POLICE USE OF DEADLY FORCE.   Term Paper ID:25002 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Definition, examples, causes, racial factors, police procedures, court decisions, U.S. Justice Department policy.... More...

25 Pages / 5625 Words 27 sources, 68 Citations, APA Format $100.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Definition, examples, causes, racial factors, police procedures, court decisions, U.S. Justice Department policy. Paper Introduction: Police Use of Deadly Force Introduction This paper will discuss the use of deadly force by police. The first part of the paper will define deadly force and illustrate its use with examples. These examples are actual situations which resulted in litigation. The second part of the paper will discuss some of the studies which have been conducted on the use of deadly force. This section will look at the factors which lead to the use of deadly force and the racial discrepancies concerning its use. The third part of the paper will examine the legal aspects concerning the use of deadly force. This section will delve into the Supreme Court decisions in this area and the decisions of the lower federal courts on the subject. The last part of the paper will briefly discuss the recent policies adopt Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. References Alpert, G. 29). 1 (1985). Connor, 49 U.S. This standard is used because the SupremeCourt has recognized that law enforcement training and experience givespolice officers a unique perspective on situations. 28). Tennenbaum, A. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 347 (6th Cir. Thoseofficers who returned fire killed five assailants and wounded five others,after receiving wounds which eventually proved fatal to themselves (Hall;1993, August; p. The officers in the shooting situations were lesslikely to have information about the subjects they were facing than did theofficers in the non-shooting situations. 1992)). Plaintiffs who have sued police officers and departments for the useof deadly force have often forwarded two arguments: (1) deadly force wasnot necessary because less intrusive alternatives were available; and (2)if deadly force was necessary, the officer's prior actions created thenecessity. However,the use of this model has helped social scientists understand the decisionto use deadly force (Fridell and Binder, 1992, p. Justice System Journal, 2, 169-183. Cases Bradford v. A second witness thendirected the officers to the apartment building where the suspect hadentered. In Plakas, the Ninth Circuit chose not to review the actions of theofficer preceding the confrontation to determine if they were correct. The Fourth CircuitCourt of Appeals upheld the ruling of the trial court excluding evidence ofviolation of police procedures, noting that the officer's conduct was"reasonable" at the moment she decided to employ deadly force (Greenridgev. The first thing to remember in such an inquiry is that the onlyrelevant facts are those known to the officers at the moment the decisionwas made to use deadly force (49 U.S. The male suspect then appeared to reach for what the officerbelieved was a shotgun and the officer shot him. It said thatthe relevant inquiry was whether the officers acted reasonably, not whetherthere were less intrusive alternatives available to them. (1983). Henrich, 978 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. The use of deadly force by police officers does not always involvefirearms. 397-398). 411, 418 (198 )). at 11). With regard to dangerousness, the Court said that "if thesuspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause tobelieve that he has committed a crime involving the infliction of seriousphysical harm...," the officer could conclude that the suspect is dangerous(471 U.S. Unlike civilians, the police officer is authorized by law and thegovernment to carry of deadly weapon and is trained in the use of thatweapon. 1993). Thethird stage teaches the practical application of the policy through the useof interactive video simulation and practical exercises employing roleplayers and blank or paint firing weapons. Courts have also held that allegations that an officer involved in adeadly force incident violated departmental policies or standard policeprocedures are irrelevant to the analysis. The officer fired one shot, which struck and killed thesuspect. The Fourth Circuit said that this reasoning "contradicts [the]argument that, in determining reasonableness, the chain of events ought tobe traced backwards to the officer's misconduct of failing to comply withstandard police procedures." Such failures which occurred prior to theofficer opening the vehicle's door and identifying herself "are notprobative of the reasonableness of [her] decision to fire the shot" (927F.2d 789, 796 (4th Cir. 1991). The response of law enforcement officers and officials to suchintense scrutiny is often defensive and reactionary, accusing their criticsof advancing hidden agendas at the expense of officers' safety(Christensen; 1988, October; p. 64 (1973)). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the factthat the suspect was later found to have been unarmed was irrelevant to thedetermination of whether the use of deadly force was justified under theFourth Amendment (926 F.2d 494, 5 -5 1 (5th Cir. Objective facts whichhave no meaning to untrained civilians can lead to "inferences anddeductions that might well elude an untrained person" (United States v.Cortez, 449 U.S. The authors of thestudy suggested that future studies focus upon the mutual dependencybetween officers' actions and citizens' responses, as well as upon theinteraction between the environmental context of the situation and thecharacteristics of the officers and the citizens (Fridell and Binder, 1992,pp. 236-237; Milton, et al., 1977). 