Legally Reasonable; but was it necessary?

It seems that as political and societal influence infiltrates law enforcement procedure, officers now are

held to a higher standard than originally determined by our justice system. I agree that to an extent, we

are watched and critiqued more often than not due to the authority given to us by our professions.

However, it is important to note that law enforcement professionals are not robots; we are human.

Humans have perceptions that influence their reaction to outside encounters all the time. To help guide

those perceptions, officers train in how to interpret situations and to understand the legal justifications

for any actions that they take in these situations.

When dealing with the public, officers are taught that all law enforcement interactions are governed

under the 4 th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 4 th Amendment protects free citizens from

unreasonable search and seizure. If an officer detains or arrests a subject, any use of force used during

that detention or arrest must be reasonable.

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) gave officers the standard of “objective reasonableness”

that all 4 th Amendment encounters must be held by. We often throw these terms and phrases around

lightly, but they carry a lot of weight and must be recognized:

• Would another reasonable officer in the same of similar situation act the same or in a similar

fashion?

• The totality of the circumstances (the whole picture) up the moment that force was used must

be taken into consideration.

• The incident must not be looked at from the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.

• The reasoning for this is that officers must make split-second decisions in situations that are

tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.

A bastardization of this concept is prevalent now because the following question is posed in numerous

cases: “Ok, the use of force may be reasonable, but was it necessary?”

My pet peeve with this question is that asking if the force was necessary in this context puts a subjective

conjecture to the question. Nowhere does SCOTUS discuss whether or not a use of force was objectively

necessary. The only question that they ask is if the use of force was objectively reasonable. When I hear

anyone ask if the force used was necessary, I ask “Can you provide a legal definition of necessary force?”

I know that they cannot provide one because there is not one; at least in Black’s Law Dictionary (the

most frequently cited legal dictionary in the United States). However, I do know that there is a definition

for “reasonable force” (source, Black’s Law Dictionary, 12 th edition). How can law enforcement be held

to a standard in legal/civil cases under an analysis that has no legal definition?

As a use of force analyst who has consulted in numerous cases, I always provide an objective analysis of

whether or not the officer’s actions were reasonable under state and federal law. I personally do not get

caught in the trap of proper police procedure which mostly is subjective and used to second-guess an

officer’s actions. Also, some of these “experts” that offer a subjective opinion on whether or not the use

of force was necessary are purely academics and have not been in situations that are “tense, uncertain

and rapidly evolving”.

Disclaimer for all blog posts:

Nothing in this blog constitutes formal legal advice, official policy, or a binding directive. Consult a

qualified attorney for legal guidance. Any comments left by visitors reflect their own views and do not

represent GL Corbitt Training and Consulting, LLC or any of its affiliates.