Use of Force Statute(s)
Use of force statutes are one of the most critical components of the legal framework that outline when law enforcement officers may deploy different levels of force while carrying out their duties. These statutes aim to balance the necessity of maintaining public safety with the constitutional rights of individuals, ensuring that officers act within the bounds of law and their departmental policy. Fundamental concepts such as ‘reasonable force’ and ‘De-escalation’ guide these practices, emphasizing that the degree of force applied must include the totality of circumstances encountered by the officer.
Case law, particularly rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, plays a pivotal role in shaping the guidelines regarding use of force within law enforcement. Though, for the individual officer, policy is the governing document you must follow if you want full legal protections. Most departments mirror use of force policy and SOP to the supreme court’s ruling though they may differ depending on a multitude of factors. policy is your best resource for knowing what to do and when to do it.
Factors influencing an officer’s decision-making process include the threat level posed by a subject, the presence of weapons, the conduct of the individual, and the context of the situation, such as whether the officer is responding to an active threat. Additionally, officer presence can often mitigate the need for more aggressive forms of force, as the mere presence of law enforcement can de-escalate potentially volatile situations. Understanding these statutes is essential not only for law enforcement training but also for community awareness, as they are rooted in protecting the rights of all individuals while enabling officers to perform their duties effectively and justly.
Use of force and it’s levels used to be represented and trained as a continuum, like a sliding scale of force that corresponded with what the suspect had on there person. Though it could be rationalized and seems like common sense, The continuum method negates to factor in things such as officer/suspect size and strength disparity’s, officer’s level of skills and fitness, and the dynamic nature of a real world use of force scenario. Forcing a 120lbs officer to go hands on with an athletic 250lbs suspect because they seem to only be verbally combative is a recipe for disaster.
1. Graham v. Connor (1989) – The Foundation of Everything
This is the big one. You’ve learned it in academy, it’s been beat to death, but this will build the base for you to understand.
Back in 1984, Dethorne Graham was having a diabetic emergency. He needed a source of sugar or carbs fast, so his friend drove him to a convenience store that Graham rushed into. When Graham saw the long line inside, he quickly ran out and asked his friend to drive him somewhere else instead. Officer Connor, seeing the male rushes in and out of a store without buying anything sparked his suspicion of a possible robbery.
Connor stopped them just down the road. At this time, Graham stepped out and began running around the vehicle and being incoherent. Once the back officers arrived, Graham ended up handcuffed, shoved against the hood of the car, and injured – broken foot, cuts, bruised forehead. When it turned out nothing had happened at the store, Graham was released. Graham sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. And thank goodness it did, because the Court established the “objective reasonableness” standard that is used today.
Here’s what the Supreme Court said – and this is critical – when judging whether an officer used excessive force, courts have to look at it from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time, not from the comfort of a courtroom with 20/20 hindsight months later. The Court said the test “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances” that the officer was facing at that moment.
The Court laid out some factors to consider: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or trying to escape. These are the three prongs to consider when you are looking to escalate in force used to effect an arrest or protect others.
That’s what Graham v. Connor does – it gives us the framework for explaining why our actions were reasonable given what we knew at that moment.
2. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) – When You Can Use Deadly Force on Fleeing Suspects
This case changed everything about shooting fleeing suspects. Before Garner, many states had what’s called the “fleeing felon rule” – basically, officers could shoot any fleeing felon to prevent their escape.
In 1974, Officer Elton Hymon in Memphis responded to a burglary call. He found 15-year-old Edward Garner running from a house. Hymon saw that Garner was unarmed, young, small build – just a teenager trying to climb a fence to escape. Under Tennessee law at the time, Hymon was authorized to shoot to prevent the escape. So he shot Garner in the back of the head. Garner died shortly after being driven to the hospital, on the operating table.
When appealed up to the Supreme Court, they stated that it is not constitutional. Justice Byron White wrote that deadly force can’t be used just to prevent someone from escaping. You can only use deadly force on a fleeing suspect if you have probable cause to believe they pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to you or others.
Think about it this way – you can’t shoot a shoplifter who’s running away just because he’s escaping. The Court said that while burglary is a serious crime, the officer couldn’t reasonably have believed that the suspect – young, small build, and unarmed – posed any threat.
