Authorization and Standard for the Use of Force

How do policies control the use of force by police officers and what do effective policies look like?

Policies governing when officers may use force are pivotal to ensuring safe, fair, and effective policing. These threshold standards influence a wide range of police actions from the use of weapons to pursuits, deploying canines, and even managing crowds. Setting this policy standard is a significant opportunity for police departments: it offers a powerful framework to align a community’s values and its respect for human life with the operations of the police force.

The Model Use of Force Policy encourages departments to adopt a standard for the use of force that surpasses the constitutional minimum. This current constitutional minimum standard determines when an officer may be civilly or criminally liable for excessive force and is anchored by federal court rulings, specifically the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). Simply put, while the U.S. Constitution might permit officers to exercise a specific level of force without facing severe repercussions, such as criminal prosecution or devastating financial judgments, it does not automatically make that use of force an appropriate course of action.

Moreover, the mere fact that an officer’s actions can be lawfully shielded from liability does not establish this behavior as the gold standard for police conduct. Effective policing transcends the boundaries of mere legal compliance. Police bear the duty to serve their communities productively, respecting the sanctity of life, fostering trust, and upholding the dignity of the citizens they serve.

In this module, the Model Policy recommends that use of force policies set clear threshold requirements that must be met for an officer to be authorized to use force. These requirements can be distilled into four core principles:

1. Officers must use available non-force options and issue a verbal warning before resorting to force.
2. Force should only be employed to achieve a lawful objective, and only the minimum force necessary should be used.
3. The force used must be both necessary and proportionate to the situation.
4. The totality of the circumstances should be considered when evaluating any use of force.

This module discusses how these concepts are reflected in the Model Policy’s approach to the authorization and standard for the use of force.

The Graham standard

In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court established an “objectively reasonable” standard for assessing police excessive force that rises to the level of violating an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. ^[1] This means that when evaluating potential civil or criminal liability for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal courts examine the perspective of a “reasonable officer” at the scene, acknowledging the split-second decisions officers often face.^[2] Though the Graham Court characterized the standard as objective,^[3] courts often shift the focus from the officer’s actions to their mental state, questioning if the officer’s belief was reasonable, regardless of the outcome.^[4]

This interpretation provides officers with significant discretion in use of force situations, and courts and juries evaluating those force decisions after the fact have similarly broad discretion in deciding whether to impose legal liability.^[5] Jurors, influenced by the Graham standard, might lean towards believing an officer's testimony, even if they find an officer's actions egregious.^[6] The standard does not require the officer's belief to be correct, only that their error was "reasonable."^[7]

Bias can further complicate this standard.^[8] Studies indicate racial stereotypes and the internal biases they foster in people—including police officers—can deeply influence perceptions of threats. These biases, associating Black individuals with aggression, for instance, may lead to skewed perceptions, such as mistakenly assuming that a Black person is armed.^[9] This in turn might bolster an officer’s claim of having a reasonable belief in the need to use force.^[10] Tragic cases like the killing of Stephon Clark in Sacramento, where officers mistook a cellphone for a gun, underline this issue.^[11]

Additionally, jurors' perspectives might be influenced by typical police behavior and frequent force incidents, especially involving Black people.^[12] As society becomes desensitized to these events, what is considered "reasonable" can become troublingly broad. The Graham standard does not adjust for these biases, and courts offer limited guidance on evaluating "reasonableness of belief," leading to inconsistent interpretations.^[13]

This lack of clarity perpetuates biases in the justice system. Officers may use force more liberally against minorities without fearing liability.^[14] The Graham standard's ambiguity has resulted in fewer successful prosecutions and legal judgments against officers, even in clear-cut cases. Prosecutors are often hesitant to file charges if the officer’s mental state is ambiguous, fearing they cannot succeed under Graham. As evidence, between 2005 and 2017, a small percentage of on-duty officers who killed civilians faced or were convicted of serious charges.^[15]

The Model Policy’s approach to authorizing the use of force

While the Supreme Court has settled the question of when officers are civilly or criminally liable for excessive force under the 4th Amendment, local police departments can define their own use of force standards, sometimes receiving guidance from state legislatures or city governments on these regulations. However, many of these police agencies do not appear to consider the broad range of factors that can inform use of force standards—factors like safety, accountability, public trust, legitimacy, and the shared values of the community and the police organization. Instead, they often defer to the minimum constitutional standard identified by the Supreme Court in Graham.

Yet, a growing number of police departments are recognizing the Graham standard’s limitations. These departments are adopting use of force policies that go beyond Graham in limiting when force is permitted and how officers can employ it. For example, many of the nation’s largest police departments have introduced policies restricting their officers’ use of force to only the amount of force that is necessary. These forward-thinking policies typically offer more explicit guidelines than those solely anchored in Graham. They often detail mandatory de-escalation practices and other techniques designed to minimize the need for force.

In places like California, some use of force policy changes have been propelled by state legislation. Responding to tragic events, such as the police shootings of unarmed people like Stephon Clark, California enacted a 2019 law that redefined the permissible use of deadly force by officers. It transitioned from a "reasonableness" standard to a "necessity" standard, emphasizing the importance of de-escalation tactics.^[16] Policymakers are increasingly considering and pursuing these types of legislative reforms, aiming to enhance the reasonableness-of-belief standard in ways that reinforce societal values, particularly the sanctity and worth of human life.

The Model Policy embraces these trends in law enforcement and advances an approach that expands on the Graham standard. This module recommends establishing a straightforward checklist of threshold requirements that must be met for an officer to be authorized to use force. These criteria are encompassed within three broad concepts: (1) the use of de-escalation and other mitigation options, (2) a lawful objective combined with the application of minimal force and (3) an assessment of necessity and proportionality. In any given scenario, the totality of a particular set of circumstances must be evaluated to determine whether a particular use of force is authorized. Beyond these foundational criteria, the Model Policy also details specific requirements for the use of deadly force.

Key Force Regulations in Policies of 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Importance of de-escalation and other mitigation strategies

The Model Policy mandates that officers first exhaust the available non-force options, ensuring force is used only when alternative methods fail to secure a person’s compliance. These non-force options include de-escalation tactics, detailed in the de-escalation module. They also encompass verbal warnings, which officers should issue before using force because they can often lead to a person’s compliance. To emphasize the importance of verbal warnings in eliminating or reducing the necessity of force, the Model Policy separately highlights this strategy.

Requiring officers to have a lawful objective and use the minimum amount of force

The Model Policy stipulates that officers can only employ force to achieve a specific “Lawful Objective,” and even then, only the minimum amount the officer believes is feasible to carry out the objective. There are a limited number of Lawful Objectives: (1) conducting a lawful search; (2) preventing serious damage to property; (3) effecting a lawful arrest or detention; (4) gaining control of a combative person; (5) preventing and/or terminating the commission of a crime; (6) intervening in a suicide or self-inflicted injury; and/or (7) defending an officer or another person from the physical acts of another.

Central to these objectives is the respect for the value and sanctity of human life. Objectives like controlling a combative individual, intervening in self-harm, or defending against threats are tailored to minimize harm to all involved, including the individual in question. While the required level of force may vary, the core principle remains preserving human life.

Objectives like lawful searches, arrests, or preventing the commission of crimes, on the other hand, relate more to past, present, or prospective unlawful actions, and permit officers to act in ways that shield the wider community from such behaviors. Even the objective concerning property protection embodies the inherent value people assign to their possessions—like homes or vehicles—that are essential for well-being and livelihood. In scenarios where there is not an immediate threat to human life, officers might find lesser force sufficient, or even opt for non-physical interventions like verbal commands.

The Model Policy does not include some objectives, such as preventing escapes or countering any resistance, as Lawful Objectives.^[17] Without context, the inclusion of these objectives could endorse unnecessary force. For instance, using force on a fleeing individual who is not a threat, could escalate risks for everyone involved. While fleeing in and of itself does not indicate wrongdoing,^[18] if the individual presents a danger, the objective of protecting against threats would permit force.

Necessity and proportionality: critical components of an effective use of force standard

Necessity and proportionality stand as critical components of an effective use of force standard. The Model Policy emphasizes the need for both necessity and proportionality when using any form of force. It states that force should only be employed when it is essential for fulfilling a Lawful Objective and must be in proportion to the situation’s entire context.

