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

11 6 2015
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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


slide-1
SLIDE 1

11/6/2015 1

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

  • 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:

  • 4th 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

slide-2
SLIDE 2

11/6/2015 2

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 4th 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 4th 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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

11/6/2015 3

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
  • 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 4th 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
  • 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 HOUTre g a rd to the ir unde rlying inte nt o r mo tiva tio n

slide-4
SLIDE 4

11/6/2015 4

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
  • 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

  • ffe nse , unle ss he kno ws tha t the a rre st is una utho rize d; o r
  • (b ) T
  • 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

  • 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;

  • 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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

11/6/2015 5

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

  • the rs
  • Ba la nc e the na ture a nd q ua lity o f intrusio n o n suspe c ts 4th

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
  • 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 4th 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”

slide-6
SLIDE 6

11/6/2015 6

T HE RE ASONABL E NE SS OF T HE MOME NT ST ANDARD

  • Sta nda rd de rive d fro m Graham v. Co nno r
  • Co urts a re to a sse ss the use o f fo rc e a t the pre c ise mo me nt o f its use ra the r

tha n b e fo re o r a fte r the fa c t c o nside ra tio ns

  • 4th Circ uit in Gre e nridg e v. Ruffin
  • He ld tha t the c o nduc t a t the mo me nt o f the use o f fo rc e wa s the

a pplic a b le te st in the c irc uit

  • Pre -use o f fo rc e is irre le va nt a nd “re a so na b le ne ss o f the mo me nt” is the

sta nda rd to b e a pplie d. Se e E llio t v. L e avitt

  • Davis v. Sc he re r whe re the Supre me Co urt he ld tha t vio la tio n o f po lic e

de pa rtme nt o r so me o the r po lic y do e s NOT c o nstitute a vio la tio n o f the 4th Ame ndme nt re a so na b le ne ss sta nda rd

  • 4th Circ uit a do pte d this in Ab ne y v. Co e

T HE “COUL D HAVE BE L I E VE D” ST ANDARD

  • T

he Supre me Co urt in Hunte r v. Bryant se t fo rth this sta nda rd a b so lving po lic e

  • ffic e rs o f lia b ility “if a re a so na b le o ffic e r c o uld ha ve b e lie ve d [the c o nduc t

in issue ] to b e la wful, in lig ht o f c le a rly e sta b lishe d la w a nd the info rma tio n the o ffic e r[] po sse sse d”

  • T

he fo urth c irc uit ha s a pplie d this sa me sta nda rd. Se e Park v. Shiffle t; Ro wland

  • v. Pe rry
  • Pittman v. Ne lms
  • 4th c irc uit he ld a s a ma tte r o f la w tha t a po lic e o ffic e r did no t use

e xc e ssive fo rc e in sho o ting a fle e ing suspe c t fro m the re a r

  • T

wo o ffic e rs ha d sto ppe d a c a r c o nta ining two individua ls

  • T

he drive r to o k o ff with the o ffic e rs a rm stuc k in the c a r windo w

  • Onc e the o ffic e r wa s fre e , his pa rtne r fire d his g un hitting the pa sse ng e r
  • T

he c o urt fo und the sho o ting did no t vio la te Gra ha m a nd a n o b je c tive ly re a so na b le o ffic e r wo uld ha ve b e lie ve d the sho o ting wa s justifie d

SUSPE CT F L E E I NG I N A VE HI CL E ?

  • Ge ne ra lly o ffic e rs c a n use de a dly fo rc e to sto p a suspe c t fle e ing in a ve hic le
  • Bro sse au v. Haug e n
  • Supre me Co urt c o nc lude d a c a r is a de a dly we a po n
  • Sc o tt v. Harris
  • Offic e rs ha ve a duty to pro te c t the pub lic b y sto pping a suspe c t fle e ing

in a ve hic le

  • Offic e rs c a n use de a dly fo rc e to sto p a suspe c t fle e ing in a ve hic le
  • Ab ne y v. Co e
  • 4th Circ uit c a se simila r to the Sc o tt c a se
  • Suspe c t wa s driving e rra tic a lly a t a hig h ra te o f spe e d
  • Offic e rs we re justifie d in using the ir pa tro l c a rs to e nd the c ha se b y

pe rfo rming a PI T ma ne uve r

slide-7
SLIDE 7

11/6/2015 7

QUAL I F I E D I MMUNI T Y ANAL YSI S

  • Qua lifie d immunity de fe nse fo r la w e nfo rc e me nt o ffic ia ls “pro vide s a mple

pro te c tio n to a ll b ut the pla inly inc o mpe te nt o r tho se who kno wing ly vio la te the la w”

