Use of Force:
Relevant Case Law & Publications
 

NIJ: Police Use of Force

NIJ: Use of Force Continuum

NIJ: Overview of Police Use of Force 

Meyer, G. (2016) “The Totality of Circumstances” Police Magazine, January 28; url: https://www.policemag.com/patrol/article/15346798/the-totality-of-circumstances 

Perras, C. (2022) "Prosecuting First Amendment Retaliation" United States Department of Justice, Journal of Federal Law and Practice, Volume 70, Number 2; url: https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/file/1492851/dl

Rushworth, L. H. & Nolan, A. M. (1990) "Contempt of Cop: Disrespect in Retrospect," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 20: No. 2, Article 4.

USCCR (2018) Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices, Washington, DC: U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS; url: https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf

​

CASE LAW

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) —
The government's withholding of evidence that is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process.
​
​
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) —
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
​
​
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) —
Neither the Assistant's lack of authority nor his failure to inform his superiors and associates is controlling, and the prosecution's duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled, and constitutes a violation of due process, requiring a new trial.
 
See Discussion: Giglio v. United States
See also: Douglas County (KS) DA Brady/Giglio Policy Overview
​

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) — 
A claim of excessive force by law enforcement during an arrest, stop, or other seizure of an individual is subject to the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, rather than a substantive due process standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the facts and circumstances related to the use of force should drive the analysis, rather than any improper intent or motivation by the officer who used force.


Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) —
A claim of excessive force by law enforcement during an arrest, stop, or other seizure of an individual is subject to the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, rather than a substantive due process standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the facts and circumstances related to the use of force should drive the analysis, rather than any improper intent or motivation by the officer who used force.
 
​
Benavidez v. County of San Diego, No. 19-55274 (9th Cir. 2021) — 
Establishes the right to be free from Judicial Deception. Parents and Minors filed suit against the County and two social workers, alleging claims based on medical examinations of Minors during their time in protective custody. Parents seek to hold the social workers liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for unconstitutional judicial deception in seeking a state juvenile court order to authorize unconstitutional medical examinations of the Minors without notice to or consent of the Parents, and the County liable for the unconstitutional medical examinations (14th Amendment).

“To support a § 1983 claim of judicial deception, a plaintiff must show that the defendant deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to the finding...” KRL v. Moore, 384 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff who provides direct evidence of false statements can allege deliberate fabrication of evidence in violation of constitutional due process guarantees. See Costanich, 627 F.3d at 1108. “Reporting that a witness said something he or she did not cannot reasonably be characterized as a recording error or a misstatement,” but is instead fabricated evidence. Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 224 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1055 (S.D. Cal. 2016) rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Reynolds v. Bryson, 716 F. App’x 668 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Furthermore, in the search warrant context, we have previously held that an omission of a fact necessary to establish probable cause presented a triable issue of material facts about whether that omission “amounted to at least reckless disregard for the truth.” Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).


United States V. Jonathan Anderson, No. 20-50345 (9th Cir. 2022)
Court held that an "inventory search was conducted pursuant to a standard policy, and was performed in good faith, not solely for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a crime; therefore, the government’s interest in the protection of property and protection of the police outweighed Defendant’s expectation of privacy in the contents of his car, and the search was reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes."

And "The en banc court reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress a firearm found during a warrantless search of the defendant’s truck in a case that presented the question whether an officer’s failure to comply with governing administrative procedures is relevant in assessing the officer’s motivation for conducting an inventory search.

The primary question was whether the deputies’ deviation from the governing inventory procedure indicates that they acted in bad faith or solely for investigative purposes. The en banc court held that an officer’s compliance (or as is the case here, non-compliance) with department policy governing inventory searches is part of the totality of circumstances properly considered in determining whether a search satisfies the requirements of the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement.

Based on the circumstances presented here, the en banc court concluded that the deputies who searched the defendant’s truck acted solely for investigatory reasons, and that the warrantless search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment."


Barnes v. Felix, No. 23–1239 (2025) —
"On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Barnes v. Felix, fundamentally altering the legal evaluation of excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling rejected the narrow “moment-of-threat” doctrine previously applied by the Fifth Circuit, mandating that courts assess the “totality of the circumstances” when determining the reasonableness of police force instead." (Police Chief Magazine)