The Model Policy suggests a more rigorous standard than the constitutional standard for legal liability in excessive force incidents. By doing so, it aims to transform the decision-making of police officers from the “reasonable officer” perspective to a more critical evaluation based on the necessity and proportionality of force in a situation, which is a more objective benchmark. It is encouraging to note that many police departments already expect more than mere reasonableness from their officers, understanding that this should be the minimum, not the ideal.^[19]

Necessity and proportionality are related but distinct concepts in the Model Policy:

Necessity. For a use of force to qualify as necessary, there should be no other viable alternatives for the officer to achieve the Lawful Objective. If non-force or less aggressive options are available, or if the force does not align with the Lawful Objective, then it is deemed unnecessary. This principle's importance becomes clear when reflecting on instances such as a 2020 incident in Windsor, Virginia, where officers stopped Army lieutenant Caron Nazario for an alleged license plate issue. Despite Lt. Nazario's compliance and evident fear, officers drew their guns and later pepper sprayed him. This kind of event underscores the need for a strict necessity standard, as the force used was not necessary for the officers’ objectives.

Proportionality. Proportionality in force goes beyond necessity. Even if the force is necessary to achieve the Lawful Objective, it must also match the threat posed to the officer or public. An instance highlighting this is a 2020 incident in Loveland, Colorado, where officers arrested Karen Garner, a 73-year-old woman with dementia, for an alleged minor theft. Yet, their response—forcibly restraining and injuring Garner—was clearly disproportionate to her actions and the threat she posed. This instance emphasizes the need for a proportional standard, guiding officers to evaluate and match their response to the situation's true demands.

The Model Policy underscores that necessity and proportionality should be assessed at the time of the incident. What may be necessary and proportionate at the outset of an officer's interaction can quickly become inappropriate as situations evolve. Officers, therefore, must remain vigilant and consistently adjust their evaluations to the changing dynamics of their interactions.

While high-profile incidents of unjustified deadly force often capture widespread attention, it is crucial to recognize the ramifications of the more frequent use of unnecessary and disproportionate non-deadly force. The repeated application of unnecessary non-deadly force erodes community trust^[20] and heightens tensions, potentially paving the way for incidents involving more severe, even lethal, force.^[21]

The cornerstone to the effective application of the necessity and proportionality standard is comprehensive police training.^[22] The Model Policy aims to minimize the use of force and achieving this aim depends on officers becoming proficient in rapidly assessing situations and recognizing the minimum amount of force needed. Without proper training, this standard could lean more towards punishing officers for excessive force rather than serving as a proactive tool for prevention.

Proper training requires changes on both the philosophical and practical levels and goes hand in hand with the training needed to properly implement de-escalation techniques.^[23] Philosophically, a department's ethos should reflect an unwavering commitment to human life, pushing officers to approach most public encounters with the belief that they can achieve a resolution without force. Practically, comprehensive training in de-escalation strategies, non-lethal alternatives, and nuanced threat assessment is essential.^[24]

Totality of the circumstances: a comprehensive framework to assess situations and threats

The Model Policy directs officers to evaluate the totality of a situation's circumstances to determine a proportional response to potential danger. This comprehensive assessment encompasses several factors: the feasibility of de-escalation tactics, the time available for a person to comply, the person’s physical and mental ability to comply, the presence of bystanders, potential consequences and risks—including escape, and the initial reason for engagement with the person.

A guiding principle behind the use of force is valuing the sanctity and dignity of human life. The aim is to avoid harm to all—be it the individual, bystanders, or police officers. By demanding a thorough assessment of a situation—the totality of the circumstances, officers are encouraged to explore all available options, thus facilitating a decision based on a range of possible actions, striving for the safest and most appropriate one.^[25]

Consider a scenario crafted by the Police Executive Research Forum in its Guiding Principles on Use of Force: an individual, seemingly mentally ill and possibly suicidal, wields a knife defensively.^[26] As PERF explains, “Officers may call in additional personnel and resources in order to contain the person safely while trying to talk to him, ask him questions about what is going on in his mind, and buy time in order to give the person many opportunities, over an extend-ed period of time if necessary, to calm down, talk to the officers, build trust and rapport, and ultimately to drop the knife.”

Neglecting factors that lower a threat can lead officers to overestimate necessary force levels.^[27] By requiring officers to look for alternatives to force and evaluate de-escalation tactics, officers can better gauge the level of a threat posed by particular circumstances, seek effective ways to mitigate it, and, ideally, avoid reaching the point where force is used and injuries may occur.^[28]

Some police departments, like Palm Beach County's Sheriff’s Office in Florida, have adopted strategies to assess the totality of circumstances. For instance, after introducing the "Tactical Pause"—which involves “slowing down the police response in certain types of incidents and taking time to carefully evaluate possible actions”^[29]—officer-involved shootings in the county notably decreased.^[30] Similarly, the Greater Manchester Police in England adopted a decision-making model requiring officers to “think more critically about their response to various types of situations,” leading officers to feel more equipped and safer when handling conflict situations.^[31]