3 ). Annals of the American Academy of Politics and Social Sciences,452, 111-21. (1987). 31). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 27-32. Studies conducted during the 196 s, 197 s, and 198 s,consistently showed a disparity between the involvement of blacks in policeshooting incidents and the representation of blacks in the generalpopulation (Horvath, 1987, p. O'Connor, 49 U.S. Illinois v. (1974). at 396-397). The "defense-of-life" rule held that the only justification for thepolice use of deadly force was to protect human life, be it that of theofficer or a civilian (Alpert and Fridell, 1992, p. at 396-397). In a democratic society they must be restrainedby the rule of law, lest they become a power unto themselves. It is interesting that the debate over the use of deadlyforce existed in this country even at a time when cities in the westernparts of the United States were employing men like Wild Bill Hickock tokeep the peace. The Court further emphasized that the"'reasonableness' inquiry ... at 396-399). Statistical evidence has shown that mostgunshot wounds are not fatal and that even fatal wounds do not alwaysresult in immediate incapacity. (1994). Theofficer then observed the suspect repeatedly reaching down in defiance ofthe orders. Deadly force: A question of necessity. G. She drew her gun on the occupants when neither complied withher orders to place their hands in view. Requiring officers to find andchoose the least intrusive alternative "would inevitably inducetentativeness by officers, and thus deter police from protecting the publicand themselves" (978 F.2d at 3). It holds the police responsible for the suspect's actions(Hall; 1995, February; p. The forcible-felony rule allowed the use of deadly force only insituations where the person was suspected of committing specified "forciblefelonies," such as murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, and arson(Alpert and Fridell, 1992, p. Carter v. The Court, however, did not provide any clearexplanation as to what constitutes "necessity" (Hall; 1995, February; pp.27-28). Horvath, F. Ruffin, 927 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. The second aspect of the reasonableness inquiry concerns thereasonable officer standard. 243;Sherman, 198 , p. C. The researchers concluded thatthe two most important factors at this stage in determining the outcome arethe degree to which the officer positions himself to control the situationand the officer's ability to weigh his direct impressions against what helearned earlier about the citizen he is facing (Binder and Scharf, 1983, p.124). Through an expert witness, the plaintiff claimed that theofficers' conduct created an unreasonable risk of armed confrontation. Theofficer identified herself and opened the car door, although she did notshine a flashlight on the occupants (in violation of procedure). Police officers also have relatively limited means to meet a threat.Firearms themselves offer no assurance of effectively eliminating a threatin a short period of time. The suspect then turned down a dead-end street, turnedaround, and stopped, facing the police car. 29). Deadly force in defense of life. Therefore,officers must be provided with extensive training on identifying thesituations which may require such a decision and on how to make thedecision. Jeopardy is present when a suspecttakes advantage of his ability and opportunity to place a person inimminent physical danger. (1996, April). When the officer got out ofhis car, the suspect suddenly accelerated, rammed the police car, andswerved to escape. Hall, J. The Model Penal Code (MPC) rule and the forcible-felony rule struck amiddle ground between the two rules noted above. Even when the results were divided betweenmetropolitan areas (where blacks constitute a relatively high percentage ofthe general population) and suburban/rural areas (where they constitute alow percentage of the general population), the discrepancy remained,although it was smaller (Horvath, 1987, p. 71). The second stage relies upon the use of writtenscenarios to illustrate how the policy applies to various situations. 4. Moreover, the officers in theshooting situations were less likely than the officers in the non-shootingsituations to be able to determine the subjects' emotional states or tohave initially perceived the situations as possible shooting situations(Fridell and Binder, 1992, p. Duringthis phase, the officer will receive additional information which mayeither reinforce or contradict his or her initial information. Thecourt based its decision on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Graham v.O'Connor, which recognized that police officers are required to make "split-second judgments" and that the analysis of the reasonableness should focusupon the officer's conduct "at the moment" the decision was made to useforce. The officers in this caseresponded to a "shots fired" call and were told by a witness that thesuspect had been seen acting crazy and shooting. 