The use of force by police refers to the physical restraint used to manage or control situations involving suspects. The force can vary from simple physical presence to fatal use like shooting. It’s essential to understand that the use of force is legal, but only when it’s reasonable and necessary (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 1985).
Types of Force
Different situations require different levels of force. Police officers use these depending on the threat:
Physical Presence
Physical presence as a use of force involves the mere appearance of law enforcement officers at a scene. In terms of procedural law, this form of force aligns with the principle of minimal intrusion. Officers are trained to use the least amount of force necessary to achieve compliance or control a situation. By simply being present, officers may deter crime or unruly behavior without taking further action. This method respects the rights of individuals by avoiding unnecessary physical or coercive measures while maintaining public order.
Verbal Commands
Verbal commands, another minimal intrusion technique, often follow an officer’s physical presence. Officers may direct or command a suspect to comply with certain instructions. This type of force relies heavily on clear communication and understanding between law enforcement and the public. In the procedural law context, verbal commands honor the rights of the suspect by avoiding physical force as long as the commands are reasonable and lawful. By adhering to proper procedures and applying clear verbal instructions, officers can minimize misunderstandings and reduce the potential for physical confrontation.
Physical Force
Physical force includes actions like grabbing, holding, or restraining a suspect. Within procedural law, the use of physical force must align with established protocols and the force’s proportionality to the perceived threat or resistance. The landmark case of Graham v. Connor (1989) set the standard for reasonable force based on the situation’s totality. The use of physical force is typically employed when verbal commands are insufficient and the situation requires a more direct intervention to ensure safety and compliance.
Less-Lethal Force
Less-lethal force includes methods like using Tasers, rubber bullets, or pepper spray to subdue a suspect. Procedural law emphasizes that such measures should be applied only when less intrusive means have failed or are likely to be ineffective. The use of less-lethal force must always be proportional to the threat faced by the officer or others present. The implementation of such force must be consistent with law enforcement policies and legal mandates, highlighting the need for extensive training and understanding of the tools and tactics involved.
Lethal Force
Lethal force, including the use of firearms, is the most extreme form of force available to law enforcement. It’s reserved for situations where an officer believes there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Procedurally, the use of lethal force is heavily regulated and governed by landmark cases like Tennessee v. Garner (1985), which prohibits the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed fleeing suspect. The decision to employ lethal force must be made with extreme caution, considering all other available options and within the strict confines of the law. Consequently, understanding and adherence to procedural law in such situations are crucial for the lawful exercise of this ultimate form of control.
When Is Force Justified?
Understanding when force is justified is crucial for law enforcement. According to the landmark case Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989), the reasonableness of the force depends on the situation’s circumstances, like the severity of the crime and whether the suspect poses an immediate threat.
Excessive Force
Using more force than needed, commonly referred to as excessive force, is a serious concern in law enforcement and may lead to significant legal consequences. Excessive force goes beyond the bounds of what is considered reasonable or necessary in a given situation. It can result in not only physical harm to the suspect but also a breach of the trust and confidence that the public places in law enforcement agencies.
When determining whether force is excessive, courts often refer to the “objective reasonableness” standard, as established in the landmark case Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989). This standard considers how a reasonable officer would have acted in a similar situation, taking into account the severity of the crime, the suspect’s threat to others, and the suspect’s attempts to resist or evade arrest. If an officer’s actions are deemed excessive under this standard, they may face disciplinary actions, civil lawsuits, or even criminal charges.
Moreover, the consequences of excessive force extend beyond legal ramifications. The misuse of force can severely damage the relationship between law enforcement and the community they serve. It can erode public trust and foster fear and resentment towards police officers, making it more challenging for law enforcement to perform their duties effectively. Ensuring that officers are adequately trained to assess and respond proportionately to different levels of threat, following departmental policies, and embracing transparency and accountability mechanisms, can help to prevent incidents of excessive force and maintain public trust in the criminal justice system.
Rules and Regulations
Various rules and regulations guide the use of force within law enforcement, encompassing departmental policies, federal and state laws, and sometimes even international standards. These guidelines aim to strike a balance between maintaining public order and preserving individual rights and personal safety.
Departmental policies typically outline the specific procedures and tools that officers may use, depending on the situation’s severity and the perceived threat. These internal policies often go into fine detail, explaining when and how different types of force can be applied, ranging from verbal commands to lethal force. Training, documentation, and review processes are also often part of these policies, ensuring that officers are well-prepared to act within the bounds of the law and that their actions are scrutinized for adherence to policy.
Federal and state laws further frame the use of force within the broader context of citizens’ constitutional rights and societal values. Supreme Court decisions such as Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1, 1985) and Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989) have set national standards for reasonableness and proportionality in the use of force. State laws may also add specific requirements or restrictions, reflecting the local community’s needs and values.
The comprehensive system of rules and regulations surrounding the use of force reflects society’s complex expectations of law enforcement. Officers are entrusted with maintaining public safety and order, but they must do so in a way that respects individual rights and community values. The multiple layers of guidance, from specific departmental policies to broad constitutional principles, aim to help officers navigate this challenging responsibility. They provide a clear framework for decision-making, accountability, and oversight, ensuring that the use of force remains a controlled, lawful aspect of policing in a democratic society.
Training and Compliance
Police officers undergo rigorous training to ensure that they comply with all the legal requirements concerning the use of force. This training is multifaceted, encompassing not only the physical skills needed to apply various levels of force appropriately but also the legal and ethical understanding required to make sound decisions in high-pressure situations. Through scenarios, simulations, and classroom instruction, officers learn to assess threats accurately, choose the correct level of force in response, and apply that force in a manner that minimizes harm to all involved.
This comprehensive approach to training helps in reducing unnecessary or excessive force, fostering an environment where citizens’ rights are at the forefront. It instills in officers respect for the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, aligning their actions with departmental policies, federal and state laws, and broader societal values. Well-trained officers are more likely to act confidently and competently, strengthening the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve and reinforcing the rule of law that underpins a just and orderly society.
Summary
The use of force by police encompasses various methods, ranging from physical presence and verbal commands to lethal force such as shooting. Governed by departmental policies, federal and state laws, and landmark cases like Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989), the application of force must align with principles of reasonableness and proportionality. Excessive force, or the use of more force than needed, may lead to serious legal consequences and damage public trust.
Comprehensive training, including physical, legal, and ethical aspects, ensures that officers comply with legal requirements and helps in reducing unnecessary force. This training, coupled with specific rules and regulations, fosters an environment where citizens’ rights are respected while allowing officers to maintain public order and safety. The multilayered approach to governing force reflects the complex relationship between law enforcement, individual rights, and societal values in a democratic society.
References
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
Modification History File Created: 08/08/2018 Last Modified: 08/01/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
