Use of Force Defense

The reasonableness standard requires that any use of force by an officer be “objectively reasonable,” which means that the Court balances the cost to the person being arrested “against the government’s interests in effecting the seizure.”

This standard contains a built-in measure of deference to the officer’s judgment at the time, irrespective of subjective intent, about the level of force necessary considering the incident at the time it occurs. Legal protections under the Fourth Amendment continue during booking.

In terms of the use of force, the dividing line is when the suspect has been brought under control, as the government has no reasonable interest in continuing any use of force after the threat is neutralized. To use force after that point is considered excessive as a matter of law.

For example, officers observe an individual speaking to a drug dealer and then walk away. When police approach the individual runs. The suspect then surrenders after hiding, standing up and holding his arms out indicating surrender. However, while arresting the suspect, officers hit him on the side of the head, and then strike him across the knees for “running” from the officer. The individual arguably had surrendered and had been neutralized by the officer before being struck, making the officer’s actions unjustified and gratuitous and an improper use of force, opening the department to liability.

Determining the proper use of force versus excessive force requires the Court, in determining the reasonableness of force used in an arrest, to balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the governmental interests at stake.

Notably, the reasonableness is that of an officer on the scene, and not someone with “the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” The courts have stated that at some point, the reasonableness standard ceases to apply and a higher standard is imposed, and the courts look to see if the force used crosses the constitutionally established line by “shocking the conscience” of the court.

The law looks whether force is applied in good faith to maintain or restore order or if it was done maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.