Better rethink your police interaction strategies anon…
Constitutional Requirements for Using Deadly Force
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).
The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application” (Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979)). The Court goes on to state, “[t]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight” (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)). Additionally, there must be “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 question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” considering the facts and circumstances confronting them.
Statutory Standards for Using Deadly Physical Force
Until January 1, 2022, the law authorizes peace officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:
-
defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or
-
(a) arrest a person they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury; or (b) prevent the escape from custody of a person they reasonably believe has committed such a felony (CGS § 53a-22(c) as amended by PA 19-90).