This one’s saved me from making a huge mistake. Early in my career, I was chasing a guy who’d just left his wife bloody. He bailed out and ran though the rear of the residence, no shoes on and nothing on his person while running into the woods. I was young, amped up, and honestly thinking “should I tackle this guy or draw down?” Then Garner popped into my head. Yes it was a violent crime. No weapon seen. Just running and away from any other citizen. he didn’t currently pose the same threat he did minutes before I arrived, I chased him, caught him the old-fashioned way (and nearly died from exhaustion, ha), and made the arrest. No shooting necessary.
Garner pairs with Graham – Graham tells you the standard (objective reasonableness), and Garner tells you specifically when deadly force on fleeing suspects is reasonable.
3. Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Stop and Frisk Authority
Terry v. Ohio isn’t technically a “use of force” case, but it’s foundational because it defines when you can stop and detain someone in the first place – and often that’s where force becomes necessary. Yes this case was also beat into you during academy and probably more trainings after, but it’s for a good reason.
In 1963, Cleveland detective Martin McFadden with 39 years of experience saw three guys acting weird near a jewelry store on Euclid Avenue. They kept walking back and forth, looking in the windows, then meeting up to talk. McFadden thought they were casing the place for a robbery. He approached them, identified himself, and patted them down for weapons. He found guns on two of them, including John Terry.
Terry argued this was an illegal search – McFadden didn’t have probable cause to arrest him. The Supreme Court agreed that stops and frisks are searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, but said they don’t require probable cause. Instead, officers only need “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is happening and – for the frisk – that the person might be armed and dangerous.
You need to be able to point to specific facts that led you to believe criminal activity had, is, or will occur.
The frisk part requires a separate reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous. You can have reasonable suspicion to stop someone, but that doesn’t automatically give you authority to frisk them. You need articulable reasons to believe they’re armed.
I’ve done hundreds of Terry stops. The key is being able to articulate your reasoning. “I stopped him because he looked suspicious” gets you nowhere in court. “I stopped him because at 3 AM I observed him trying door handles on vehicles in a parking lot where we’d had 12 vehicle burglaries in the past month” – that’s clear.
4. Plakas v. Drinski (1994) – No Duty to Use Less-Lethal Options
Konstantino Plakas drove into a ditch while drunk in Indiana. Officer Koby handcuffed him, but Plakas escaped and ran into snowy woods. Deputies pursued. At one point, Plakas armed himself with a fireplace poker and told Deputy Drinski, “Either you’re going to die here or I’m going to die here.” When Plakas raised the poker like a baseball bat and came at Drinski from five to ten feet away, Drinski shot and killed him.
Plakas’s family sued, arguing that even if the shooting was justified, the officers should have used less-lethal alternatives first – maybe a police dog, or pepper spray, or something else.
The Seventh Circuit Court said no. Officers aren’t required to use less-lethal alternatives when deadly force is justified. Judge Posner’s court emphasized that officers make split-second decisions in tense, uncertain situations. You can’t expect an officer to run through a mental checklist of every possible option when someone’s coming at them with a weapon.
The court asked a great question: “As Plakas moved toward Drinski, was he supposed to think of an attack dog, of Perras’s CS gas, of how fast he could run backwards?” Obviously not.
This case protects officers from Monday-morning quarterbacks who want to second-guess every decision. If deadly force is justified based on the threat, you don’t have to exhaust every other option first.
But – and this is important – Plakas doesn’t mean you should skip de-escalation or alternative options when you have time and opportunity to use them. Good policing means using the minimum force necessary. Plakas just says that legally, when facing an immediate deadly threat, you don’t have a constitutional duty to try everything else first.
5. Pena v. Leombruni (1999) – Mental State Doesn’t Matter for Threat Assessment
This case addresses something officers deal with constantly – subjects who are mentally ill, high on drugs, or otherwise not in their right mind.
Hugo Pena was having a very manic episode in Winnebago County, Illinois – shoplifting and fighting with store employees. Deputy Leombruni responded, pepper-sprayed Pena, and told him he was under arrest. Pena ran, then stopped and picked up a chunk of concrete. He advanced on Leombruni with the concrete raised. The deputy backed up, ordered Pena to drop it, but when Pena got within five to ten feet, Leombruni shot and killed him. Turns out Pena was high on cocaine.
Pena’s family argued that the shooting was excessive because Pena was clearly irrational and maybe didn’t understand what he was doing. They also argued the sheriff violated Pena’s rights by failing to issue instructions on dealing with mentally impaired individuals.
The Seventh Circuit Court said that doesn’t matter. Judge Richard Posner wrote something that stuck with me: “Very little mentation is required for deadly action. A rattlesnake is deadly but could not form the mental state required for conviction of murder.”
