Use of Force Principles Flashcards

Which U.S. Supreme Court case established the 'objective reasonableness' standard for law enforcement use of force, which requires that force be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

Answer: Graham v. Connor

Graham v. Connor is the landmark 1989 case that established the objective reasonableness standard for all claims of excessive force. [4, 8] The court ruled 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 hindsight. [8, 16]

A Trooper is attempting to arrest a suspect for misdemeanor vandalism. The suspect refuses to be handcuffed by pulling their arms away and locking them in front of their body. The suspect is not making threats or attempting to strike the Trooper. What is the most appropriate initial level of force?

Answer: Use of empty-hand control techniques, such as an arm-bar or joint lock.

The suspect is exhibiting active resistance by physically preventing the Trooper from handcuffing them, but is not being assaultive. [7, 14] Empty-hand control techniques are a reasonable and proportional response to overcome this level of resistance. [2] Using a TASER, baton, or firearm would be an excessive level of force for the situation presented. [17]

According to the principles established in *Graham v. Connor*, which of the following are the primary factors a Trooper must consider when assessing the reasonableness of a use of force?

Answer: The severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and whether they are actively resisting or fleeing.

The Supreme Court in *Graham v. Connor* specifically identified three key factors to consider: 1) the severity of the crime at issue, 2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. [1, 16]

A Trooper is pursuing a suspect who just committed a non-violent felony (e.g., burglary of an unoccupied building) and is now fleeing on foot. The suspect is unarmed. Under the principles established in *Tennessee v. Garner*, the use of deadly force to stop the suspect is justified only if:

Answer: The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

*Tennessee v. Garner* ruled it is unconstitutional to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon 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 if not immediately apprehended. [6, 10, 23] The fact that the suspect committed a felony or is fleeing is not, by itself, sufficient justification for using deadly force. [26]

A Trooper responds to a call about an individual shouting erratically in a public space. Upon arrival, the Trooper observes a person who appears agitated and is talking to themselves, but is unarmed and has not made any threats. Which of the following should be the Trooper's *first* course of action?

Answer: Create distance, use a calm and non-threatening tone of voice, and attempt to establish verbal dialogue.

When no immediate physical threat exists, de-escalation is the priority. [13, 25] Establishing distance for safety, using a calm demeanor, and attempting verbal communication are foundational de-escalation techniques that can resolve situations without resorting to force. [5, 27]

What is the primary purpose of the 'Use of Force Continuum' as a model in law enforcement training?

Answer: To serve as a conceptual guideline to help officers choose appropriate force options and articulate the reasonableness of their actions.

The Use of Force Continuum is a training model that provides guidelines for officers to evaluate a situation and respond with an appropriate, reasonable level of force. [2, 11] It is not a rigid, step-by-step requirement, as officers may be justified in escalating or de-escalating to any reasonable level of force based on the subject's actions. [11, 15, 17]