Law enforcement officers are being sued in record numbers fo
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2001 8:55 pm
Many cases have been filed throughout the country including the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Massachusetts) that are traumatic to law enforcement officers (LEOs) and to citizens, which have arisen over police encounters with criminal suspects.
It appears that a special set of rules has evolved for law enforcement encounters which differ substantially from ordinary tort and criminal law principles.
LEO’s are subject to civil, civil rights and criminal liability for excessive force and a wide range of other conduct. Citizens have a plethora of remedies to challenge alleged police abuses.
Once again, we have the same standard applied in these types of cases as in other matters which I have reported in the past, and that is the so called “Objective Reasonableness Standard), which may be seen in the case of Seekamp v. Michaud 109 Fed.#d 802,806 a 1997 1st Circuit case.
I have put this subject in Panther’s Tough Issue Forum, because of the following quote from Lawyer’s Weekly newspaper:
“In a split second, law enforcement officers are required to evaluate and instantaneously employ deadly force against criminal suspects to combat apparent dangers to citizens, fellow officers and themselves. The evolving body of use-of-force law mandates a complete factual assessment of the unique facts and circumstances ‘at the moment’, of the particular sue of force.
The law expressly prohibits courts and juries from Monday morning quarterbacking in these difficult cases . See Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386, 396,397 (1989) Roy v. Inhabitants 42F.3d 691 (1st Cir. 1995). Both the Supreme Court and the First Circuit have afforded a comparatively generous standard of reasonableness to the police in cases where potential danger, emergency conditions or other exigent circumstances are present. (Medeiros v. Town of Dracut 21 Fed. Supp. 2d 82, 86 (D. Mass. 1998)”.
In alleged police misconduct cases, the most common complaint is the sue of excessive force.
The central issue is typically whether an objectively reasonable officer could have reasonabley believed that the force employed was appropriate. A balancing testis employed to address the appropriateness if the force used.
The article makes the statement that Law enforcement work is the most potentially deadly type of employment. Officers are required to immediately respond to citizen requests for assistance in life threatening environments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.
They are required by law to engage in defense of others and in self defense, both of which are historically recognized complete defenses to alleged excessive force charges.
A quoted federal case out of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta states that police must pursue crime and constrain violence even if the undertaking itself causes violence from time to time.
In determining reasonableness courts consider a number of factors including apparent dangers, the severity of the suspected crime and whether the suspect is resisting or attempting to evade arrest.
A key tough issue here is that LEO’s are required to react to apparent dangers and apparent weapons because typical conditions and lag time do not allow fro an officer to wait to ascertain a precise weapon with certainty.
Under what circumstances does a mistaken belief that deadly force is necessary subject an officer to civil, civil rights or criminal liability?
Generally if the officer’s mistaken belief is reasonable under the circumstances the officer is not required to await “the glint of steel” before he or she can act to preserve his or her own safety because once “the glint of steel” appears, it is often too late to take safety precautions.
Courts do recognize the practical difficulties of attempting to assess the suspect’s dangerousness. Courts have further recognized that LEO’s are particularly vulnerable to unfounded claims of abuse. Of course officers working in high crime rate are likely subjects to higher numbers of complaints.
Courts have recognized reaction to common gestures fueling the need for the use of force such as sudden movement toward a pocket or waist area. These movements as well as others all of us are able to think of and many more are cited in the article and from actual cases.
If there is an apparent danger to the LEO or to a citizen the LEO is required by law to stop the threat.
It is not necessary that the danger which gave rise to the belief actually existed; it is sufficient that the person resorting to self defense at the time involved reasonably believed in the existence of such a danger, and such reasonable belief is sufficient even where it is mistaken. (citing Tennessee v. Garner 471 US 1 (1985). Even a fleeing misdemeanant may be subjected to deadly force if the misdemeanant poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or third persons, deadly force may be authorized.
In the case of Graham v. Connor (cited above earlier) the Supreme Court enunciated the parameters of use of force law.
“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 hind sight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
“The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, the proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
The court in Graham explained how an officer’s evil intent will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force, nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.
The Graham case holds that we must avoid our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world of that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure.