That’s a powerful analogy. The point is that an officer’s right to use deadly force doesn’t depend on whether the suspect can form criminal intent. It depends on whether the officer reasonably perceived a deadly threat. A person who’s mentally ill or high on drugs can still kill you with that concrete chunk or any other weapon.
This case was a relief to understand, because we deal with mental health calls all the time. Pena makes clear that while we should absolutely try to de-escalate these situations and get people help, we’re not required to take extra risks just because someone isn’t in their right mind.
6. Thompson v. Hubbard (2001) – Shooting Suspects Who Make Furtive Movements
This Eighth Circuit case involves a really difficult situation that officers face – suspects making movements that look like they’re reaching for a weapon.
In Pine Lawn, Missouri, Officer Bryan Hubbard responded to a report of shots fired and suspects fleeing from an armed robbery. Hubbard found Ravone Thompson getting into a car. Thompson fit the description – black male wearing a blue and gold jacket. Thompson initially appeared to surrender, but then turned and ran.
After a foot chase, Thompson climbed over a short fence. When he got up from the ground, he looked over his shoulder at Hubbard and moved his arms as though reaching for a weapon at his waist. Thompson’s back was turned, which obscured Hubbard’s view of his hands. Hubbard yelled “stop,” and when Thompson’s arms continued to move, Hubbard fired one shot into Thompson’s back. Thompson died. No weapon was found on his body.
The Eighth Circuit ruled that Hubbard’s use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court said that “an officer is not constitutionally required to wait until he sets eyes upon the weapon before employing deadly force to protect himself against a fleeing suspect who turns and moves as though to draw a gun.”
This case is important because it addresses the reality officers face – you often can’t see everything clearly, and waiting to confirm a weapon could get you killed. The court recognized that a reasonable officer could believe Thompson posed a threat based on his movements, even though he ultimately didn’t have a weapon.
This case gets cited a lot when officers shoot suspects who make furtive movements. It protects officers who have to make split-second decisions based on what they reasonably perceive, not what turns out to be true later.
7. Smith v. Freland (1992) – Officers Making Rapid Decisions Under Pressure
This Sixth Circuit case has one of the best quotes about use of force analysis that I’ve ever read.
The case involved Officer Peter Schulcz who shot a suspect after a high-speed chase. The suspect had tried to ram police vehicles during the pursuit and posed a serious danger. The court ruled in favor of the officer.
But what makes this case memorable is what the court said about how we judge officers. Judge Boggs wrote: “Under Graham, we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure.”
That quote gets cited constantly in use of force cases. It reminds judges and juries that they can’t judge officers based on what they think would’ve been better from their comfortable courtroom. The analysis has to be from the perspective of an officer in that moment, facing that threat, with limited information and limited time.
I’ve literally quoted Smith v. Freland in training presentations. It captures something essential – the split-second nature of these decisions and how easy it is for people to judge them later with all the time in the world.
8. Forrett v. Richardson (1997) – Deadly Force Against Violent Fleeing Felons
On November 29, 1990, Brian Forrett committed a violent residential burglary in Riverside, California. During the burglary, he encountered three victims inside the home. He tied them all up, shot one victim in the neck at point-blank range, and shot at another victim using a .38 caliber revolver he found in the house.
Forrett then fled the scene in a stolen truck, taking with him several firearms and 250 rounds of ammunition. Police pursued him and eventually cornered him. When officers shot Forrett as he tried to escape, he sued claiming excessive force. A jury actually found in his favor and awarded damages. However, the district court set aside the jury verdict and granted judgment for the officers.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the officers’ use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. The court applied Tennessee v. Garner principles and found that Forrett posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to officers and the public.
The court noted several critical factors: Forrett had just committed a violent crime involving shooting victims, he was armed with multiple firearms and substantial ammunition, he had demonstrated willingness to use deadly force, and he was actively trying to escape. The court concluded that “the defendants rightly concluded that it was highly possible that he would seize an opportunity to take an innocent bystander hostage.”
Importantly, the court also stated: “The Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement officers to exhaust every alternative before using justifiable deadly force.
Forrett v. Richardson reinforces that the nature and severity of the crime matters when evaluating use of force. An unarmed shoplifter fleeing is very different from a violent felon who just shot someone and is armed and dangerous.
This case clarifies that when dealing with violent felons who pose ongoing threats, deadly force can be reasonable even if the person is technically “fleeing.” The key question is whether they pose a significant threat of serious physical harm – not just whether they’re running away.