  • Qua lifie d immunity re q uire s two ste p a na lysis:
  • (1) whe the r the pla intiff ha s pro pe rly a lle g e d a vio la tio n o f a c le a rly

e sta b lishe d c o nstitutio na l rig ht

  • (2) if so , the n lo o k to se e whe the r the o ffic e rs a c tio ns we re o b je c tive ly

re a so na b le

  • I

f pa rt (1) is no t sa tisfie d, c o urts ne e d no t mo ve to pa rt (2)

  • Slatte ry v. Rizzo n
  • 4th Circ uit c a se whe re the c o urt sta te d q ua lifie d immunity is de sig ne d to

re mo ve mo st c ivil lia b ility a c tio ns fro m the le g a l pro c e ss we ll in a dva nc e o f tria l

  • We wa nt o ffic e rs to fe e l c o mfo rta b le pe rfo rming the ir dutie s witho ut the

po ssib ility o f e xte nsive litig a tio n

QUAL I F I E D I MMUNI T Y CONT .

  • Grad v. Kassa
  • As lo ng a s a pub lic o ffic e r la wfully e xe rc ise s the judg e me nt a nd

disc re tio n with whic h he is a ffo rde d, ke e ps within the sc o pe o f his

  • ffic ia l a utho rity, a nd a c ts witho ut ma lic o r c o rruptio n, he is pro te c te d

fro m lia b ility

  • Ande rso n v. Russe ll
  • Suspe c t wa s o n his kne e s with his ha nds in the a ir fa c ing the o ffic e r
  • Suspe c t lo we re d his ha nds to turn o ff his ra dio (lo c a te d in his b a c k

po c ke t)

  • Offic e r tho ug h he wa s re a c hing fo r a we a po n so he sho t the suspe c t

thre e time s

  • 4th Circ uit he ld tha t the o ffic e r did NOT

vio la te the 4th Ame ndme nt

  • Offic e r wa s re a so na b le in thinking the suspe c t wa s re a c hing fo r a

we a po n

CAN OF F I CE RS BE SUE D I N T HE I R I NDI VI DUAL CAPACI T Y?

WI L COX V. CI T Y OF ASHE VI L L E730 S.E .2D 226 (2012)

  • “As lo ng a s a pub lic o ffic e r la wfully e xe rc ise s the judg me nt a nd disc re tio n

with whic h he is inve ste d b y virtue o f his o ffic e , ke e ps within the sc o pe o f his

  • ffic ia l a utho rity, a nd a c ts witho ut ma lic e o r c o rruptio n, he is pro te c te d”
  • T

he re fo re , a pub lic o ffic ia l is immune fro m suit unle ss his a c tio n wa s:

  • (1) Outside the sc o pe o f his o ffic ia l duty
  • (2) Do ne with ma lic e
  • (3) Co rrupt
  • Pursua nt to N.C. Ge n. Sta t. § 15A-401(d ), o ffic e rs ma y b e sub je c t to lia b ility

fo r re c kle ss o r he e dle ss indiffe re nc e to the sa fe ty a nd rig hts o f o the rs whe n using de a dly fo rc e

slide-8
SLIDE 8

11/6/2015 8

WI L COX CONT .

  • F

a c ts re g a rding e a c h o ffic e r

  • Offic e r Go nc e :
  • He a rd tha t the re wa s a pa sse ng e r in the ve hic le a nd wa s c a lle d o ff the

pursuit

  • Po sitio ne d himse lf in fro nt o f his c a r to de plo y “sto p stic ks”
  • As the ve hic le a ppro a c he d him (a t a ro und 25 mph), Go nc e fire d 6

b ulle ts, o ne o f whic h hit Wilc o x

  • Co urt fo und tha t the e vide nc e , in the lig ht mo st fa vo ra b le to Wilc o x, is

suffic ie nt to ra ise a g e nuine issue o f fa c t a s to the e xiste nc e o f the e le me nts o f ma lic e

  • No immine nt thre a t to himse lf o r a no the r to justify the use o f de a dly

fo rc e c o ntra ry to his duty

  • F

iring six b ulle ts into a slo w mo ving ve hic le kno wing the re wa s a pa sse ng e r is suffic ie nt to ra ise a n issue o f fa c t whe the r Go nc e ’ s a c tio ns we re wa nto n a nd re c kle ss

WI L COX CONT .