27-28). Fridell, L. One of the most common resultsof this admonition is to disregard the fact that a suspect was later foundto have been unarmed or armed with a non-deadly weapon. The Supreme Court's decision in Garner effectively restricted thecircumstances under which deadly force can be constitutionally employed.As a result, police departments throughout the United States have adopteddeadly force policies which are more restrictive than those generallyemployed prior to 1985. The suspect then confronted them witha "long gun." One of the officers fired at the suspect and missed; thesecond officer, believing that the suspect had fired, shot and killed thesuspect. Medical evidence has shown that the humanbody has the remarkable ability to function and continue deliberate actionsafter sustaining severe and even fatal wounds. Thewitness, citing the department's internal guidelines, said that theofficers should have developed a tactical plan, sealed possible escaperoutes, called for backup, and tried to coax the suspect into surrendering,rather than trying to immediately flush him out. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that trial court'smotion granting summary judgment to the defendant officer. Very often, civilian observers see theshooting as arbitrary or unjustified, particularly when the civilian shotby the police was a member of a minority racial group (Takagi, 1974, pp. O'Connor, 49 U.S. Thecourt noted that such a review would almost always find that something elsecould have been done if the officer could see into the future (19 F.3d at115 ). 3 ). This rule was the subject of severecriticism throughout the history of the United States. The suspectrepeatedly lowered his hands in spite of the officer's commands to keepthem raised. 1991)). This means that while a large bodybuilder maypossess the ability to inflict lethal harm on a smaller person, theopportunity to do so does not exist if fifty yards separate the twoindividuals. Since there was no seizure until the suspectwas shot, only the arrest, and not the scheme, can be scrutinized forreasonableness (973 F.2d at 1333). 29-3 ). Although violations of departmental policies and procedures might seemrelevant when determining the reasonableness of a decision to use deadlyforce, the Supreme Court has insisted that the sole focus should be uponthe facts and circumstances facing the officers at the moment the decisionto use such force is made. However, the trial court granted the officer's motion for summaryjudgment and the Circuit Court upheld this motion on appeal. 79-NI-AX- 134, December, vol. Also duringthis phase, the officer makes some of the more important decisions whichwill determine the outcome of the event. Freland, 954 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. Ignoring the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, it must beremembered that the use of deadly force by the police can result in thetaking of a human life without the color of trial or legal process.Moreover, since the officer inflicting the force is an agent of thegovernment, his use of deadly force is the governmental use of deadlyforce. Thesecond argument seeks to impose a duty upon an officer to anticipate andprevent the actions of a suspect which might otherwise make the use ofdeadly force necessary (Hall;1995, February; pp. These factors affect the officer's preconceptions andearly decisions. The second part of the paper will discuss some of the studieswhich have been conducted on the use of deadly force. 26). Hall, J. The officers knocked on the street-level door of the apartmentbuilding and identified themselves. Scharf, P., and Binder, A. A survey of the shootingdeaths of 56 police officers in 199 found that 16 of the officerscontinued to perform deliberate functions after receiving fatal wounds,including calling for assistance and returning effective fire. Important factors in this phase are the mode oflinkage (radio call or observation) and the initial information availableto the officer. The Court essentially declared the any-felony ruleunconstitutional, but refused to limit the use of deadly force to self-defense. The use of deadly force. Lafayette, 462 U.S. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir.), cert. 2). These limitations include the reactiverole of officers and the limited means to stop a threat. Most commonly,deadly force involves the use of firearms; however, it can also include theuse of other objects, including vehicles. Buscher, 973 F.2d 1328 (7thCir. In Bradford v. 1991). Consequently, the officer has been trained to be aware of thisproblem and is thus faces further time constraints on his or herdecisionmaking process (Hall; 1993, August; p. She shot the suspect in questionwhen he reached for what she believed was a shotgun; she later discoveredthat the object was a wooden nightstick. In 1994, the Seventh Circuit held that there was no constitutionalduty to use non-deadly force alternatives first in a situation where deadlyforce was otherwise justified (Plakas v. P., and Fridell, L. First,situations in which deadly force has been used tend to be characterized byambiguity and surprise, more so than situations in which the use of deadlyforce was averted. The court saidthat the officer essentially had three alternatives: (1) maintain adistance from the suspect and try to keep a barrier between him and theofficers; (2) use a disabling spray (such as mace or gas); and (3) use adog to subdue the suspect. Aside from the factors discussed above, the most controversial factorin deadly force situations has been race. (1992). Journal of Criminal Justice, 2 ,385-399. Cortez, 449 U.S. Police Use of Deadly Force Introduction This paper will discuss the use of deadly force by police. 