9.2 Legal Authorities and Reasonable Force

Lawful Force Authority

TCOLE BPOC Chapter 28 starts use-of-force theory with legal authority. The exam commonly tests whether the officer can connect the level of force to a recognized law, not merely to a feeling that the subject was difficult. The Texas frame is Penal Code (PC) Chapter 9, including the definition of deadly force in PC 9.01(3), justification as a defense in PC 9.02, threats as justifiable force in PC 9.04, reckless injury of innocent third persons in PC 9.05, and force to make an arrest or search in PC 9.51.

Federal cases supply the constitutional lens. Graham v. Connor (1989) holds that excessive-force claims during a seizure are judged under the Fourth Amendment standard of objective reasonableness — what a reasonable officer would do given the facts known at the moment, judged without the benefit of hindsight. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) is the landmark limit on deadly force against a fleeing suspect: flight alone is not enough. The exam does not ask you to brief cases like a lawyer, but it expects you to know that force is judged by facts known at the time.

The deciding factors from Chapter 28 are practical, and they echo the Graham factors: the severity of the offense, whether the suspect is peacefully submitting or actively resisting, whether the suspect is armed or apparently armed, whether the suspect is alone or part of a group, any known history of violence, the support available to the officer, and the risk the chosen force creates for officers or bystanders. These facts drive reasonableness more than any label on the call.

Worked scenario. An officer tries to arrest a robbery suspect in a crowded convenience-store parking lot. The suspect refuses commands, keeps one hand hidden, and moves toward bystanders. The best response identifies offense severity, the hidden-hand threat, the crowd, available cover, backup, and communication efforts. It does not jump to deadly force simply because robbery is serious; deadly force requires facts showing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury under PC 9.32.

Articulation is part of the legal answer. TCOLE's required activities ask students to identify who, what, where, why, and how the facts apply in communications and reports. A report should not merely say the subject was "aggressive." It should describe specific behavior: clenched fists, closing distance, refusing to show hands, reaching toward the waistband, a visible weapon, bystander locations, and the commands given. Conclusions are not evidence; observed facts are.

Policy matters too. Chapter 28 says departmental policy should be at least as restrictive as the law, and an agency may be stricter. On the exam, if one answer follows both the law and agency policy while another relies on bare legal permission, choose the answer that respects both.

The Graham Factors in Detail

Graham v. Connor names three factors a court weighs, and TCOLE expects examinees to recognize them in a fact pattern:

1. Severity of the crime at issue — a violent felony justifies more force than a minor non-violent offense.
2. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others — the single most important factor.
3. Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade by flight.

Graham also instructs that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, allowing for split-second decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations, and not with 20/20 hindsight. A question that asks you to second-guess an officer using information learned only afterward is testing whether you know the hindsight rule.

Garner and Fleeing Suspects

Tennessee v. Garner narrowed deadly force against a fleeing felon. Deadly force to prevent escape is constitutional only when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others — for example, a suspect who has threatened the officer with a weapon or who committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious harm. A fleeing, unarmed, non-dangerous burglary suspect may not be shot merely to stop the escape. Texas PC 9.51 incorporates similar limits, and the two often appear together on the exam.

Exam trap. A rigid "climb the continuum" answer is usually wrong because reasonableness rests on the totality of circumstances, not a fixed ladder. A second trap is ignoring PC 9.05: a force choice can be legally risky if it solves the suspect problem while creating an unreasonable danger to innocent third persons through crossfire or a bad backdrop.