9.1 Use of Force Legal Standards

9.1 Use of Force Legal Standards

Quick Answer: Missouri peace officers may use only force that is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment (Graham v. Connor). Deadly force to stop a fleeing person is further limited by Tennessee v. Garner: there must be probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Missouri RSMo Chapter 563 justification concepts and agency policy sit on top of those constitutional floors—policy can be stricter, never looser in practice for a licensed officer.

Use of force is the highest-stakes skill domain in Missouri’s 600-hour Class A academy. Skills Development includes substantial defensive tactics time (commonly framed around roughly 62 hours of DT-related instruction within the broader skills block), but the written MPOLE tests the legal judgment that governs every physical skill: when force is authorized, what level is reasonable, when deadly force is forbidden, and how you document what you did. This section is pure decision law; later sections cover continuum options, less-lethal tools, and handcuffing mechanics.

Why Force Is a Fourth Amendment Question

An arrest, investigatory stop that becomes custodial, and any intentional application of physical power to seize a person are Fourth Amendment seizures. In Graham v. Connor (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that claims of excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard—not under a pure “shock the conscience” due-process gloss for ordinary seizure force, and not under the Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual standard (which applies to convicted prisoners).

Objective means the court asks what a reasonable officer on the scene would have done with the information available at that moment—not what a lawyer, jury, or Monday-morning coach would invent with perfect hindsight. Officers do not get a free pass for panic, but courts also do not demand perfect calm or perfect tactical choices when split-second decisions are required.

The Graham Factors (Memorize)

These factors are not a checklist scorecard where each box must be checked. They are the core of a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Other relevant facts—suspect size and ability, officer numbers, lighting, known history of violence, sudden movement toward a waistband, presence of bystanders—can all matter.

What Graham Is Not

• Not “did the officer mean well?” Subjective intent does not save objectively unreasonable force, and bad motives do not automatically make reasonable force unconstitutional under Graham’s framework for the seizure analysis.
• Not “any force is fine once PC exists.” Lawful arrest authority does not authorize unlimited force.
• Not “injury equals excessive force.” Some injuries occur from reasonable force; some unreasonable force causes little injury. The test is reasonableness of the intrusion, not outcome alone.
• Not a rigid continuum ladder that courts always require you to climb step-by-step. Training models help; the constitutional test remains objective reasonableness.

Scenario: An officer stops a vehicle for a minor equipment violation. The driver is verbally rude but keeps hands visible, complies with exit orders, and is not fighting. A full-power baton strike to the head for “attitude” fails Graham: the crime is minor, there is no immediate threat, and there is no active resistance. Contrast: the same driver suddenly produces a handgun—severity, threat, and resistance analysis all change in seconds.

Deadly Force and Tennessee v. Garner

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) struck down the idea that officers may use deadly force whenever a felon flees. The Court held that deadly force may not be used to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Where feasible, a warning should be given.

Deadly force means force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury—most commonly firearms, but also vehicle ramming, some neck restraints depending on facts and policy, and other applications that create that risk.

Missouri officers must also align deadly-force decisions with agency firearms policy, training rules of engagement, and state justification statutes. On the MPOLE, when an item asks when deadly force may be used, the safe high-yield answer tracks: reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to protect against imminent death or great bodily harm, not “any felony flight.”

Missouri Statutory Force Authority (RSMo Chapter 563 Concepts)

Missouri’s criminal code includes justification provisions in RSMo Chapter 563. At officer-awareness level for the MPOLE:

1. Private-person self-defense concepts (e.g., defense of persons under provisions such as RSMo 563.031 frameworks) explain when a civilian may use force or deadly force. Officers need this vocabulary for scene sorting and for understanding civilian claims—but peace-officer arrest force is a specialized path.
2. Law enforcement use of force in making an arrest (concepts associated with RSMo 563.046 and related justification sections) addresses when an officer may use force, including deadly force, to effect an arrest or prevent escape. The statutory path still cannot authorize what the Fourth Amendment forbids. Constitution first; statute and policy next.
3. Reasonable belief language in justification statutes is related to—but not identical with—Graham’s objective reasonableness framing. Train to both: statute for Missouri criminal-defense/justification structure; Graham/Garner for constitutional civil-rights and suppression exposure.
4. Proportionality appears in both training and law: force should match the threat and resistance. Deadly force answers non-deadly threats only in rare, carefully defined circumstances (generally it does not).

