NOTE: This blog article was amended to reflect recent changes to U.S. federal law with passage of the First Step Act (P.L. 115- 391). Since December 21, 2018, the First Step Act required numerous changes to the federal criminal justice system, including updated corrections guidelines for use of restraints and solitary confinement as well as de-escalation procedures for non-violent resolution of disputes.
Now more than ever, U.S. laws that prohibit excessive force by police officers are coming into play. With more and more police departments having squad car videos and body cameras, the civil rights lawsuits that were one day impossible to prove are now becoming commonplace.
To gain a better understanding of this issue, the following sections will explore relevant legal background, standards for reasonable use of force, police immunity, and burden of proof.
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1871?
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and commonly known as “Section 1983,” prohibits any person from violating constitutional rights while acting “under the color of law.” In other words, it is unlawful for someone acting in an official governmental capacity to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.
How Does Section 1983 Relate to Excessive Force?
If police officers use excessive force, Section 1983 allows the victim or their surviving family to sue in civil court. In excessive force cases, the police officers likely violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. Given this constitutional violation, victims or their surviving family can sue the police officers under Section 1983.
If the victim or their surviving family can prove excessive force under Section 1983, the court can hold the offending officers liable for any harm or injuries sustained. If the victim died as a result of excessive force, the surviving family might be able to file a lawsuit for wrongful death.
What Kind of Police Conduct Qualifies as Excessive Force?
Excessive force is a type of police misconduct where the officer’s actions go beyond the bounds of force that a reasonable officer would use under the same circumstances. These cases focus on the objective reasonableness of the force used – not whether the arrestee was injured. Whether the officer’s use of force was excessive depends largely on the circumstances and facts of each specific case. A judge or jury will weigh the available evidence and applicable laws to determine whether or not the police officer applied a reasonable amount of force.
Furthermore, the police officer’s state of mind does not factor into the analysis of excessive force. An officer who uses a reasonable amount of force is likely not liable for injuries to the victim, even if they had bad intentions. On the other hand, an officer with good intentions who uses an unreasonable amount of force is still likely liable for injuries to the victim.
Since the First Step Act became effective, there are new considerations in place for the reasonable use of force. For example, federal law now prohibits the use of restraints for pregnant inmates or solitary confinement for juveniles. And federal corrections officers are now advised to use de-escalation procedures to resolve conflict non-violently, wherever possible.
What are the Boundaries of Police Immunity?
Generally speaking, police officers have immunity from liability while performing their official duties. In other words, private individuals are not usually allowed to sue police officers for injuries sustained during arrest, booking, or other official procedures. Simple negligence or carelessness is not enough to overcome police immunity.
That being said, Section 1983 provides a cause of action in cases where the use of force was excessive and unreasonable. In those cases where police officers violate a person’s constitutional rights, immunity can disappear altogether. As a whole, police officers must complete their duties in a reasonable fashion to maintain immunity.
What is the Burden of Proof for an Excessive Force Lawsuit?
As excessive force lawsuits play out in civil court, the plaintiff-victim does not have to meet the criminal standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead of the higher reasonable doubt standard, the plaintiff-victim only needs to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. In other words, the plaintiff-victim needs to show that their position is more likely true than not true. This is a much easier standard to meet than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recent Comments