How Much Force Is Acceptable?

Law enforcement officers use force upon people for numerous reasons. An officer may use force to detain, to arrest, for self-defense, for defense of others, for defense of property, to prevent the person from injuring himself, to prevent the person from destroying evidence, to quell a riot, etc. However, the essential basic purpose for an officer's use of force is to gain control of a person and to stop any threatening action by that person.

There are many standards floating around in the law enforcement and criminal justice community that allegedly dictate how much force an officer may justifiably use. Because of all of these standards, it is often confusing to determine whether the officer's use of force is in fact "justified" or "acceptable."

In order for a law enforcement officer's use of force to be acceptable it must:

1. Be within the boundaries of United States Constitutional and Statutory law.

2. Be within the boundaries of the applicable state constitutional and statutory law if that state law is more

   restrictive than Federal law.

3. Be within the acceptable limits of the applicable department policies, procedures, and training.

4. Be in compliance with applicable equipment manufacturers' guidelines.

United States Federal Constitutional Parameters of Law Enforcement Force

Introduction:

Over the years the Federal Constitutional limits of a law enforcement officer's use of force have varied as courts' definitions have matured and become more detailed. As the law has developed, an officer's ability to use force has come under greater scrutiny. This enhanced scrutiny was (in part) caused by individuals having greater access to attorneys, the courts, and recovery under the Federal Civil Rights Act, and by enhanced political pressures due to intense media coverage, special interest groups, and public disobedience in response to a use- of-force incident (riots).

Immediately prior to the present "objective reasonableness" (under Graham v. Conner [1]) standard, in most instances (other than in deadly force against a seized free person - Tennessee v. Garner) an officer could use that amount of force that did not "shock the conscience" of the court (the Johnson v. Glick [2] test). The Johnson v. Glick test was an analysis of the officer's use of force under the 14th Amendment's (to the United States Constitution) "due process clause." Under the Johnson v. Glick test there were four (4) questions to be answered:

1. What was the need for the officer's use of force upon the person?

2. What was the relationship between the officer's need to use force and the amount of force that the officer

   used?

3. What was the extent of the injuries inflicted on the person by the officer's use of force?

4. (The "subjective" element of the test) Was the officer's use of force applied in good faith or maliciously and

   sadistically for the purpose of causing harm?

In 1989, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Graham v. Conner. The Graham case made clear that the standard for an officer's use of force upon a "seized" -- "free person" was whether the officer's force was "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment (to the United States Constitution). The Graham case, and its OBJECTIVE reasonableness test replaced the subjective "shock the conscience" test when the officer's use of force is directed against a "seized" -- "free person."