|
5.1-1 Police Brutality (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 - Use of Excessive Force)
Revised to January 1, 2008
The plaintiff claims that the
defendant violated (his/her) constitutional right not to be subjected to the use
of excessive force by a police officer. (He/She) brings this claim under a
federal law, 42 U.S. Code § l983, that provides that a person acting under color
of state law who violates a person’s rights under the United States Constitution
can be held liable for money damages to the person whose rights (he/she) has
violated.
In order to prove this claim, the
plaintiff must prove: 1) that the defendant was acting under color of state
law, 2) that the defendant engaged in actions that deprived the plaintiff of
(his/her) constitutional right not to be subjected to use of excessive force,
and 3) that the defendant’s acts were the proximate cause of the injuries or
losses claimed by the plaintiff.
The first element, acting under color
of state law, is not in dispute. Police officers get their authority under
state law, so they are acting under color of state law when they act in their
capacity as police officers.
The second element requires more
explanation. The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees
people the right not to be unreasonably seized by government officials,
including police officers. This right is violated if a police officer subjects
a person to excessive force. The right of a police officer to stop and arrest a
person necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical
coercion or contact to effect the arrest. This does not mean, however, that the
officer may use excessive amounts of force.
Force is excessive, and use of such
force constitutes a violation of a person’s rights under the fourth amendment,
if the amount of force used would not be considered reasonable by a reasonably
competent police officer in the circumstances presented at the exact time that
the police officer used such force. The test is not whether the defendant
thought (his/her) use of force was reasonable, but rather it is an objective
standard: would a reasonably competent police officer consider the use of such
amount of force under the circumstances at the time the force was used?
Applying this standard requires
careful attention to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the
severity of the crime at issue, whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat
to the safety of the officer or others, and whether the plaintiff was actively
resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
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 hindsight. Not every push or shove,
even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of the courtroom, violates
the fourth amendment. Your assessment of reasonableness must allow for the fact
that the police officer may have had to make a split-second judgment concerning
the amount of force that was necessary in circumstances that were tense,
uncertain and rapidly evolving.
The issue is whether the force used
was reasonable, not the officer’s intent or frame of mind. An officer’s bad
intentions or hostile frame of mind toward the plaintiff will not make a fourth
amendment violation out of the use of force that is a reasonable amount of force
under the circumstances. An officer’s good intentions will not make
constitutional what is, in fact, an unreasonable use of force.
[<If the claim is use of deadly
force:> In this case, the plaintiff claims that the officer used deadly
force, that is, that (he/she) fired (his/her) gun at the plaintiff. The
standard is that a police officer may use deadly force in two circumstances.
The first is if (he/she) reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
defend (himself/herself/others) from the actual use or imminent use of deadly
physical force. The second is to prevent the escape of a felony suspect if the
officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious
physical harm either to the officer or to others.]
It is these constitutional standards,
rather than the text of any state statute or any departmental regulation, that
should govern your consideration of this claim.
The facts are in dispute as to what
the circumstances were when the defendant acted.
<Explain the dispute>.
You must determine what the
circumstances were, as they presented themselves to the defendant, at the
precise time that (he/she) acted. If you find that the defendant was in danger
because of some conduct of (his/her) own, the fact that the police officer’s own
actions contributed to (his/her) being in danger has no bearing on the issue of
whether the force used was excessive. You are simply to determine what the
situation was at the time the defendant used force, and whether a reasonably
competent police officer would not have used such force under the circumstances
at the time.
The third element that the plaintiff
must establish is that the defendant’s use of force was the proximate cause of
the injuries or losses that the plaintiff sustained. An injury or loss is
proximately caused by an action if that action was a substantial factor in
bringing about the injury or the loss. The injury or loss must also be either a
direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act of the defendant.
In other words, the plaintiff must satisfy you that (his/her) injuries or losses
were the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s acts, and that the
defendant ought to have foreseen that injury or loss was likely to result from
such acts.
Authority
Notes
|