The case also addresses proportionality – the level of force must match the threat level. Forrett had demonstrated extreme violence, possessed deadly weapons, and created an ongoing danger to the community, making deadly force proportional to the threat.
9. Elliott v. Leavitt (1996) – The Dangers of 20/20 Hindsight
Officer Jason Leavitt stopped Archie Elliott III for driving while intoxicated in Virginia. Elliott failed sobriety tests and could barely walk. Leavitt called for backup, handcuffed Elliott with his hands behind his back, and arrested him. Leavitt conducted a brief search of Elliott but didn’t find any weapons.
Officers Leavitt and Cheney placed Elliott in the front passenger seat of the patrol car with his seatbelt fastened, door closed, and window rolled up. While the officers stood outside the vehicle talking, Leavitt noticed movement and looked to see Elliott had produced a small handgun. Despite being handcuffed behind his back, the very thin Elliott had released the seatbelt, twisted his arms to the right side of his body, and was pointing the gun directly at the officers with his finger on the trigger.
Officer Leavitt yelled “Gun!” and ordered Elliott to drop it. When Elliott didn’t respond, both officers opened fire, killing Elliott. Twenty-two shots were fired total. The gun remained clasped in Elliott’s dead hand. Investigation revealed Elliott had threatened another motorist with the same gun months earlier, and FBI analysis confirmed a blue fiber from Elliott’s shorts was caught on the gun’s trigger.
Elliott’s parents sued, arguing the shooting was excessive because: Elliott was drunk, handcuffed, restrained in the car, the officers missed the gun during their search, they fired too many shots, and the officers should have just moved away from the car.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for the officers, making several powerful statements about use of force analysis.
The court said: “A reviewing court may not employ the ’20/20 vision of hindsight’ and must make ‘allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.'”
Most importantly, the court stated: “The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to wait until a suspect shoots to confirm that a serious threat of harm exists.” The court also noted that “the Constitution does not require police to gamble with their lives in the face of a serious threat of harm.”
Regarding the number of shots fired, the court said this alone cannot determine if force was excessive. Both officers fired almost simultaneously, neither emptied their weapons, and the shooting took place within seconds. The multiple shots indicated officers sought to eliminate a deadly threat, not that they shot recklessly.
The court rejected the argument that the inadequate search or Elliott’s restraints mattered, stating that Graham requires focusing on the moment force was used, not conduct beforehand.
Elliott v. Leavitt is cited constantly for the principle that courts cannot judge officers with perfect hindsight. The suggestion that officers should have “moved away” was, as the court noted, “a suggestion more reflective of the ‘peace of a judge’s chambers’ than of a dangerous and threatening situation on the street.”
This case protects officers who face sudden, unexpected threats even when suspects appear to be secured. The fact that Elliott was handcuffed and in a car didn’t eliminate the deadly threat he posed when he produced a weapon and pointed it at officers.
The case also addresses the number of shots fired – multiple shots don’t automatically equal excessive force when officers are responding to a deadly threat in a matter of seconds.
10. Wardlaw v. Pickett (1993) – Use of Force When Others Interfere With Arrests
This case happened in a D.C. courthouse during a hearing. A man named John Heid refused to stand when ordered by the judge. U.S. Deputy Marshals William Pickett and Albert Crew were instructed to remove Heid from the courtroom. Heid went limp, forcing the marshals to drag him out.
William Wardlaw, Heid’s friend, followed them into a stairwell. According to Wardlaw, he saw Marshal Pickett holding Heid “like a sack of potatoes” and dragging him down the stairs. On a landing, Wardlaw claimed Pickett punched and kicked Heid. Wardlaw rushed down the stairs toward the marshals, shouting “Don’t hurt him please. He is totally nonviolent.”
As Wardlaw approached, Deputy Marshal Pickett turned and punched Wardlaw once in the jaw and two or three times in the chest. Wardlaw sat down and did not require medical treatment, though he complained of pain. Both Wardlaw and Heid were arrested for assault.
The marshals told a different version. They said they heard Wardlaw crash through doors and run toward them shouting “Let my friend go.” Wardlaw reached them almost instantly, collided with Pickett, and caused Pickett to lose his grip on Heid. When Wardlaw continued struggling, Pickett struck him to stop the interference.
Wardlaw sued, claiming excessive force, false arrest, and wrongful prosecution. He argued he had a legal right to intervene to stop what he believed was excessive force against his friend.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the marshals, ruling they were entitled to qualified immunity.
