Excessive Force
Excessive Force under the 4th Amendment
Introduction:
Section 1983 of Chapter 42 of the USC provides a claim for relief against a person acting under the color of state law that has deprived a plaintiff of rights protected by the Constitution or federal statute. The text itself doesn’t grant any immunities or defenses to a 1983 claim, but the Supreme Court has granted absolute immunity from prosecution to judges, legislators, prosecutors, and presidents (Stump v. Sparkman 1978). This immunity does not extend to law enforcement personnel, but they are entitled to qualified immunity under common law so long as the officer’s conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights.
A section 1983 action for the use of excessive force by police in making an arrest entails all activities in which excessive force meets the definition of force that is so unreasonable (excessive) as to be a deprivation of the individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Elements of Section 1983 Cause of Action:
Person:
Municipalities and local governmental units (including police officers) can be considered “persons” under Section 1983 claims. The plaintiff has to establish that a “person” deprived a plaintiff of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. This right is protected during the formal arrest but also when briefly detained or restrained in movement by an official with the use of an objectively unreasonable force.
Custom or Policy for the use of Excess Force:
A plaintiff has to establish that the government official was acting under color of state law when the violation occurred. A custom or policy for recovery can be the following:
An express policy, that when enforced, deprives a constitutional right.
Even though not written, a widespread practice that is so permanent or well settled as to be considered custom.
An allegation that the deprivation of rights was made by a person with final policymaking authority (customs of use of deadly force, use of police dogs, etc.)
A constitutional violation has occurred:
The last element required for the plaintiff is to demonstrate that a violation has occurred. While most people think of the Fourth Amendment as a protection against unlawful seizures, the Supreme Court has expanded the right as the primary federal legal restraint on excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure (Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor).
Fourth Amendment Claims:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor held that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Fourth Amendment is not capable of a precise definition but that its proper application was on a case by case basis using three factors: 1) the severity of the crime, 2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and others, 3) whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. It is an objective standard with no reliance on the defendant’s intent or motivation.
Another critical issue that was established was that perspective of the reasonableness through the eyes of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than outside perspective, the fact that officers are making split-second decisions, and that the reasonableness inquiry must be objective without considering intent or motivation on the officer’s actions.
When considering the municipal liability for police officers' actions, the Supreme Court has noted that city policymakers know to a moral certainty that their police officers will be required to make arrests and that they are tasked to train officers on the constitutional limitations on the use of excessive force. An officer is not justified in using deadly force at a point in time when there is longer probable cause to believe the suspect dangerous, even if deadly force would have been warranted at an earlier point in time (Abraham v. Raso).
This is a brief explanation of the elements of a Section 1983 claim and how the Fourth Amendment is applied. This is not intended to be legal advice. If you have any questions, please contact an attorney for further review.