1992). This effectivelyavoids the tendency to judge the correctness of an action by its outcome,which is not fair to the officers involved. United States v. 29-3 ). FBILaw Enforcement Bulletin, 27-32. This means that the reasonable officer standard must incorporate theunderstanding imparted by law enforcement training and experience thatthere are specific limitations on the ability to timely halt a deadlythreat (Hall, August 1993, p. Regardless of what objects areused to inflict deadly force, the most controversial aspects of thissubject involve the decisions to use such force and the legal parameterspermitting the use of deadly force. 1). Police officers are limited to "reactive" roles when performing theirduties. At a ransom drop site,the suspect had been ordered to stop by others officers, but fled on foot.The officer who hit the suspect had heard the radio report and had foundthe suspect when he was still on foot. at 396-397). The Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals upheld the decision of the trial court to exclude evidence that theofficer had violated police procedures by not using a flashlight during anighttime prostitution arrest and by not calling for proper backup. The court in Plakas also rejected the plaintiff's argument that thepolice department was liable for not providing more choices to itsofficers. Inaddition, the Court said that the inquiry must be limited to "the facts andcircumstances confronting [the officers] ... at 396). Graham v. 111). It was subsequently found that the suspect was unarmed (Reesev. 1994). (1988, October). However, the courtrejected this argument, holding that pre-seizure conduct is not subject toFourth Amendment scrutiny. It has been argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bradford wasunusual and inconsistent with the decisions of other federal appellatecourts and even the Supreme Court. The MPC rule provided twoconditions on the use of deadly force: (1) the crime involved the use ofthreatened use of deadly force; and (2) there is a substantial risk thatthe suspect will cause death or serious bodily harm if his apprehension isdelayed (Model Penal Code § 3. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Studies have shown that the decision to use deadly force must usuallybe made within a few seconds and with limited information. A., and Binder, A. The intended victim sued the police, alleging that the poor plan had"provoked a situation whereby unreasonable deadly force was used in theattempt to seize the suspect..." (973 F.2d at 133 ). Again, thesearguments should be looked at from the Fourth Amendment reasonable officerstandard. FBI training on the new federal deadlyforce policy. It cannot be ignored, however, that thepercentage of black citizens arrested is much higher than therepresentation of blacks in the general population. 71; Tennenbaum, 1994, p. City of Los Angeles, 21 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir., 1994, 1994 WL118 91). Thus, "[u]nder these circumstances, a reasonable officer couldwell fear for his safety and that of others nearby" (926 F.2d at 5 -5 1). The shooting of a fleeing suspect by a policeofficer in that city was criticized in a New York Times editorial, whichquestioned not only the use of deadly force in the particular instance(since the suspect was fleeing, rather than threatening the officer's life)but also the possession of a firearm by police officers (Tennenbaum, 1994,pp. The influence of the Garner decision onpolice use of deadly force. Definition and Examples of the Use of Deadly Force Deadly force is simply defined as "force that is likely to cause deathor serious physical injury" (Hall; 1996, April; p. Hall, J. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals haslikewise held that allegations that an officer's use of deadly force was inviolation of a department's policy are not relevant to the reasonablenessinquiry (Smith v. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice,Grant No. The court added that such a requirementwould also "entangle the courts in endless second-guessing of policedecisions made under stress and subject to the exigencies of the moment"(978 F.2d at 3). Reese v. As one commentator has noted, there are three problems with thisargument. The officer subsequentlydiscovered that the object was a wooden nightstick. H., Halleck, J., Lardner, J., and Albrecht, G. Deadly force can no longer be used against fleeingfelons, unless those felons pose an immediate lethal danger to officers orothers (Olson; 1998, February; p. This time lag mayprovide the assailant with enough time to carry out life-threateningactions. Ability alsoincludes the possession of the personal physical capability of inflictinglethal harm, such as a powerful physical build, martial arts training, or adrug-induced agitated state (Olson; 1998, February; p. They are not allowed to undertake "preemptive" strikes toeliminate a possible threat. Freland (954 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. Lawenforcement officers represent the government and are the primary contactbetween citizens and the government. The court said that it would be unwise to hold departments andmunicipalities liable for failing to provide different equipment or moreofficers just because some expert testified that doing so would have leftthe arrestee uninjured. The only way to reliably inflict incapacitating wounds on an assailantis to neutralize the central nervous system, either by directly injuringthe brain or upper spinal column, or by depriving the brain of oxygenthrough massive blood loss. Conclusion