NCJ Number
166534
Journal
Police Chief Volume: 63 Issue: 9 Dated: (September 1996) Pages: 39-41
Date Published
1996
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article reviews court rulings pertinent to police objectively reasonable use of force under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Abstract
When asserting qualified immunity under the Fourth Amendment, an officer's actions or thoughts prior to the use of force are not relevant, even if the officer ostensibly caused or contributed to the situation that resulted in the use of force. The courts will examine only what the officer knew and did at the time the force was used. Further, an officer cannot be accused of excessive force unless the officer has "seized" the suspect. A Fourth Amendment seizure ranges from making a suspect halt or leave a building or vehicle to shooting a suspect. Also, compliance or noncompliance with State law or departmental policy is not a dispositive issue; however, State law or departmental policy may be indicative of what is and is not reasonable. An officer is not required to use less intrusive alternatives before applying the amount of force reasonably necessary. Lawful use of force during one step in a sequence of events does not justify greater or lesser use of force during a later step. The reverse is also true. Finally, it is critical for officers to remain current in the law of search and seizure. The courts will not excuse an officer's ignorance of a suspect's clearly established constitutional rights. 15 footnotes