The Police Chief, the Professional Voice of Law Enforcement
Advanced Search
July 2014HomeSite MapContact UsFAQsSubscribe/Renew/UpdateIACP

Current Issue
Search Archives
Web-Only Articles
About Police Chief
Advertising
Editorial
Subscribe/Renew/Update
Law Enforcement Jobs
buyers Your Oppinion

 
IACP
Back to Archives | Back to January 2006 Contents 

Chief's Counsel

Force Continuums: Three Questions

By John G. Peters Jr., Ph.D., John G. Peters Jr. & Associates, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Michael A. Brave, J.D., LAAW International Incorporated






cross the United States, police attorneys, police administrators, trainers, expert wit­nesses, and, in some cases, judges are asking hard questions about use-of-force continuums. Have force continuums outlived their useful­ness? Should they be included in force poli­cies? Do they inappropriately reduce officer discretion and increase liability exposure for the government entities, the administrators, and the officers who are often defendants in force litigation?

Have Force Continuums Outlived Their Usefulness?
Force continuums were reportedly first developed by trainers in the 1960s as a way to train officers in use of force. Since that time, some 50 continuums have been developed; many are complex, hard to understand, and ambiguous, while others are deceptively sim­ple and straightforward. Some people argue that force continuums are still necessary, but others argue that continuums are as outdated as city call boxes.

Many police attorneys, administrators, trainers, and experts have argued persuasively that the original need for force continuums (guidance) has been reduced because the judicial system has now provided adequate guidance in force standards. The U.S. Supreme Court defined the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness force standard in Tennessee v. Garner and in Graham v. Connor.1 Garner gutted the common-law fleeing-felon rule, while Graham held that an officer's use of force, when seizing a free person, will be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness stan­dard. Other constitutional standards may apply to the use of force against inmates of jails and prisons. Most police force continuums do not address the use of force against inmates.

Should Use-of-Force Policies Include Force Continuums?
Some say that including a force continuum in an agency's use-of-force policy is like mixing oil with water. "Fourth Amendment reasonableness does not require that an officer use the least intrusive means," says attorney Robert Thomas, who managed the Graham v. Connor case as it went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Graham holds that all claims of exces­sive force in making an arrest or stop will be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and will be judged under its objective reasonable­ness standard. Since this is the federal constitu­tional legal standard that governs an officer's use of force, unless state law is more restric­tive, this is the only standard that need appear in an agency's use-of-force policy regarding seizures of free people. Force continuums often give the perception that officers must use minimum force, but that is not the constitutional standard.

The actual law on the degree of allowable force is quite broad and very much in favor of officers. Legal standards, such as those articu­lated in Graham, take numerous factors into account that continuums do not. For example, many continuums depict only the relationship between the subject's current behavior ("actively resisting," for example) and the officer's force response. This is a self-defense-type force standard. In contrast, the law takes in and allows for much more.

"The Fourth Amendment addresses 'misuse of power,' not the accidental effects of otherwise lawful conduct."2 Under the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard, the appropriateness of an officer's decision to use force will be based upon the to­tality of circumstances as reasonably perceived by the officer in the moment the force was used. Totality of circumstances includes, but is not limited to, the resistance of the violator; the tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving nature of the situation; and the violator's attempt to flee or evade seizure. Most force continuums are restrictive, in that they allow police to con­sider relatively few factors when determining the appropriateness of the officer's force.

When an excessive force or misconduct claim is made, what is the standard by which the officer will be judged? Clearly, it should be the constitutional legal standard and any more restrictive applicable state law standard. Nevertheless, some judges, juries, and police administrators erroneously substitute the continuum standard for the constitutional legal standard or commingle the two stan­dards when analyzing a use-of-force event. When the continuum standard is used, critics of the police often have a field day, because even though an officer's use of force was legal­ly permissible, the officer may have violated the often more restrictive continuum standard. Administratively, officers may face discipline when internal investigators apply the continu­um force standard instead of the constitutional legal standard. Therefore, many attorneys, trainers, experts, administrators, and officers argue that the agency force policy (as applied to seizures of free persons) should be no more restrictive than the constitutional standard articulated in Graham.

According to Captain Greg Meyer of the Los Angeles Police Academy, who coordinates the LAPD Use of Force Best Practices Work Group for Chief William J. Bratton, "Ours is not part of policy but rather has been used as a training aid. We are currently considering whether to do away with it, and teach to Graham's objective reasonableness standard." Attorney Thomas adds, "The continuum approach invites a laddered, stair-stepped ranking of officer force applications that is, for the most part, not based in law or logic." Many argue that the reaction of the officer does not follow a continuum but rather the ability and equipment available at the moment to respond reasonably. The issue, therefore, is in under­standing the reaction of the officer to levels of resistance with consideration to what tools are available to the officer and the violator.

In short, those who advocate using only the constitutional legal standard in force policy argue that such policy needs to include only the language of the Graham standard: An officer's use of force on a free person shall be objectively reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances known or perceived by him or her at the time force was used.

Do Force Continuums Increase Liability Exposure?
People who want to abolish any kind of measured response (which is what force continuums are designed to achieve) are sometimes looking for a way to cut their po­tential losses in litigation. Others argue that the abolition of continuums by police agencies is not going to change anything. Experts will still talk about continuums and there is no way to prevent it. Some see a disturbing tendency to look at use-of-force cases in black-and-white terms of whether or not the incident or harm could have been avoided or reduced. Accord­ing to longtime police legal advisor and trainer Randy Means, "The federal constitutional standard does not require an inquiry into whether the force or incident could have been avoided or minimized if the officer had some­how done better or differently. It only requires that the officer's actions be reasonable under then-prevailing circumstances."

California police defense attorney Missy O'Linn says, "Escalation of force, whether you use words or a diagram of some sort, will be presented to a jury in a diagram type of form by one side or the other, and I like the opportu­nity to show the jury how the officer was taught." Recently, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training im­mersed itself in the continuum debate by ques­tioning whether continuums should be a part of agency policy.

The U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in, too. Its Civil Rights Division urges agencies adopt a progressive force con­tinuum and train all officers in it. Consent de­crees and technical letters of assistance some­times require agencies to do so. According to the Department of Justice, a force continuum should include all types of force used by an agency, including firearms, pepper spray, batons, and canines.

Of course, where agencies do not use con­tinuums in the training of officers, force in­structors would need to be trained in and have a good understanding of the legal limits of force so they can teach them. Many people see a compromise: first, remove the force continu­um language from written force policies, re­placing it with the applicable legal standards; second, use the force continuum only as a training aid to help officers understand force application; and, third, clearly document (and be prepared to explain to a judge and jury) that the continuum has limited usefulness and is merely a graphical demonstrative aid that does not create, or elevate, the applicable legal stan­dards of care.

What's in your force policy?   ■


1 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
2 Brower v. Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989).

Top


 

From The Police Chief, vol. 73, no. 1, January 2006. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.








The official publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
The online version of the Police Chief Magazine is possible through a grant from the IACP Foundation. To learn more about the IACP Foundation, click here.

All contents Copyright © 2003 - International Association of Chiefs of Police. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright and Trademark Notice | Member and Non-Member Supplied Information | Links Policy

44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA USA 22314 phone: 703.836.6767 or 1.800.THE IACP fax: 703.836.4543

Created by Matrix Group International, Inc.®