The use of deadly force has been a problem facing law enforcementauthorities since the advent of such governmental authorities. denied, 115 S. 1991)). Numerous studies have shown thatblack citizens are more likely than white citizens to be involved in policeshooting incidents. This verbal exchange betweenthe officer and the citizen is important because of the effect it can haveon both participants. The Court explained that this standard is"not capable of precise definition or mechanical application" and that theissue was one of "reasonableness at the moment...." (49 U.S. Because the use of deadlyforce by the police so frequently results in either death or seriousphysical injury and because the police are authorized by the law to carrydeadly weapons, incidents resulting in the use of deadly force often becomehighly publicized an emotional. 29). Because law enforcement officers mustconfront violence and disorder in order to maintain peace and order, theymust be provided with the tools to defend themselves and others, includingweapons of deadly force. Washington D.C.: The Police Foundation. Execution without trial: Police homicide and theConstitution. (1995, February). Goldkamp, J. 81 (1994)). The last part of the paper willbriefly discuss the recent policies adopted by state and federal lawenforcement authorities concerning the use of deadly force. The appellatecourt explained that a reasonableness inquiry cannot be based upon"personal notions of proper police procedures," but must instead focus upon"the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene." The court wenton to say that "[w]e must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world orour imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemenface every day" (954 F.2d at 347). The arrest plan went awry and the suspect fired on police,killing one officer and wounding another, before police killed the suspect. 1992)), an officer'sattempt to stop a motorist for speeding and running a stop sign resulted ina high-speed chase. 1992)). Third, theargument greatly expands the breadth of legal duties owed to suspects bypolice officers. C. 8(2)(b)(i)(iv) (Proposed official draft,1962)). As a consequence, the time in which an officer cansafely wait before initiating a response to a threat is limited (Hall;1993, August; p. N. In Smith v. As noted above, the Supreme Court has recognized theunique environment inhabited by police officers, in which life-and-deathjudgments must sometimes be made in a split-second in situations which are"tense, uncertain, and rapidly-evolving" (Graham v. 236; Goldkamp, 1976; Sherman, 198 ; Takagi,1974; Milton, et al, 1977). Instead, the Court held that deadly force "may not be used unlessit is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause tobelieve that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or seriousphysical injury to the officer or others" and the use of deadly force "isnecessary to effect the apprehension" (471 U.S. This section willlook at the factors which lead to the use of deadly force and the racialdiscrepancies concerning its use. Only by doing so can they introduce andenforce policies which ensure that law enforcement officers will makedecisions on the use of deadly force within the confines of the law. at 397).According to the Court, therefore, deciding whether the actions of anofficer in using deadly force are reasonable requires focusing upon thefacts and circumstances of the particular situation and how a reasonableofficer might react in the same situation. If the police officer chose to do nothing, then noforce would be used; thus, the police officer always causes the trouble."But it is trouble which the police officer is sworn to cause, whichsociety pays him to cause and which, if kept within constitutional limits,society praises the officer for causing" (19 F.3d at 115 ). The plaintiff suggested that the officer could have used oneof the CS gas canisters on the scene or could have called a K-9 unit whichwas in the vicinity (Hall; 1995, February; p. New York: Praeger Publishers. In order to accomplishthis task, the FBI has implemented a multi-stage approach for instructingagents on the use of deadly force. ThePolice Chief, 1 . There was nodispute that the officer fatally shot the suspect who was attacking him,nor that just before the attack the suspect pointed the poker at theofficer and said "Either you're going to dire here, or I'm going to diehere." Instead, the plaintiff argued that the officer could have andshould have used alternative methods of subduing the suspect beforeshooting him. 64 (1973). As will be discussedlater in this paper, the court ultimately held the shooting to bejustifiable. Thefirst argument seeks to impose a duty upon an officer confronted with alethal threat to consider other options before using deadly force. In 1989, the Court established an"objective reasonableness" standard for assessing a police officer's use offorce in the context of an arrest or other seizure of a person (Graham v.O'Connor, 49 U.S. In response to the new policy, the FBI has adopted new basic trainingprinciples. When the officer attempted to block the suspect'svehicle with his own, the suspect deliberately attempted to ram theofficer's vehicle. The court statedthat requiring the officers to develop and choose less intrusive methodswould have required "superhuman" judgment. The information exchange phase occurs when there is some sort ofverbal communication between the officer and the citizen. 