Use of Force Principles Flashcards

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor established that claims of excessive force by law enforcement must be judged under which constitutional amendment and standard?

Answer: Fourth Amendment's 'Objective Reasonableness' standard.

In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that all claims of excessive force by law enforcement in the context of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of a free citizen must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard. This means the reasonableness of the force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, based on the totality of the circumstances, without regard to the officer's underlying intent or motivation.

An officer responds to a burglary in progress. The suspect flees on foot and is unarmed, but refuses commands to stop. According to the principles established in Tennessee v. Garner, when would the officer be justified in using deadly force to apprehend the suspect?

Answer: Only if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional 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. Simply committing a felony is not sufficient justification on its own.

Which of the following is NOT a primary factor an officer should consider when determining the objective reasonableness of force used, according to the 'Graham Factors'?

Answer: The officer's personal feelings or fear about the situation.

The Graham v. Connor decision established an objective standard. The analysis focuses on what a reasonable officer would have done in the same situation, based on specific factors. These factors include the severity of the crime, the immediate threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or fleeing. The individual officer's subjective state of mind, such as their personal fear or anger, is not part of the objective reasonableness test.

According to 18 Pa.C.S. § 508, a peace officer is justified in using any force they believe necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, the use of deadly force is only justified under more specific circumstances. Which of the following scenarios justifies the use of deadly force under this statute?

Answer: The officer believes such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themself or another person.

Pennsylvania Crimes Code Title 18, Section 508 explicitly states an officer is justified in using deadly force when they believe it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themself or another person. It is also justified to prevent escape if the person has committed a forcible felony OR possesses a deadly weapon OR otherwise indicates they will endanger human life unless arrested without delay.

An officer is attempting to take a verbally non-compliant but physically passive individual into custody. The individual is refusing to place their hands behind their back. According to a standard use of force continuum model, which of the following is the most appropriate initial level of force?

Answer: Soft empty-hand control techniques, such as joint locks or pressure points.

Use of force continuum models provide guidance for escalating and de-escalating force in response to a subject's actions. For a subject who is passively resisting (not complying with commands but not physically fighting), the appropriate response is generally soft empty-hand control techniques to gain compliance, such as guiding the individual's arms or using pressure points. Using chemical agents, CEDs, or deadly force would be an inappropriate and excessive response to passive resistance.

Officer Smith is confronted by a rapidly evolving, tense, and uncertain situation that requires a split-second judgment about the amount of force to use. According to Graham v. Connor, how will a court evaluate Officer Smith's actions?

Answer: From the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at that moment.

The Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor explicitly stated that 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 'calculus of reasonableness' must allow for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances.