A state police officer shot Garner to death as he fled the crime scene. Even though Garner was unarmed, the police officer felt he had the right to shoot him to prevent his escape. Garner’s father, the plaintiff, brought a constitutional challenge to the Tennessee statute that authorized deadly force in this situation. The Supreme Court held that police might use deadly force for preventing a fleeing suspect from escaping only when believing that the suspect poses a significant death or serious injury threat (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985).
Graham v. Connor
Mr. Graham (the plaintiff), a diabetic patient experiencing an insulin reaction, asked a friend to drive to a store for juice but asked to be driven elsewhere due to the long wait. Officer Connor, the defendant, noticed them leaving the store shortly after entering, so he stopped the vehicle and ordered them to wait while he investigated potential shoplifting, failing to address the plaintiff’s medical condition. After finding no crime, the defendant released the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was injured (Graham v. Connor, 1989). The Court held that a claim of excessive force by law enforcement during individual’s arrest or seizure is subject to the objective reasonableness standard rather than a substantive due process standard (Graham v. Connor, 1989).
CA PC835a
Assembly Bill No. 392 amended the Penal Code of California, section 835a, to state the following. Firstly, PC §835a(a)(2) (2020) requires officers to consider other non-lethal force options like ‘de-escalation’ tactics. PC §835a(b) (2020) states that if a peace officer has reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed, they may use force to arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. This section pre-empts the use of “deadly force,” a key term, which regulates “any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury” (PC §835a(e)(1), 2020). Deadly force may be used in two situations: first, in defense of self or others against imminent death or serious injury threat (PC §835a(c)(1)(a), 2020). Second, in apprehending a fleeing suspect, if the officer reasonably believes that the former will kill or seriously injure another person unless apprehended immediately (PC §835a(c)(1)(b), 2020). Essentially, where feasible, police officers are required to make efforts to identify themselves and warn of the use of deadly force unless they reasonably believe that the person already knows they are an officer.
Law Comparison
The crucial element of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) was that a police officer might use deadly force only if they believe in good faith that the suspect poses a significant threat. The conclusion in Graham v. Connor (1989) was that the facts and circumstances surrounding the use of force, rather than any intent of the officer should form the basis of the analysis. The key elements of CA PC §835a (2020) regulated the use of deadly force as applicable in situations of defense or apprehension of dangerous fleeing suspects.
Differences and Similarities
There is language in the law that reflects its amendment history based on both discussed cases. The new language of PC §835a (2020) is essentially taken from Graham v. Connor (1989), borrowing their ‘objectively reasonable’ force standards. The similarity between the law and Graham v. Connor (1989) is that to the officer, force must appear to be mandated under the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ which is equivalent to objective reasonableness. Meanwhile, the “fleeing suspect” rule (PC §835a(c)(1)(b), 2020) has not changed since Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Under them, an officer may resort to the use of deadly force in apprehending a fleeing suspect for a crime that threatened or resulted in death or serious physical injury. A critical condition, however, is that the officer must reasonably believe that the suspect will kill or seriously injure another person if not apprehended immediately (PC §835a(c)(1)(b), 2020).
Restrictiveness
The amendment language in the CA PC §835a is not substantially more restrictive. PC §835a(e)(3) (2020) definition of totality of circumstances pushes to analyze the situation thoroughly and objectively. However, such an expansion is still merely a codification of the already established perspective on alternative force options. In reading the new language, it is vital to understand that the time and opportunities available to consider and utilize other options may still arguably preclude officers from finding the best possible solution.
Conclusion
To conclude, PC §835a (2020) will apply a more rigorous standard than both cases, with a greater need for judicial interpretation and questions about other available options, particularly when deadly force was used. Furthermore, the new law highlights that the subjective beliefs of an officer are not relevant. In Graham v. Connor (1989), the officer may have believed the plaintiff was a shoplifter; however, the Court’s objective test now asks what a ‘reasonable officer’ could believe. A ‘reasonable officer’ considers the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the time. However, while officers will be critically interrogated about what alternatives were available to them, it is vital to remember that they are nonetheless not required to find the single best way. Rather, the standard of objective reasonableness was clarified and elaborated to ensure that officers do not impose subjective correctness standards on citizens.
Scenario Analysis
Under the PC §835a (2020), the actions of the hypothetical officer were not entirely legal. The PC §835a (e)(3)’s definition of totality of circumstances expands the officer-involved shooting analysis beyond what happened when an officer decided to pull the trigger. The officer should have considered the entire chronology of events leading up to the shooting. PC §835a(a)(4) (2020) and (5) (2020) encourage police officers to modify their tactics when confronting suspects with mental health issues. There is a distinction in the use of deadly force between ‘dangerous fleeing felons’ as referenced in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and suicidal persons PC §835a(c)(2) (2020). The latter states that a police officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses only to himself.
However, it is impossible to blame the officer for not knowing the man’s suicidal intentions and mental health history. As Graham v. Connor (1989) concludes, reasonable force is a balancing test. Other options were available in hindsight, but what matters is whether the chosen option fell within the reasonableness range based on the facts confronting the officer at the time. Nonetheless, there was no prior information about any aggression from the man, which puts the officer’s reasonableness in question.
Firstly, no prior unsuccessful efforts to de-escalate or apply non-lethal force were made, which violates PC §835a(a)(2) (2020). Second, under PC §835a(c)(1)(a) (2020), police officers may use deadly force when protecting themselves or others from immediate death or serious injury. Police officers are justified in deadly force use only if they reasonably believe that it is mandated based on the totality of the circumstances, which includes pointing a gun-looking object at the office. However, the lack of prior aggression or verbal indicators point that a reasonable officer may not have believed that he was faced with an imminent threat (PC §835a(e)(2), 2020). To conclude, the lack of a definite imminent threat prohibits the use of a deadly force.
References
Graham v. Connor, No. 87-6571 (United States Supreme Court 1989).
State of California Penal Code, 392 AB § 835(a) (2020).
Tennessee v. Garner, No. 83-1035 (United States Supreme Court 1985).