22). Rather, they must wait until a threatactually arises. The anticipation phase begins when the officers'attention is initially called to the event, either by dispatch, citizenrequest, or observation. The U.S. (1976). Even soldiers cannot do that without a declaration ofmartial law. Anderson, 926 F.2d 494, 5 -5 1 (5th Cir. Necessarily included in the reasonable officer standard are thecircumstances under which police officers must make decisions concerningthe use of force. There have been numerous instances of the use of deadly force by thepolice over the years. It should benoted that not all situations involving the use of deadly force contain allfour of these phases; for instance, an officer may confront criminalactivity without notice or there may be no information exchange. A 1992 study which was based upon the four-phase model discussed abovefound some interesting factors which may predict a higher probability of anincident resulting in the use of deadly force by a police officer. Smith v. She thenordered the two occupants to place their hands in view. The second argument, that the officer caused or contributed to thenecessity to use deadly force, seeks to place the blame squarely on theofficers. The Badge and the Bullet: PoliceUse of Deadly Force. 386 (1989). Garner(471 U.S. Studies on the Use of Deadly Force There has been a considerable amount of recent study by socialscientists of what factors trigger the decision by police officers to usedeadly force in any particular situation. Thus, the reasonableness inquiry cannotbe based upon civilian notions of reasonableness. The four phases are: (1)anticipation; (2) entry and initial contact, (3) information exchange, and(4) final phase. Those who formulate the policies concerning the use of deadlyforce must be cognizant of the court decisions in this area and thereasoning behind these decisions. 97). In a similar incident, a police officer approached a vehicle at night,suspecting that a prostitute was providing "services" to her customer. Even soldiers are not normally authorized to carry deadly weaponswhile moving among the civilian population. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 85,241-26 . Garner, 471 U.S. 74-79). Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir.),cert. C. Thiswas the rule followed by the FBI until the 199 s, and the policy introducedin 1995 contains severe restrictions with regard to fleeing felony suspects(Tennenbaum, 1994, p. In particular,this section will look at the U.S. In one such case, a police officer shot andkilled a suspect at the conclusion of a high-speed chase. The final decision may be adeliberate, planned action (such as in a sniper operation) or reflex whichsqueezes the trigger (Scharf and Binder, 1983, pp. The situation in that casewas a search; however, lower federal courts have applied this reasoning toseizures (Hall, February 1995, p. In 1858, such an instance gained widespreadnotoriety in New York. The CircuitCourt, as noted above, said that there was no legal precedent whichrequired officers to use all feasible alternatives prior to using deadlyforce; in fact, previous cases had held just the opposite. Justice Department adopted a new policy in 1995 whichestablished an "imminent danger" standard and discouraged the use of deadlyforce if it would create an unreasonable risk to innocent third parties.The policy states that officers may only use deadly force when they have areasonable belief that the suspect poses an imminent danger of death orphysical injury to a person (Hall; 1996, April; p. The court exclaimed that "the Constitution doesnor enact a police administrator's equipment list" (19 F.3d at 1149). is an objective one..." (49 U.S. Sherman, L. The violent police-citizenencounter. 1 ). In a 1992 case, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that theofficers had caused the necessity for the use of deadly force (Scott v.Henrich, 978 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. Justice Department's policy, adopted in1995. Anderson, described earlier in this paper, an officer shot andkilled a suspect who repeatedly lowered his hands in defiance of theofficer's orders. Lafayette, 462 U.S. First, the dangerousness of the suspect mustbe determined; second, the necessity of the use of deadly force must beascertained. The percentageof black citizens involved in police shootings is very similar to thepercentage of black citizens arrested by the police (Horvath, 1987, p. 1991)). When this is done, there islittle discrepancy between the racial composition of civilians in policeshooting incidents and the racial composition of arrests. More recent instances of the use of deadly force by the police haveoften resulted in civil litigation, especially where the suspects werelater found to be unarmed. (1977).Police Use of Deadly Force. Thus, police officers are the modern equivalent in the UnitedStates of Caesar's guards. Thus, jeopardy exists when an armed suspectrefuses to relinquish his weapon when cornered after a pursuit (Olson;1998, February; p. The initial training, whichtakes place at the FBI Academy, is reinforced by annual training at fieldoffices (Hall; 1996, April; pp. Takagi, P. Thesedisadvantages may be partially offset by training, planning, vigilance,tactics, and the use of protective equipment; however, they cannot becompletely overcome. A garrison state in a "democratic society."Crime & Social Justice, 5, 27-33. (1992). judged from the perspective ofa reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 2 /2 vision ofhindsight..." (49 U.S. The officer may also say or do something to intimidate or distractthe citizen (Binder and Galvin, 1982, p. Christensen, H. This section willdelve into the Supreme Court decisions in this area and the decisions ofthe lower federal courts on the subject. (1982). In Greenridge v. 387). 