11/6/2015 POL I CE USE OF F ORCE : AN OVE RVI E W Pre se - PDF document

11/6/2015 POL I CE USE OF F ORCE : AN OVE RVI E W Pre se nte d b y: Pro fe sso r K a mi Cha vis Simmo ns I NT RODUCT I ON “Use o f F o rc e ” Arise s in • Bo th c ivil a nd c rimina l litig a tio n • De te ntio n • Arre st • suspe c t tra nspo rta tio n • pre -tria l c o nfine me nt So urc e s o f L a w: 4 th Ame ndme nt (fe de ra l a nd sta te • c o nstitutio na l la w) • F e de ra l Sta tute s • Sta te Sta tute s But ho w c o urts a na lyze “use o f fo rc e ” c a se s? F ACT ORS I NF L UE NCI NG [I NCRE ASE D? ] POL I CE USE OF F ORCE • Offic e r sa fe ty/ Co mmunity sa fe ty • L a c k o f c o mmunity trust/ ra c ia l te nsio ns • L a c k o f pro pe r la w e nfo rc e me nt tra ining o r de ve lo pme nt o f a de pa rtme nt po lic y o n the pro pe r use o f fo rc e • I nc re a se d visib ility o f po lic e use s o f fo rc e 1

11/6/2015 RE CE NT I NCI DE NT S RAI SI NG E XCE SSI VE F ORCE QUE ST I ONS • Phillip White • L a va ll Ha ll • E rne st Sa tte rwhite • L e va r Jo ne s • Spring Va lle y Ca se HOT BUT T ON I SSUE S • I mpro ve d T ra ining fo r Po lic e Offic e rs (Pro c e dura l Justic e T ra ining / De -e sc a la tio n) • I mple me ntatio n o f Po lic e Bo dy-Wo rn Ca me ra s • De ve lo ping a Na tio na l Da ta b a se o f Offic e r-I nvo lve d Sho o ting s • I nc re a sing Co mmunity Po lic ing T E NNE SSE E V. GARNE R (1985) • T he Supre me Co urt he ld tha t a ppre he nsio n b y use o f de a dly fo rc e is a se izure sub je c t to the 4 th Ame ndme nt’ s re a so na b le ne ss re q uire me nt • De a dly fo rc e ma y no t b e use d unle ss: • it is ne c e ssa ry to pre ve nt e sc a pe and • the o ffic e r ha s pro b a b le c a use to b e lie ve the suspe c t po se s a sig nific a nt thre a t o f de a th o r se rio us b o dily injury to the o ffic e r o r o the rs • Whe n de te rmining the c o nstitutio na lity o f a se izure , c o urts must b a la nc e the intrusio n o n the individua l’ s 4 th Ame ndme nt inte re sts a g a inst the impo rta nc e o f the g o ve rnme nta l inte re sts a lle g e d to justify the intrusio n 2

11/6/2015  What use of deadly force is acceptable after Garner ?  Can you use deadly force on someone who is pointing a gun at you?  How about anyone who is just carrying a gun and running away from you?  What if the Officer who Garner had just seen him commit murder before he started to flee? GRAHAM V. CONNOR • He ld tha t c la ims o f e xc e ssive use o f fo rc e b y la w e nfo rc e me nt o ffic ia ls in the c o urse o f a n a rre st, inve stig a to ry sto p, o r o the r se izure o f a pe rso n a re pro pe rly a na lyze d unde r the 4 th Ame ndme nt’ s “o b je c tive re a so na b le ne ss” sta nda rd • T he “re a so na b le ne ss” o f the use o f fo rc e sho uld b e a na lyze d o n a c a se -b y-c a se b a sis lo o king a t the to ta lity o f the c irc umsta nc e s • E x: se ve rity o f the c rime a t issue , whe the r the suspe c t po se s a n imme diate thre a t to the sa fe ty o f the o ffic e rs o r o the rs, whe the r the suspe c t is a c tive ly re sisting a rre st o r a tte mpting to e va de b y flig ht GRAHAM CONT . • Re a so na b le ne ss is judg e d fro m the pe rspe c tive o f a re a so na b le o ffic e r o n the sc e ne • Co urts sho uld ta ke into a c c o unt the fa c t tha t o ffic e rs a re fo rc e d to ma ke split se c o nd de c isio ns in c irc umstanc e s tha t a re te nse , unc e rta in, a nd ra pidly e vo lving • T he true q ue stio n is whe the r the o ffic e r’ s a c tio ns a re “o b je c tive ly re a so na b le ” in lig ht o f the fa c ts a nd c irc umstanc e s c o nfro nting the m WI T HOUT re g a rd to the ir unde rlying inte nt o r mo tiva tio n 3