Assessing the totality of the circumstances enables officers to gauge the level of force that is necessary—the minimum force needed in a specific situation—and proportionate to the actual threat.^[32] Such practices not only safeguard lives but also foster trust with the communities they are sworn to protect.^[33] This trust-building process enhances legitimacy, leading to increased public cooperation and compliance with law.^[34] When the circumstances do demand force, this approach equips officers with a framework for making decisions that can later be explained to the community, building legitimacy.^[35] An officer employing all available de-escalation techniques before resorting to force can more credibly and convincingly argue the action's necessity.^[36]

The totality of the circumstances framework also mandates the evaluation of cultural factors in an officer’s decision-making. By understanding diverse communities' needs, officers can adjust their approach and engagement with community members, fostering mutual respect and trust.^[37] The implementation of such a framework by the Greater Manchester Police exemplifies this. Following its adoption, public confidence in the police force surged from 45% to 94%.^[38]

However, some departments train officers to evaluate the need for force using a different method—escalating continuums of force. These involve matching specific police tactics and weapons to levels of resistance from a person.^[39] Many police agencies use a “force matrix” with two components: a “resistance continuum” and a “force continuum”^[40] which “tel[l] an officer what force [they] can use” and “when [they] can use it.”^[41] As the person’s level of resistance increases, the officer’s permitted level of force correspondingly increases.

While this method does not require evaluating the totality of circumstances, it offers officers set responses for various threat levels.^[42] However, this approach does not guarantee the application of minimal force.^[43] Continuums may dictate a linear escalation, even when a situation could be diffused with less force. PERF’s research explains that these continuums “suggest that an officer, when considering a situation that may require use of force, should think, ‘If presented with weapon A, respond with weapon B. And if a particular response is ineffective, move up to the next higher response on the continuum.’”^[44] This method can overlook vital situational details, like an individual’s physical disability, and encourage the automatic escalation of force as a solution when non- or lesser-force alternatives fail.

Force continuums often misalign with the principles of the Model Policy. They can permit higher force levels without considering all the relevant information available to an officer and the nuances of a particular situation.^[45] If initial attempts to control the situation falter, officers might automatically escalate force. Such a rudimentary approach hampers genuine decision-making geared towards de-escalation and, ultimately, preserving human life.^[46]

Deadly force: a last resort for officers in lethal situations

The decision to use deadly force carries profound implications. It endangers not only the life of the force’s target but also the lives of officers and the broader public.^[47] Beyond the immediate incident, the disproportionate or perceived unjustified use of deadly force can erode community trust in law enforcement.^[48] Thus, deadly force should only be utilized as an absolute last resort.

The Model Policy restricts the use of deadly force to a narrow set of circumstances detailed in this module. Even when those circumstances exist, however, deadly force should only be deployed when it is absolutely necessary and not merely when it is permitted.^[49] Many police departments, including those in Dallas and San Francisco, advocate this restrictive approach, emphasizing the use of deadly force as a last resort when all available alternatives have been explored.^[50]

This is both a practical and philosophical policy directive. Practically, it discourages haste in employing lethal force, except in dire situations, such as imminent threats of death or grave injury. Philosophically, it underlines that deadly force should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances.

Once all other available options are exhausted, deadly force is authorized in a narrow set of circumstances. First, it can be used to defend an officer or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm that is more likely than not to occur without the use of deadly force. This authorized use is consistent with PERF’s Guiding Principles and policy guidance from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, echoing policies already in place in many police departments across the country.^[51] The “more likely than not” criterion underscores the requirement of proportionality.

Second, an officer is authorized to employ deadly force during an arrest if there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a felony that caused or threatened to cause death or serious bodily harm and who the officer believes is more likely than not to cause death or serious bodily harm to an officer or another person unless immediately apprehended.^[52] For instance, an officer is authorized to use deadly force against someone seen shooting another person if that individual then attacks the officer or another person.

Yet, past criminal convictions should not form the basis for deploying deadly force. Using force based solely on past crimes would be disproportionate. Even when officers have rightly identified a suspect, the principle of valuing all human life dictates that deadly force should be reserved for those presenting immediate threats, irrespective of past actions.

In any case where deadly force is used, officers must be able to explain the circumstances that led them to believe the use of deadly force was necessary based on the information they had. Facts discovered after the incident cannot retrospectively justify the use of force.