BPOC 736, Force Options Theory Flashcards
Texas Police Academy Flashcards (134 cards)
What is the definition of “Deadly Force”?
Force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury
What is the definition of “Force” (NOUN - Black’s Law Dictionary)?
(1) Strength or energy brought to bear, cause of motion or change, active power; moral or mental strength; capacity to persuade or convince; (2) Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon person or thing; (3) The quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech
What is the definition of “Force” (VERB – Black’s Law Dictionary)?
(1) To compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means; (2) To make or cause through natural or logical necessity; (3) To achieve or win by strength in struggle or violence; (4) An aggressive act committed by any person which does not amount to assault and is necessary to accomplish an objective; (5) Synonyms - compel, coerce, constrain, oblige.
What is the definition of “Reasonable Force”?
(1) “Reasonable” or “Necessary” force is the amount of lawful physical coercion sufficient to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective and is objectively reasonable under the facts, circumstances and alternatives confronting an officer at the time actions are taken. Source: (Black’s Law Dictionary); (2) The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one’s property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression; (3) It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial; if one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense; (4) Also known as legal force.”
What does PC 9.02 - Justification as a Defense – state?
It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.
What does PC 9.03 - Confinement as Justifiable Force – state?
Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter; must terminate confinement as soon as safe or until the person has been arrested.
What does PC 9.04 - Threats as Justifiable Force – state?
The threat of force is justified if the use of force is justified by this chapter; a threat to use a weapon, as long as it is just to create an apprehension that the officer will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
What does PC 9.05 - Reckless Injury of Innocent Third Persons – state?
Even if justified in threatening or using force or deadly force, if in doing so an innocent third person is recklessly injured, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third party.
What does PC 9.06 - Civil Remedies Unaffected – state?
The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
When is a police officer justified to use force under PC 9.51 – Arrest and Search?
Use of force is justified when the officer reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search or to prevent escape. The officer must identify they are a police officer.
When is someone who is not a police officer justified to use force under PC 9.51 – Arrest and Seizure?
Use of force is justified by a person other than a police officer when they reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search or to prevent an escape. Before acting, the person must express the reason for his actions.
When is a police officer justified to use deadly force under PC 9.51 – Arrest and Search?
Use of deadly force is justified when the officer reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search or to prevent escape and (1) the officer reasonably believes the person has used deadly force in the past, and (2) the officer reasonably believes the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another if the arrest is delayed.
When is someone who is not a police officer justified to use deadly force under PC 9.51 – Arrest and Search?
Use of deadly force is justified when a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search or to prevent escape and (1) the third person reasonably believes the suspect has used deadly force in the past, and (2) the third party reasonably believes the suspect to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another if the arrest is delayed.
Estate of Ceballos v Bridgwater, Porras & Mull (PC 9.51)
According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, this case on deadly force is clear; “an officer cannot use deadly force without an immediate threat to himself or others.”
Milstead v Kibler, 243 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2001)
“…police officers performing a discretionary function enjoy an immunity that shields them from liability for civil damages unless (1) the officers’ conduct violates a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (a) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct, such that (b) an objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the conduct violated that right. “
Okonkwo v Fernandez, 2003 WL 22227858 (N.D. Tex.2003)
“Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known. A defendant official must affirmatively plead the defense of qualified immunity.”
Graham v Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
After being stopped on suspicion of DUI, Graham asked officers to check his wallet for a diabetic decal he carried, and a friend attempted to get permission to give Graham orange juice. Charlotte police refused. During a struggle, four officers threw him headfirst into a police car. Graham sustained serious injuries resulting in his suit alleging violation of his constitutional rights. The trial court found for the police officers based on the 14th Amendment. The supreme court reversed finding the officers’ actions must be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances (being told he was diabetic, not drunk), not underlying intent or motivation.
Brower v Inyo County, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)
A case in which the Court held that a police roadblock could constitute an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Police allegedly parked the truck behind a curve with a police cruiser’s headlights aimed so as to blind him on his approach. The use of a roadblock by the police to stop Brower’s car constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.)
Osabutey v. Welch, 857 F.2d. 220 (1988)
“Our inquiry is limited to whether the officers could reasonably believe that their action was permissible within the limits of clearly established constitutional principles. We believe that the exigencies of the situation, coupled with the personal corroboration of a tip from a known and reliable informant, provide sufficient basis for a finding that the officers were acting within the protection of the qualified immunity discussed in Anderson.” https://scholar.google.com/ scholar_case?case=2858564050860236138&q =Osabutey+v.+Welch,+857+F.2d.+220+(1988)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034 (1987)
A federal law enforcement officer who participates in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment may not be held personally liable for money damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)
Qualified immunity applies to presidential aides regarding their official actions, and it can be penetrated only when they have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
What is “absolute immunity”?
Absolute immunity generally applies to legislators who are conducting their legislative functions as well as prosecutors and executive officers who are conducting adjudicative functions.
What is “qualified immunity”?
Qualified immunity applies in a broader range of situations and is a more appropriate balance between the need of government officials to exercise their discretion and the importance of protecting individual rights. Cabinet members receive only qualified immunity, so presidential aides should not receive a higher degree of immunity. Their job is not so sensitive that it requires absolute immunity.
According to PC 9.21, except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), [use of force] conduct is justified if the actor:
(A) reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, (B) by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or (C) in the execution of legal process.