11/6/2015 GRAHAM CONT . • Ana lysis is do ne a t the time the fo rc e wa s use d • Co urts sho uld no t a llo w fo r “a rmc ha ir re fle c tio n” • He re , e ve n unde r the la rg e ly de fe re ntia l sta nda rd, the c o urt he ld tha t the o ffic e rs use d e xc e ssive fo rc e in a ppre he nding the de fe nda nt N.C. GE N. ST AT . § 15A-401(D): ST AT UT ORY USE OF F ORCE • (d)(1) A la w e nfo rc e me nt o ffic e r is justifie d in using fo rc e upo n a no the r pe rso n whe n he re a so na b ly b e lie ve s it ne c e ssa ry: • (a ) T o pre ve nt the e sc a pe fro m c usto dy o r to e ffe c t a n a rre st o f a pe rso n who he re a so na b ly b e lie ve s ha s c o mmitte d a c rimina l o ffe nse , unle ss he kno ws tha t the a rre st is una utho rize d; o r • (b ) T o de fe nd himse lf o r a third pe rso n fro m wha t he re a so na b ly b e lie ve s to b e the use o r immine nt use o f physic a l fo rc e while e ffe c ting o r a tte mpting to e ffe c t a n a rre st while pre ve nting o r a tte mpting to pre ve nt a n e sc a pe • No thing in this sub divisio n c o nstitute s justific atio n fo r willful, ma lic io us o r c rimina lly ne g lig e nt c o nduc t b y a ny pe rso n whic h injure s o r e nda ng e rs a ny pe rso n o r pro pe rty, no r sha ll it b e c o nstrue d to e xc use o r justify the use o f unre a so na b le o r e xc e ssive fo rc e § 15A-401(D)(2) USE OF DE ADL Y F ORCE • (d)(2) A la w-e nfo rc e me nt o ffic e r is justifie d in using deadly physical for ce upo n a no the r pe rso n fo r a purpo se spe c ifie d in sub divisio n (1) o f this se c tio n o nly whe n it is o r a ppe a rs to b e re a so na b ly ne c e ssa ry the re b y: • (a ) to de fe nd himse lf o r a third pe rso n fro m wha t he re a so na b ly b e lie ve s to b e the use o r immine nt use o f de a dly physic a l fo rc e • (b ) to e ffe c tua te a n a rre st o r pre ve nt the e sc a pe fro m c usto dy o f a pe rso n who he re a so na b ly b e lie ve s is a tte mpting to e sc a pe b y me a ns o f a de a dly we a po n, o r who b y his c o nduc t o r a ny o the r me a ns indic a te s tha t he pre se nts a n immine nt thre a t o f de a th o r se rio us physic a l injury to o the rs unle ss a ppre he nde d witho ut de la y; o r • (c ) to pre ve nt the e sc a pe o f a pe rso n fro m c usto dy impo se d upo n him a s a re sult o f c o nvic tio n fo r a fe lo ny 4

11/6/2015 OBJE CT I VE RE ASONABL E NE SS • Co urts sho uld c o nside r the fo llo wing : • Offic e r pe rc e ptio n in lig ht o f the pa rtic ula r c irc umsta nc e s • T he a mo unt o f fo rc e ne c e ssa ry is judg e d fro m the pe rspe c tive o f a re a so na b le o ffic e r o n the sc e ne witho ut re tro spe c tive a na lysis • Offic e rs a re typic a lly insula te d fro m lia b ility fo r g o o d fa ith mista ke s • Use o f fo rc e c o ntinuum is he lpful to g uide o ffic e rs b ut de via tio n fro m de pa rtme nt po lic y is no t ne c e ssa rily unre a so na b le • Displa ying a de a dly we a po n a lmo st a lwa ys justifie s de a dly fo rc e whe n the re e xists a n imme dia te thre a t to the sa fe ty o f the o ffic e r o r o the rs • Ba la nc e the na ture a nd q ua lity o f intrusio n o n suspe c ts 4 th Ame ndme nt inte re sts a g a inst the c o unte rva iling g o ve rnme nt inte re sts HYPO • In No rth Ca ro lina, a n o ffic e r is a utho rize d to use ne c e ssa ry fo rc e to pre ve nt a n e sc a pe fro m c usto dy o r to e ffe c tua te a n a rre st • Ho we ve r, the o ffic e r c a nno t use unre a so na b le o r e xc e ssive fo rc e • An o ffic e r lo se s immunity unde r No rth Ca ro lina la w whe n he do e s tha t whic h a pe rso n o f re a so na b le inte llig e nc e wo uld kno w to b e c o ntra ry to his o r he r duty • Whe the r a n o ffic e r is shie lde d fro m lia bility de pe nds o n the o b je c tive re a so na b le ne ss o f the o ffic e rs c o nduc t • Hypo • Po lic e re c e ive d a tip tha t D wa s se lling drug s a nd c o nduc te d a n “o pe n-a ir” drug b ust • D wa s wa lking do wn the stre e t whe n o ffic e rs a ppro a c he d in a n unma rke d SUV • Offic e r le a pe d fro m the SUV a nd kno c ke d D to the g ro und b y ta c kling him whic h re sulte d in injurie s • Injurie s inc luding : c ut pa rt o f his fa c e to the b o ne , c ut no se a nd b ro ke it in two pla c e s, kno c ke d o ut o ne to o th imme dia te ly a nd e ig ht mo re we re lo st • He re : We re o ffic e rs’ a c tio ns o b je c tive ly re a so na b le unde r the 4 th Ame ndme nt re a so na b le ne ss • sta nda rd? ST AT E V. ANDE RSON • No rth Ca ro lina Co urt o f Appe a ls • “a n o ffic e r o f the la w ha s the rig ht to use suc h fo rc e a s he ma y re a so na b ly b e lie ve ne c e ssa ry in the pro pe r disc ha rg e o f his dutie s to e ffe c t a n a rre st . . . the o ffic e r is pro pe rly le ft with the disc re tio n to de te rmine the a mo unt o f fo rc e re q uire d unde r the c irc umsta nc e s a s the y a ppe a re d to him a t the time o f the a rre st” • Ho we ve r, “T he rig ht to use fo rc e to de fe nd o ne se lf a g a inst the e xc e ssive use o f fo rc e during a n a rre st ma y a rise ” • F urthe rmo re , “the de fe nda nt is e ntitle d to a n instruc tio n tha t de fe nda nt wa s justifie d in inte rfe ring with the a rre st if the a rre ste e wa s he rse lf justifie d in re sisting the a rre st” 5