Reasonable force
Reasonable force refers to the legally permissible level of physical force that law enforcement officers can use when making an arrest or ensuring public safety. This concept is grounded in the necessity of balancing effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights, particularly regarding allegations of excessive force. Courts consider whether the force applied was appropriate given the circumstances, guided by the standard of what a reasonable officer would do in a similar situation.
The evaluation of reasonable force includes various factors such as the immediate need for force, the relationship between that need and the degree of force used, and the injuries sustained as a result of the force. Notably, the use of deadly force is restricted to situations where there is a clear threat to life. Legal precedents, including pivotal Supreme Court rulings, shape the interpretation of reasonable force and its application, emphasizing the importance of context and the rapid decision-making required of officers in tense situations. Furthermore, allegations of excessive force can lead to civil liability and criminal charges, highlighting the serious implications surrounding its misuse.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Reasonable force
SIGNIFICANCE: It is understood that police must sometimes use force to arrest suspects; however, excessive force is sometimes applied, and legal remedies exist for such cases.
Police officers are legally allowed to use the amount of force that is reasonably necessary to make an arrest. Courts should not substitute their own judgment for the judgment of the police officer in the field when the latter’s discretion is exercised reasonably and in good faith. Nevertheless, the courts examine allegations of excessive force as potential violations of the due process of law that is guaranteed under the US and state constitutions. Moreover, excessive force can generate civil liability under tort law and the civil rights laws, and it can itself be a crime.
The standard used for evaluating the use of force is whether an “ordinary, prudent man under the circumstances” would condone the use of force. This is a question of fact for the jury’s deliberations. Factors to be considered include the need for force, the relationship between the need and amount of force applied, the extent of injuries caused by the use of force, and whether the force was used in a good faith effort to effect the arrest. In addition, courts consider whether the application of force violates accepted standards of decency. Deadly force may generally be used only when the officer fears for his safety or the safety of others, and force used by a police officer to punish (rather than restrain) is strictly prohibited.
The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings regarding what constitutes reasonable force. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court found a statute that authorized the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspects to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment . In the majority opinion, Justice Byron R. White wrote, "Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. . . . Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force." In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that "the 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. The calculus must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances thaat are tense, uncertain and rapidly-evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." In San Francisco v. Sheehan (2015), the Supreme Court heard a case in which a woman with a history of mental illness was shot by police officers after she approached them wielding a knife while they attempted to arrest her. She then sued the officers alleging that they had failed to reasonably accommodate her disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court rejected this argument and held that "knowledge of a person's disability cannot foreclose officers from protecting themselves, the disabled person, and the general public."
In other cases, however, courts rule that excessive forced was used and punishable. In 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department after Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd in 2020 by pushing his knee into Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. The DOJ found a pattern of excessive force, racial discrimination, and civil rights violations among the members of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Bibliography
Alpert, Geoffrey, and Lorie A. Fridell. Police Vehicle and Firearms: Instruments of Deadly Force. Prospect Heights: Waveland, 1992. Print.
Geller, William, and Hans Toch, eds. Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. New Haven: Yale UP, 1996. Print.
Hodgman, Lucy. "DOJ Finds Patterns of Excessive Force, Racial Discrimination at Minneapolis Police Department." Politico, 16 June 2023, www.politico.com/news/2023/06/16/minneapolis-police-george-floyd-doj-report-00102425. Accessed 9 July 2024.
Panditharatne, Mekela. "When Is the Use of Force by Police Reasonable?" Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly Group, 17 July 2015. Web. 31 May 2016.
Susman, Tina, and Maria L. La Ganga. "Police Killing, Beating of Civilians Raise Issue of Reasonable Force." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 16 Nov. 2014. Web. 31 May 2016.