  • Offic e r Ho g a n:
  • Arrive d o n sc e ne a s pa sse ng e r in third o ffic e r’ s po lic e c a r
  • Offic e r te stifie d he c o uld no t re me mb e r ra dio c o mmunic a tio ns a b o ut the

numb e r o f pa sse ng e rs b ut he to o ha d b e e n c a lle d o ff the pursuit

  • T
  • o k po sitio n o n the side wa lk a s the ve hic le a ppro a c he d (20 mph no w a s

it ha d run o ve r the sto p stic ks)

  • F

ire d 9 b ulle ts a s the c a r a ppro a c he d, re lo a de d, a nd fire d a no the r 8 b ulle ts fro m a po sitio n b e hind the ve hic le

  • Co urt de te rmine d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to ra ise a g e nuine issue o f ma te ria l

fa c t a s to whe the r Ho g a n’ s a c tio ns suppo rt a finding o f ma lic e

  • No thre a t to himse lf a nd the re is no indic a tio n he wa s a wa re o f a ny

thre a t to his fe llo w o ffic e rs c o ntra ry to his duty

  • F

ire d 17 b ulle ts into a slo w mo ving c a r witho ut re g a rd to the po sitio n

  • f o the r o ffic e rs is suffic ie nt to ra ise a g e nuine issue o f fa c t a s to

whe the r Ho g a n’ s a c tio ns we re wa nto n a nd re c kle ss

WI L COX CONT .

  • Offic e r I

ntve ld:

  • She wa s c a lle d o ff the pursuit
  • She to o wa s una wa re o f the numb e r o f pa sse ng e rs
  • Re me mb e re d he a ring tha t the “ve hic le wa s o c c upie d”
  • As the ve hic le a ppro a c he d (a t 20 mph) she fire d 4 b ulle ts
  • Co urt fo und tha t the e vide nc e , in the lig ht mo st fa vo ra b le to Wilc o x, is

suffic ie nt to ra ise a g e nuine issue o f fa c t a s to the e xiste nc e o f the e le me nts

  • f ma lic e
  • No immine nt thre a t to he rse lf o r o the rs to justify the use o f de a dly fo rc e

c o ntra ry to he r duty

  • I

ntve ld fire d into a ve hic le with numb e r o f o c c upa nts unkno wn witho ut kno wle dg e o f the po sitio n o f o the rs whic h is suffic ie nt to ra ise a g e nuine issue o f fa c t a s to whe the r he r a c tio ns we re wa nto n a nd re c kle ss

  • Co urt he ld tha t the tria l c o urt pro pe rly de nie d the o ffic e r’ s mo tio n with re g a rd

to the ir lia b ility in the ir individua l c a pa c itie s

slide-9
SLIDE 9

11/6/2015 9

ADDI T I ONAL POI NT S ON USE OF F ORCE

  • Numb e r o f sho ts fire d itse lf c a nno t b e de te rmina tive a s

to whe the r fo rc e wa s re a so na b le

  • Bulle t tra je c to ry do e s no t de te rmine whe the r the

sho o ting wa s justifie d

  • Offic e rs ma y ha ve a c te d re a so na b ly e ve n if the y a c te d
  • n a mista ke n b e lie f

CONCL USI ON

  • Co urts g ra nt g re a t de fe re nc e to the o ffic e rs o n sc e ne in “use o f fo rc e ” c a se s
  • T

e nne sse e v. Garne r te lls us tha t de a dly fo rc e sho uld o nly b e use d whe n it is ne c e ssa ry to pre ve nt the e sc a pe o f a suspe c t a nd 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

  • Graham v. Co nno r instruc ts c o urts to a na lyze “use o f fo rc e ” c la ims 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 to de te rmine if the o ffic e rs a c tio ns we re o b je c tive ly re a so na b le unde r the to tality o f the c irc umsta nc e s

  • Will the re c e nt e ve nts c ha ng e the a pplic a tio n o f the sta nda rds?