{"id":362,"date":"2025-09-04T06:03:27","date_gmt":"2025-09-04T06:03:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dutytotrain.com\/?page_id=362"},"modified":"2025-10-05T03:37:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-05T03:37:50","slug":"case-law","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/dutytotrain.com\/index.php\/case-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Case Law"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n
\n

DUTYTOTRAIN.COM<\/a><\/em><\/strong> 100% Hands on Training<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
GO TO TRAINING PAGE<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20 MOST IMPORTANT USE OF FORCE CASE LAWS FOR POLICE<\/strong>.<\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deadly Force & Seizures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)<\/strong>
    \n
      \n
    • Rule:<\/strong> Deadly force can\u2019t be used on a fleeing suspect unless they pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Why it matters:<\/strong> You cannot just shoot someone for running away. The threat must be clear and immediate.<\/em><\/strong>
      <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Scott v. Harris (2007)<\/strong>
      \n
        \n
      • Rule:<\/strong> Deadly force (e.g., ramming a fleeing car) is reasonable if the suspect is creating danger to the public.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Why it matters:<\/strong> If someone\u2019s driving like a missile, you can use deadly force to stop them.
        <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014)<\/strong>
        \n
          \n
        • Rule:<\/strong> Officers shooting multiple rounds at a fleeing suspect\u2019s car was ruled reasonable because the suspect posed a continuing threat.<\/strong><\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Why it matters:<\/strong> Multiple shots aren\u2019t automatically excessive if the threat is ongoing.<\/em><\/strong>
          <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Brosseau v. Haugen (2004)<\/strong>
          \n
            \n
          • Rule:<\/strong> Deadly force against a fleeing driver can be lawful if the officer reasonably<\/em><\/strong> believes the suspect poses danger to others.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Why it matters:<\/strong> Vehicle flight =<\/strong> potential deadly weapon.
            <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Mullenix v. Luna (2015)<\/strong>
            \n
              \n
            • Rule:<\/strong> Officer who fired at a fleeing suspect\u2019s car from an overpass was granted qualified immunity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Why it matters:<\/strong> Split-second deadly force decisions in vehicle pursuits are heavily protected<\/em><\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Objective Reasonableness & Excessive Force<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
                \n
              1. ***** Graham v. Connor (1989)<\/strong>

                THE GRAHAM FACTORS<\/em><\/strong>
                –<\/strong> SEVERITY OF THE CRIME
                –<\/strong> IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OFFICER OR OTHERS
                –<\/strong> ACTIVE RESISTING ARREST OR ATTEMPTING TO EVADE ARREST BY FLIGHT

                \n
                  \n
                • Rule:<\/strong> All use of force must be \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d<\/em><\/strong> under the 4th Amendment, based on the perspective of a reasonable officer.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • Why it matters:<\/strong> This is the cornerstone case. Severity of crime, threat, and resistance are the main factors.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • The Graham Factors<\/strong>
                  – Severity of the crime<\/strong>
                  How serious was the offense the suspect is being detained or arrested for?
                  Example: Felony assault vs. jaywalking. Greater severity justifies higher force options.<\/strong><\/em>
                  – Immediate threat to the officer or others<\/strong>
                  Is the suspect actively threatening safety with a weapon, aggressive actions, or other dangerous behavior?
                  \u26a0\ufe0f This is the most important factor<\/strong>.
                  – Actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight<\/strong>
                  Is the suspect physically resisting, fighting, or trying to run away?
                  Resistance level helps justify force escalation.

                  Additional considerations (not official, but courts often use them too):<\/strong>
                  Number of suspects vs. number of officers.
                  Size, age, and strength differences.
                  Whether the suspect is under the influence of drugs\/alcohol.
                  Known violent history.
                  Environmental conditions (dark alley vs. open street).
                  Availability of less-lethal options.

                  <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015)<\/strong>
                  \n
                    \n
                  • Rule:<\/strong> For pretrial detainees, the standard is also \u201cobjective reasonableness\u201d<\/em><\/strong> (14th Amendment). Intent doesn\u2019t matter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  • Why it matters:<\/strong> Jail staff and cops can\u2019t use more force than necessary, even if they didn\u2019t mean harm.
                    <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  • County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (2017)<\/strong>
                    \n
                      \n
                    • Rule:<\/strong> Even if officers acted unconstitutionally earlier, the actual use of force is judged separately for reasonableness.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
                    • Why it matters:<\/strong> Bad entry doesn\u2019t automatically make later reasonable force unlawful.
                      <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                    • Hope v. Pelzer (2002)<\/strong>
                      \n
                        \n
                      • Rule:<\/strong> Obvious constitutional violations don\u2019t require identical prior case law to deny qualified immunity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                      • Why it matters:<\/strong> You can\u2019t rely on \u201cnobody said this exact thing before\u201d if the conduct is clearly wrong.<\/em>
                        <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                      • Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                          \n
                        • Rule:<\/strong> \u201cClearly established law\u201d must be defined with specificity when evaluating qualified immunity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                        • Why it matters:<\/strong> Broad claims aren\u2019t enough to sue cops; the violation has to be specific and known.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                          <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          Qualified Immunity & Officer Liability<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
                            \n
                          1. Saucier v. Katz (2001)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                              \n
                            • Rule:<\/strong> Two-prong qualified immunity test:\n
                                \n
                              1. Did the officer violate a constitutional right?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                              2. Was that right clearly established?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                              3. Why it matters:<\/strong> Officers get immunity unless both prongs are proven.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                                  \n
                                1. Pearson v. Callahan (2009)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                                    \n
                                  • Rule:<\/strong> Courts don\u2019t have to decide the \u201cviolation\u201d question first; they can jump straight to qualified immunity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                                  • Why it matters:<\/strong> Makes it easier for officers to win qualified immunity.<\/strong><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                                      \n
                                    1. Kisela v. Hughes (2018)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n