Editing Use of force (section)

==U.S. case law==

===''Graham v. Connor'' (1989)===
On November 12, 1984, Graham, who was a diabetic, felt an insulin reaction coming on and rushed to the store with a friend to get some orange juice. When the store was too crowded, he and his friend went to another friend's house. In the midst of all this, he was being watched by Officer Connor, of the [[Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department|Charlotte City Police Department]] police department. While on their way to the friend's house, the officer stopped the two of them and called for backup. After several other officers arrived, one of them [[handcuffs|handcuffed]] Graham. Eventually, when Connor learned that nothing had happened in the convenience store, the officers drove Graham home and released him. Over the course of the encounter, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead and an injured shoulder. In the resulting case, ''[[Graham v. Connor]]'' (1989), the Supreme Court held that it was irrelevant whether Connor acted in good faith, because the use of force must be judged based on its objective reasonableness.<ref>{{cite web|title=Graham vs. Connor |url=http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf |access-date=August 4, 2016 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141021064117/http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf |archive-date=October 21, 2014 }}</ref> In determining the "objective reasonableness" of force, the court set out a series of three factors: "the severity of the crime," "whether there is an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others," and "whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or evading".<ref>https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1271618-How-police-officers-can-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/ {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190929135533/https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1271618-How-police-officers-can-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/ |date=September 29, 2019 }} citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)</ref>

===''Tennessee v. Garner'' (1985)===
On October 3, 1974, Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright of the [[Memphis Police Department]] were called to respond to a possible burglary. When they arrived to the scene, a woman standing on the porch began to tell them that she heard glass breaking and that she believed the house next door was being broken into. Officer Hymon went to check, where he saw Edward Garner, who was fleeing the scene. As Garner was climbing over the gate, Hymon called out "police, halt", and when Garner failed to do so, Hymon fatally shot Garner in the back of the head, despite being "reasonably sure" that Garner was unarmed. The Supreme Court held, in ''[[Tennessee v. Garner]]'', that deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon only if the officer has [[probable cause]] to believe that the suspect poses a serious risk to the officer or to others.<ref>{{cite web|title=Tennessee v. Garner|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html|access-date=August 12, 2015|quote=[Deadly] force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape [of a fleeing suspect] and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.}}</ref>

=== ''Payne v. Pauley'' (2003) ===
Payne v. Pauley is a case in the Seventh Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the use of force must be both reasonable and actually necessary to avoid an excessive force complaint.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1271618-How-police-officers-can-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/|title=How police officers can avoid claims of excessive force|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-date=September 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190929135533/https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1271618-How-police-officers-can-avoid-claims-of-excessive-force/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, (7th Cir. 2003)</ref>

===''Nelson v. City of Davis'' (2004)===
On April 16, 2004, what was supposed to be known as the "biggest party in history" took place at the annual [[UC Davis]] picnic. Due to the large number of participants at this party, people began to illegally park their cars. Sgt. John Wilson demanded that officers start to issue parking tickets to the illegally parked cars. Tickets were also issued to the underage drinkers. Wilson called the owner of the apartment complex because of the disturbances that were being caused; loud music and the sounds of bottles breaking. Wilson was consented by the complex apartment owner to have non-residents to leave the complex. Thirty or forty officers were rounded up with riot gear – including pepper ball guns – to try to disperse the crowd of 1,000 attendees. The officers gathered in front of the complex where 15 to 20 students, including Timothy C. Nelson, were attempting to leave, but no instructions were given by the police. Officers began to fire [[Pepper-spray projectile|pepper-balls]], one of which struck Nelson in the eye. He collapsed immediately and was taken to the hospital much later on, where he suffered multiple injuries including temporary blindness and a permanent loss of visual acuity. He endured multiple surgeries to try to repair the injury. Nelson lost his athletic scholarship due to his injury and was forced to withdraw from UC Davis. The officers were unable to find any criminal charges against Nelson. The Ninth Circuit held that the use of force was unreasonable and the officers were not entitled to [[qualified immunity]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Nelson v. City of Davis|url=http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2012/07/nelson-v-city-of-davis.html|access-date=August 12, 2015}}</ref>

=== ''Plumhoff v. Rickard'' (2014) ===
On July 18, 2014, a West Memphis police officer stopped Donald Rickard for a broken headlight. As the officer talked with Rickard he noticed that there was an indentation in the [[windshield]] and that Rickard was acting very erratic. The officer asked Rickard to step out of the vehicle. Rickard at that point fled the scene. A high speed chase ensued, which involved several other officers. Rickard lost control of his vehicle in a parking lot, and officers exited their vehicles to approach Rickard. Rickard again tried to flee, hitting several police cruisers and nearly hitting several officers. At this time officers opened fire on Rickard. The officers fired a total of 15 rounds which resulted in the death of both Rickard and his passenger. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of force was justified, because the objective reasonableness of the use of deadly force must be based on the situation in which it was used, and not on hindsight.<ref>''Plumhoff v. Rickard'', 134 S. Ct. 2012, 572 U.S., 188 L. Ed. 2d 1056 (2014).</ref>

=== ''Kisela v. Hughes'' (2018) ===
Andrew Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving with other police officers to a report of a woman erratically hacking a tree with a knife. Hughes was in possession of a large kitchen knife, had taken steps towards her roommate, and had refused to drop the knife when repeatedly told to do so. After the shooting, the officers discovered that Hughes had a history of mental illness. All officers stated later that they believed Hughes to be a threat to the roommate. Hughes sued the officer claiming "excessive use of force" in violation of the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Officer Kisela, and stated that a reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions "that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious".<ref>Kisela v. Hughes :: 584 U.S. (2018)</ref>