting “gun” at a dark object in a van that had just rolled, with no weapon visible on video, meets the Graham standard.
4. The County is a defendant
Criminal charges can only be brought against individuals. A §1983 case can reach the municipality itself under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), where a policy, custom, failure to train, or failure to supervise caused the violation. Washtenaw County’s pursuit policy, its PIT-maneuver training, and its practices for securing a scene and rendering aid after a shooting are all discoverable in civil litigation. None of that was part of the AG’s review.
The Hurdle Families Should Expect: Qualified Immunity
An honest Michigan civil rights lawyer will tell you the hard part up front. Individual officers in §1983 cases can raise qualified immunity, which shields them unless the right they violated was “clearly established” at the time. In the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, mistaken-threat shooting cases turn on fine factual distinctions, and the court looks closely at what the officer could actually see in the moment.
That is why evidence — body camera, dash camera, dispatch audio, radio traffic, the physical layout of the vehicle, the lighting, and timing down to the second — matters more than anything in these cases. The Jenuwine family’s lawyers obtained over 250 gigabytes of Michigan State Police video and used it to amend their complaint. That is exactly how a case like this gets past immunity and to a jury.
Qualified immunity does not protect the County on a Monell claim, and it does not protect any officer on the state-law assault and battery claims to the same degree.
What This Decision Means for Michigan Families
If a loved one has been shot or seriously injured by police in Michigan, the lessons from the Jenuwine case are these:
Do not wait for the criminal review. The AG took ten months. The family filed its civil case in June and amended it in September, long before the AG’s decision. Evidence disappears, witnesses move, and body-camera retention policies run out.
Preserve everything now. A preservation letter to the agency, the prosecutor, and Michigan State Police should go out within days, not months.
Demand the full video, not the press-conference cut. The family’s attorneys said the footage released at the Sheriff’s initial press conference was edited. The unedited MSP footage told a different story.
Know your deadlines. Michigan’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury and wrongful-death claims generally governs §1983 claims filed here. Claims against some government entities have shorter notice requirements. These are not deadlines to approach casually.
Understand the criminal decision for what it is. It is a finding that the State could not prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a finding that the officers acted properly, that the County’s policies were followed, or that the family has no case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why didn’t the Attorney General charge the deputies if the man was unarmed?
Because under Michigan’s Self-Defense Act and criminal jury instruction 7.15, a person who honestly and reasonably — but mistakenly — believes he faces imminent death may use deadly force. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief was unreasonable. The AG concluded she could not meet that burden given the 911 gun report and the chase.
Can the family still sue even though no one was charged?
Yes. The family’s federal civil rights lawsuit is already pending. Civil cases use a lower burden of proof and can include claims — like deliberate indifference to medical needs and municipal liability — that a criminal review never touches.
What is a §1983 claim?
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the federal statute that allows people to sue state and local officials, and sometimes the government entities that employ them, for violating constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and the Fourteenth Amendment right to medical care while in custody.
What is qualified immunity?
A judge-made doctrine that protects individual government officials from damages unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. It is the main defense officers raise in police-shooting lawsuits. It does not apply to municipalities.
How long do I have to file a police-shooting lawsuit in Michigan?
Generally three years from the injury or death for §1983 and wrongful-death claims, but shorter notice periods can apply to some claims against government bodies. Talk to a Michigan civil rights lawyer immediately.
Does it matter that the AG found cocaine in Jenuwine’s system?
Not to whether the deputies’ use of force was reasonable at the moment they fired — they did not know it. It may become relevant to damages and to the pursuit narrative, which is why civil defense lawyers emphasize it.
Talk to a Michigan Police Shooting Lawyer
The Cromer Law Group PLLC has represented Michigan families in police shooting, excessive force, jail death, and wrongful-death cases in state and federal courts for more than 27 years. We handle §1983 civil rights litigation in the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan and understand both the criminal self-defense standards prosecutors apply and the civil standards juries apply.
If you or a family member has been injured or killed by law enforcement in Michigan, contact us for a confidential consultation. An experienced Michigan police shooting lawyer can evaluate the video, the dispatch record, and the department's policies before the evidence is gone.
The Cromer Law Group PLLC 24901 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 306 Southfield, MI 48075 (248) 809-6790 www.thecromerlawgroup.com
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The facts described are drawn from the Michigan Attorney General’s November 5, 2026 public findings, publicly filed court documents, and news reporting; the allegations in the pending civil lawsuit are allegations only and have not been proven in court.
Comments