The court made several important findings. First, regarding Wardlaw’s claim of a “privilege to intervene,” the court noted that while some jurisdictions recognize such a privilege as a defense for the person intervening (meaning they can’t be prosecuted for interfering), it doesn’t create liability for the officers being interfered with.
More importantly, the court found the marshals’ use of force was reasonable. The court stated: “When Wardlaw rushed down the stairs toward them, Pickett and Crew could reasonably have perceived a threat to their safety and to their ability to maintain custody of Heid.”
The court emphasized that officers must be free to use reasonable force to effect arrests. Giving civilian intervention too broad a scope “might easily deter officers from using force when it is necessary and justified.”
The court also found probable cause existed for Wardlaw’s arrest – he had physically interfered with a lawful arrest, which constituted assault.
Qualified Immunity.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects officers from personal liability when they’re sued for constitutional violations – as long as they didn’t violate “clearly established” law. This means if a reasonable officer wouldn’t have known their conduct was unlawful, they’re protected from being sued personally.
Understanding qualified immunity is important because it’s your shield when you act reasonably but someone still sues you. As long as you followed established law and acted like a reasonable officer would, you have protection.
The “clearly established” law requirement means that for someone to successfully sue you, they have to show that the right you violated was clearly established at the time. Courts usually require pointing to a prior case with similar facts where courts said the conduct was unconstitutional.
This is why knowing case law matters so much. When courts say “this conduct violated the Fourth Amendment,” that establishes a clear rule that future officers need to follow.
Why These Cases Matter to You
Here’s the bottom line – these cases aren’t just legal theory. They’re your roadmap for doing the job right and protecting yourself legally.
When I write use of force reports now, I think in Graham terms – severity of crime, immediate threat, active resistance. When I’m chasing someone, Garner’s in my head – do they pose a significant threat? When someone’s mentally ill and armed, I remember Pena – their mental state doesn’t eliminate the threat. When I’m making tactical decisions, Thompson reminds me that reasonable perceptions matter more than perfect hindsight.
These cases also protect good officers. When you follow these principles and can articulate why your actions were reasonable, you’re in a strong legal position. It’s when officers can’t explain their reasoning or acted outside these guidelines that problems happen.
My advice? Don’t just memorize these cases. Understand them. Think about how they apply to calls you’ve run. Talk about them with your partners. When something goes sideways and you have to use force, you’ll be glad you took the time to learn this stuff.
The law’s on your side when you’re doing things right. These cases prove it. They give officers the legal authority to do their jobs while also holding them to reasonable standards. That’s a balance we can all live with.
Stay safe out there, and remember – every one of these cases started with an officer making a split-second decision under pressure, just like you do every day.
These landmark cases serve to remind law enforcement officers that their decision-making must align with established legal precedents as they navigate the complex and critical nature of use of force in their duties. As case law continues to evolve, police departments must adapt their policies and training programs to reflect these judicial guidelines effectively.
Policy Recommendations and Future Directions
As law enforcement agencies continue to evaluate and refine their use of force policies, several key recommendations emerge that can assist in developing frameworks which prioritize both officer safety and community trust. An essential first step is the commitment to ongoing training, where agencies provide a comprehensive curriculum that includes de-escalation techniques, the application of less-lethal options, and the detailed understanding of deadly force scenarios. This training should not only occur during initial onboarding but should be a continual aspect of an officer’s professional development, ensuring practices evolve with changing societal norms and understanding of lawful force.
Furthermore, fostering community engagement is critical in shaping policies that reflect the needs and expectations of the communities served. Law enforcement agencies should establish regular forums where community members can express their concerns and share their perspectives on use of force encounters. By embracing a collaborative approach, agencies can develop policies that incorporate community expectations regarding officer presence and the necessary application of force, thus bridging the gap between law enforcement practices and community perspectives.
Establishing clear guidelines that govern the use of force, including robust oversight into incidents involving deadly force, can significantly enhance transparency. Empowering independent review boards to assess questionable use of force incidents can instill confidence in the public that actions taken by officers will be scrutinized fairly and impartially, based on established case law and best practices.
In considering the future, agencies should advocate for legislative changes that promote equitable outcomes during law enforcement encounters. This may include redefining existing statutory frameworks regarding use of force, specifically addressing the balance between officer discretion and community safety. Ultimately, by prioritizing these policy recommendations, law enforcement agencies can better align their operational practices with the expectations of those they serve.