Do not invent subsection numbers or quote statutes you have not verified on the exam. Know the concepts: arrest force is justified when lawful; deadly force requires a serious threat; unjustified force can be both a crime and a constitutional violation; self-defense for civilians is not a blank check for officers during seizures.

Agency Policy May Be Stricter Than Law

Constitutional and statutory law set floors. Department general orders often set ceilings that are lower (more restrictive):

• Banning certain impact strikes to the head except under deadly-force criteria.
• Restricting CEW (Taser) use on handcuffed subjects or for passive resistance.
• Requiring verbal warnings before less-lethal or firearm use when feasible.
• Mandating supervisor notification and medical evaluation after force.
• Duty-to-intervene and duty-to-report excessive force by other officers.

Exam and career rule: Following the Constitution is necessary but not sufficient. Violating a stricter agency policy can still cost your job and POST license even if a civil jury might debate the constitutional question. Missouri POST professional standards under Chapter 590 RSMo treat serious force misconduct as a licensing risk.

Documentation and Missouri Use-of-Force Reporting Awareness

Force without documentation is a gift to plaintiffs and a nightmare for prosecutors. After any reportable force:

1. Articulate the Graham factors in plain facts: what crime, what threat cues, what resistance, what you said, what you did, what stopped the force.
2. Separate observations from conclusions. “Subject clenched fists, bladed stance, advanced two steps” beats “subject was aggressive.”
3. Identify tools and target areas, number of applications, and whether they were effective.
4. Note injuries, complaints of injury, and medical aid offered or refused.
5. List witnesses, BWC activation, and evidence (photos, spent cartridges, CEW cartridges/AFID tags).
6. Complete required agency forms the same shift whenever policy requires—do not “write it tomorrow when things calm down” if policy says now.

Missouri’s Department of Public Safety maintains public-facing use-of-force reporting information and participates in broader data-collection expectations for law enforcement. Exact form titles and submission workflows change over time; academies teach the current process. For MPOLE purposes, remember the principle: significant force is reportable upward, not a private choice to bury in a vague narrative. Transparency protects legitimate officers and identifies problem patterns.

Duty to Intervene (High-Yield Professional Standard)

Missouri training and national best practice emphasize that officers who witness clearly excessive force must take reasonable steps to stop it—verbal intervention, physical intervention when safe, and immediate supervisory notification. “I wasn’t the primary” is not a defense to standing by during a beating. Intervention duties appear in agency policy and ethics blocks; they are tested as professional judgment, not optional courtesy.

Decision Framework for MPOLE Scenarios

Use this sequence on any force fact pattern:

1. Was there a seizure? If yes, Graham applies to force used to seize.
2. What were the facts known then? Crime severity, threat, resistance/flight.
3. What level of force was used? Presence → verbal → empty hand → less-lethal → deadly.
4. If deadly force / firearm / high risk of death: Apply Garner + imminent death/GBH analysis.
5. Does policy add limits? Warnings, tool restrictions, medical care, reporting.
6. Can you write it? If you cannot articulate it, you cannot defend it.

Common Exam Traps

• Shooting a fleeing nonviolent felon solely to prevent escape (Garner violation concept).
• Treating force as judged by the officer’s fear alone without objective facts.
• Believing any resistance automatically justifies intermediate weapons or deadly force.
• Ignoring that agency policy can forbid what a vague reading of “the law might allow.”
• Skipping medical care and documentation after CEW, OC, impact munitions, or hard empty-hand control.

Master Graham’s three factors, Garner’s fleeing-threat limit, Chapter 563’s high-level justification role, stricter policy, and reporting discipline—and you will handle the legal core of Missouri use-of-force questions on the MPOLE.