6.1 Use of Force Legal Framework & Justification

The application of physical force by law enforcement officers is one of the most heavily scrutinized actions within the American criminal justice system. The authority to use force, up to and including deadly force, is a profound responsibility granted by society to police officers to maintain order, protect the public, and defend themselves. Understanding the legal framework surrounding the use of force is not merely a matter of passing the POST exam; it is a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement for constitutional policing, career survival, and minimizing the risk of civil liability and criminal prosecution.

Use of force is primarily governed by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Because the application of force is considered a seizure of a person, it must meet the constitutional test of reasonableness. This constitutional floor is further defined by landmark Supreme Court cases and specific state laws, such as those in Louisiana.

Constitutional Standards: Landmark Supreme Court Rulings

The U.S. Supreme Court has established the parameters within which police may legally use force. Two cases form the bedrock of this jurisprudence.

Graham v. Connor (1989): The Objective Reasonableness Standard

The most critical case governing law enforcement use of force is Graham v. Connor. In this case, a diabetic man (Graham) experiencing a sugar reaction acted erratically, leading officers to suspect a theft. During the ensuing investigatory stop, officers used force that resulted in Graham sustaining multiple injuries. The Supreme Court ruled that all claims of excessive force by law enforcement in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard.

Key components of the Graham standard include:

• Perspective: 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 court acknowledges that what seems obvious weeks later in a courtroom may not be apparent in the moment.
• Split-Second Decisions: The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. The law does not require officers to choose the absolute best option, only a reasonable one.
• The Three-Prong Test (The Graham Factors): To determine whether the force used was reasonable, courts instruct juries to evaluate three primary factors:
  1. The severity of the crime at issue: More severe crimes generally justify a higher level of force to effect an arrest or prevent escape.
  2. Immediate threat: Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. This is often considered the most important factor.
  3. Active resistance or evasion: Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Active resistance requires physical countermeasures, whereas passive resistance (like going limp) generally limits force options to soft control techniques.

Crucially, the officer's underlying intent or motivation (whether "good" or "bad") is entirely irrelevant to the objective reasonableness inquiry. An officer with malicious intent who uses a constitutionally reasonable amount of force has not violated the Fourth Amendment, just as an officer with pure intentions who uses objectively unreasonable force has violated it.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985): The Fleeing Felon Rule

Prior to Tennessee v. Garner, many jurisdictions adhered to the centuries-old common-law "fleeing felon" rule, which allowed police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of any fleeing felony suspect. In Garner, an officer shot and killed a 15-year-old unarmed burglary suspect who was fleeing over a fence. The Supreme Court struck down the broad fleeing felon rule, stating that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement.

The rule established by Garner dictates that deadly force may not be used against a fleeing suspect unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Furthermore, if feasible, some warning should be given prior to the use of deadly force (e.g., "Stop, Police, or I'll shoot!"). A non-violent fleeing burglar no longer meets the threshold for deadly force.

Louisiana Statutory Justification (La. R.S. 14:18-22)

While federal case law dictates constitutional boundaries (the floor), Louisiana statutes specifically define when force is legally justified within the state. If an officer's actions fall within these statutes, their use of force is "justified," providing a complete defense against state criminal charges like battery or homicide.

• La. R.S. 14:18 (Justification; General Provisions): This statute outlines general circumstances where an offender's conduct is justifiable, explicitly protecting officers acting in the execution of public duty.
• La. R.S. 14:19 (Use of Force or Violence in Defense): The use of non-deadly force or violence upon another is justified when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense.
• La. R.S. 14:20 (Justifiable Homicide): This is the critical statute governing deadly force. A homicide is justifiable when committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger of losing their life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save themselves. The statute also extends this to the defense of others. Notably, Louisiana law incorporates "Stand Your Ground" provisions; a person who is in a place where they have a right to be does not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force to meet a deadly threat.
• La. R.S. 14:22 (Defense of Others): It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means themselves, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

Use of Force Continuum and Force Options

The Use of Force Continuum (sometimes called a Force Matrix or Force Model) is a training and conceptual tool that helps officers determine the appropriate level of force in response to a subject's behavior. The goal is always to use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve a lawful objective, de-escalating when possible and escalating only when required by the suspect's actions.

While many modern agencies are moving away from rigid, linear "stair-step" models towards more fluid, principles-based models (like the "Wheel" model), the core concept of proportionality remains constant across all training doctrines.

Levels of Subject Resistance

Officers must accurately assess the level of resistance to select the appropriate force response:

1. Compliant: Subject follows commands and offers no resistance. (Response: Normal communication and professional presence).
2. Passive Resistance: Subject does not follow commands but offers no physical, mechanical resistance. Examples include going limp, sitting down and refusing to move, or locking arms together non-aggressively. (Response: Soft empty-hand control, pressure points, lifting/carrying).
3. Active Resistance: Subject physically resists control but does not attempt to harm the officer. Examples include pulling away, bracing against a doorway, or walking away against commands. (Response: Hard empty-hand control, stunning techniques, chemical agents like OC spray).
4. Aggressive Resistance / Active Aggression: Subject physically attacks the officer or another person, attempting to cause injury. Examples include punching, kicking, or grappling offensively. (Response: Intermediate weapons like batons or CEWs/TASERs, strikes, dynamic takedowns).
5. Deadly Resistance: Subject takes actions that could result in death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Examples include brandishing a firearm, attacking with a knife, or attempting to strike an officer with a vehicle. (Response: Deadly force, typically a firearm).

Officers are not required to start at the bottom of the continuum and work their way up. The initial force option selected should match the initial threat level presented by the suspect. If a suspect immediately pulls a knife and charges, the officer is justified in immediately transitioning to deadly force without first trying verbal commands or pepper spray.

Duty to Intervene and Render Aid

Modern policing standards and evolving case law mandate proactive officer accountability. Being a passive bystander to misconduct is no longer legally defensible.

Duty to Intervene

If an officer observes another officer—regardless of rank—using force that is clearly beyond what is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, the observing officer has a mandatory legal and ethical duty to intervene and stop the excessive force.

Failure to intervene can lead to direct criminal liability for the observing officer, as well as severe civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Deprivation of Rights). The courts have ruled that an officer who fails to intercede is equally liable as the officer committing the excessive force, provided they had a realistic opportunity to prevent the harm.

Duty to Render Aid

Once a scene is secure, the threat has been neutralized, and it is tactically safe to do so, officers have an immediate constitutional and policy-driven duty to provide necessary medical aid to injured persons.

Crucially, this duty applies equally to suspects against whom the officers have just used force. Once the suspect is handcuffed and no longer a threat, officers must shift immediately from a combat mindset to a life-saving mindset. This includes promptly requesting Emergency Medical Services (EMS), applying tourniquets for severe bleeding, maintaining the suspect's airway, and ensuring they are not placed in positions that compromise breathing (preventing positional asphyxia).