243). 241-242). Buscher, 973 F.2d 1328 (7th Cir. An officer facedwith an armed citizen will instruct the citizen to "freeze" or drop hisweapon. Thus, the Court effectively articulated a two-part test fordetermining whether the use of deadly force in a particular situation isconstitutionally permissible. Police officer decisionmakingin potentially violent confrontations. The appellate court, however, rejected this argument. In one case, a police officer stopped a fleeing kidnappingsuspect by hitting the suspect with his vehicle. 3 ). Minorities as victims of police shootings:Interpretations of racial disproportionality and police use of deadlyforce. The court rejected this argument, saying that the plaintiffhad presented substantial evidence that less intrusive means were availableand that it was up to the jury to determine whether those alternative meanswere reasonable (Westlaw at 4). The entry and initial contact phase begins when theofficer arrives on the scene and receives additional information. Milton, C. Journal of PoliceScience and Administration, 15, 226-238. Binder, A., and Galvin, R. A court ultimately held that a jurycould be instructed that the use of the car to strike the suspect could bedeemed unnecessary force if it found that the officer had more reasonablealternatives (Bradford v. First, it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's reasoning inGraham that only the relevant facts and circumstances facing the officer atthe moment the decision is made to use deadly force would be considered.Second, the argument extends the application of the Fourth Amendment toevents and actions preceding either the search or seizure. When neithersuspect complied, the officer pointed her gun into the car and repeated thecommand. Critics pointed outthat the rule originated in England before the invention of firearms andthat most British police never carried firearms up to the present day.Moreover, England has eliminated the rule (Tennenbaum, 1994, p. These examples are actual situations which resulted inlitigation. 1992). Situations which resulted in shootings were found to becharacterized by verbal interactions which made the subjects angrier andresulted in noncompliance with the officers' commands. 1993)). It is well understood that "action" has specificadvantages over "reaction;" however, the law does not permit lawenforcement officers to go beyond the role of reaction. Thus, any facts whichbecame known after the decision was made must be ignored. Recent Policies on the Use of Deadly Force While the legal parameters of the use of deadly force favor lawenforcement officers, there is always the need for more effective training. The court commented that all cases involving the use of deadlyforce begin with the decision of a police officer to do something, such asinquire or arrest. 2). The police use of deadly force: A description ofselected characteristics of intrastate incidents. The court inthat case said that what was relevant was that the suspect's vehicle hadjust come to a sudden stop after a high-speed chase, during which theofficers observed apparently stolen objects being tossed from the vehicle.In addition, the officer had drawn his gun and ordered the vehicle'soccupants to raise their hands, commands which were clearly understoodsince the occupants (including the suspect) initially complied. Allowingsuch evidence to be considered when determining reasonableness would shiftthe focus away from the suspect's actions that triggered the decision touse deadly force to factors which are irrelevant to that particular issue(Hall, August 1993, p. 397). In that case, the officer was beingattacked by a handcuffed subject wielding a fireplace poker. The defendantofficer argued that the availability of alternative measures wasirrelevant. at 11). Police officers like tocharacterize themselves as protectors, but they have been authorized toissue orders to civilians and to detain anyone who does not obey theirlegal orders. This means that adetermination of reasonableness must take into account the officer'sability to acquire and evaluate the available facts in light of theparticular circumstances (Hall; 1993, August; pp. However, they both seek to deflect attention awayfrom the suspect's actions and focus it upon the officer's judgment. City of Los Angeles, 21 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. The Court has noted that such decisions areusually made in circumstances that are "tense, uncertain, and rapidly-evolving" (Graham v. The firstpart of the paper will define deadly force and illustrate its use withexamples. In Tennessee v. Second, the study found that the information exchange phase of thesituation can be critical in determining whether or not deadly force willbe used. Ruffin, 927 F.2d 789, 796 (4th Cir. City of Los Angeles (21 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir., 1994),1994 WL 118 91), discussed earlier in this paper, the Ninth Circuit Courtof Appeals held that an officer's use of his vehicle to strike a fleeingsuspect was unreasonable because there were more reasonable alternatives(Westlaw at 3). Vanderbilt Law Review, 33, 71-1 . The first stage takes place in theclassroom, with instruction on the text of the policy and an outlineexplaining the criteria which determines the manner in which the policy isto be interpreted. In a 1993 case, the police were accused of creating the necessity forusing deadly force as a result of their plan to arrest a suspect who hadcontracted to have his wife killed (Carter v. However, the court then recalled the split-second timing required for such a decision and said that there was toolittle time for the officer to consider all of the available options anddecide which one was the least intrusive (19 F.3d at 1149). 