There are some specific cases and facts cited.
If there is enough interest, we can pursue a second article on the Civil Rights Issues.
Alan K
------------------
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"
It appears that a special set of rules has evolved for law enforcement encounters which differ substantially from ordinary tort and criminal law principles.
LEO’s are subject to civil, civil rights and criminal liability for excessive force and a wide range of other conduct. Citizens have a plethora of remedies to challenge alleged police abuses.
Once again, we have the same standard applied in these types of cases as in other matters which I have reported in the past, and that is the so called “Objective Reasonableness Standard), which may be seen in the case of Seekamp v. Michaud 109 Fed.#d 802,806 a 1997 1st Circuit case.
I have put this subject in Panther’s Tough Issue Forum, because of the following quote from Lawyer’s Weekly newspaper:
“In a split second, law enforcement officers are required to evaluate and instantaneously employ deadly force against criminal suspects to combat apparent dangers to citizens, fellow officers and themselves. The evolving body of use-of-force law mandates a complete factual assessment of the unique facts and circumstances ‘at the moment’, of the particular sue of force.
The law expressly prohibits courts and juries from Monday morning quarterbacking in these difficult cases . See Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386, 396,397 (1989) Roy v. Inhabitants 42F.3d 691 (1st Cir. 1995). Both the Supreme Court and the First Circuit have afforded a comparatively generous standard of reasonableness to the police in cases where potential danger, emergency conditions or other exigent circumstances are present. (Medeiros v. Town of Dracut 21 Fed. Supp. 2d 82, 86 (D. Mass. 1998)”.
In alleged police misconduct cases, the most common complaint is the sue of excessive force.
The central issue is typically whether an objectively reasonable officer could have reasonabley believed that the force employed was appropriate. A balancing testis employed to address the appropriateness if the force used.
The article makes the statement that Law enforcement work is the most potentially deadly type of employment. Officers are required to immediately respond to citizen requests for assistance in life threatening environments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.
They are required by law to engage in defense of others and in self defense, both of which are historically recognized complete defenses to alleged excessive force charges.
A quoted federal case out of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta states that police must pursue crime and constrain violence even if the undertaking itself causes violence from time to time.
In determining reasonableness courts consider a number of factors including apparent dangers, the severity of the suspected crime and whether the suspect is resisting or attempting to evade arrest.
A key tough issue here is that LEO’s are required to react to apparent dangers and apparent weapons because typical conditions and lag time do not allow fro an officer to wait to ascertain a precise weapon with certainty.
Under what circumstances does a mistaken belief that deadly force is necessary subject an officer to civil, civil rights or criminal liability?
Generally if the officer’s mistaken belief is reasonable under the circumstances the officer is not required to await “the glint of steel” before he or she can act to preserve his or her own safety because once “the glint of steel” appears, it is often too late to take safety precautions.
Courts do recognize the practical difficulties of attempting to assess the suspect’s dangerousness. Courts have further recognized that LEO’s are particularly vulnerable to unfounded claims of abuse. Of course officers working in high crime rate are likely subjects to higher numbers of complaints.
Courts have recognized reaction to common gestures fueling the need for the use of force such as sudden movement toward a pocket or waist area. These movements as well as others all of us are able to think of and many more are cited in the article and from actual cases.
If there is an apparent danger to the LEO or to a citizen the LEO is required by law to stop the threat.
It is not necessary that the danger which gave rise to the belief actually existed; it is sufficient that the person resorting to self defense at the time involved reasonably believed in the existence of such a danger, and such reasonable belief is sufficient even where it is mistaken. (citing Tennessee v. Garner 471 US 1 (1985). Even a fleeing misdemeanant may be subjected to deadly force if the misdemeanant poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or third persons, deadly force may be authorized.
In the case of Graham v. Connor (cited above earlier) the Supreme Court enunciated the parameters of use of force law.
“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 hind sight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
“The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, the proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
The court in Graham explained how an officer’s evil intent will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force, nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.
The Graham case holds that we must avoid our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world of that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure.
There are some specific cases and facts cited.
If there is enough interest, we can pursue a second article on the Civil Rights Issues.
Alan K
------------------
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"
)