1991)). Anderson, 926 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. Police Vehicles andFirearms: Instruments of Deadly Force. The basic premise underlying these principles is that traineesmust be taught objective principles which will enable them to makereasonable judgments in time to meet such threats. (198 ). A. The court reasoned that the officer's action wasunreasonable because there were other officers at the scene and the officercould have driven past the suspect to block his path. 26-27). In 1985, the Supreme Court severely limited the circumstances underwhich deadly force could be used by the police. 386 (1989)). 411 (198 ). Bradford v. Use of Deadly Force by PoliceOfficers. (198 ). Ruffin, alsodescribed earlier, the officer involved confronted the occupants of avehicle on the suspicion that they were engaging in illegal acts ofprostitution. Thefinal decision will be based upon the factors discussed above, as well asupon the events immediately transpiring before the decision, such as thecitizen's responses to the officer's orders and the officer's determinationas to whether or not the citizen is armed. Similarly a suspect armed with a knife may possess theability to inflict deadly harm, but may not possess the capability of doingso if the other person has taken cover. Plakas v. Ct.81 (1994). denied, 115 S. City of Los Angeles, 21 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.1994)). Since the onlyjustification for shooting a suspect was the preservation of a life, thisrule held that shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect was unjustifiable. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 25-32. Tennessee v. One important way of interpreting the "necessity" requirement is touse the Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition againstunreasonable searches and seizures. 243; Hall, 1996, April). (1993, August). 236). Opportunity represents the suspect's potential to utilize his abilityto inflict lethal harm. 31). Binder, A., and Scharf, P. 1 (1985)), the Court considered a situation in which policeofficers shot and killed an unarmed suspect fleeing the scene of aburglary. Police Use of Deadly Force and the Law As noted above, the use of deadly force by the police has always beenunder intense scrutiny in the United States. The third part of the paper will examinethe legal aspects concerning the use of deadly force. Some studies have focused more closely upon police shooting incidentsby comparing the racial composition of the civilians involved with theracial composition of overall arrest records. In fact, black citizens are more likely than those ofany other racial or ethnic group to be involved in police shootingincidents. Both of these arguments concede that the officer was faced witha threat and that he or she had to make an immediate decision on how tocounter this threat. Prior to 1985, the laws governing the police use of deadly force inthe United States were grouped into four categories: (1) the "any-felony"rule, which was based upon English common law; (2) the "defense-of-life"rule; (3) the Model Penal Code rule; and (4) the "forcible-felony" rule.The "any-felony" rule held that a police officer could use any meansnecessary to arrest a felony suspect or stop a suspect from fleeing.United States courts which used this rule generally interpreted this tomean that a police officer could legally shoot an unarmed felony suspect inflight (Sherman, 198 , pp. Scott v. In 1973, the Supreme Court held thateven though less intrusive means may be available law enforcement officersin a particular situation, the Fourth Amendment does not require theofficers to choose the least intrusive alternative, "only a reasonable one"(Illinois v. The problem with this is that theincapacitating effect of these injuries can occur anywhere from a fewseconds to a few minutes after infliction of the wounds. Greenridge v. For instance, inReese v. Many departments have adopted a model called the "deadly forcetriangle." This triangle represents three factors which must be presentbefore deadly force can be used: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.Ability represents the physical capacity of the suspect to harm a person.This usually means that the suspect must be armed with a weapon capable ofinflicting lethal harm, such as a firearm, knife, or club. In one study, the researchersdeveloped a four-phase model of violent police-citizen encounters.According to this model, the decision to use deadly force is the result ofa developmental process in which successive decisions and behaviors by thepolice officer and/or the citizen make the violent outcome more or lesslikely (Binder and Scharf, 198 , p. Ct. The final phase consists of the moments immediatelyprior to the making of the decision to use or not use deadly force. 114-115). In order to prevent law enforcement officers frombecoming a law unto themselves, however, laws and policies must beestablished strictly limiting their ability to use deadly force. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.