USE OF FORCE

Ofc Anderson contacted Church in his vehicle early in the morning. The officer detected an odor of alcohol and burnt marijuana. The officer escorted Church to his patrol car. Church, who out weighs Ofc Anderson by 80 lbs, punched the officer in the head. Church continued to pummel him. Ofc Anderson was lightheaded and exhausted. He felt Church pulling on his gunbelt. The officer warned Church that he would shoot if Church did not stop hitting him. He did not. Ofc Anderson shot Church in the abdomen. Church approached the officer again. He fired two more times. Church lived and was found guilt by the jury for assault on a police officer. Church sued Ofc Anderson. The district court granted Ofc Anderson qualified immunity. Church appealed. Church claimed that the court should presume that Ofc Anderson used excessive force because he was issued audio/video recording equipment and did not use it. The court would not even consider this argument. Church further claimed that he was unarmed and the officer did not use a less violent means to subdue him. Finally, the officer did not give him a second warning after the first shot. The Court held that Church posed an immediate threat to Ofc Anderson's safety and was actively resisting arrest. Church out weighed Ofc Anderson and Ofc Anderson feared that he would lose consciousness and Church would use his gun to kill him. As to the officer's failure to use alternate means to subdue Church, the court said an officer need not "pursue the most prudent course of conduct as judged by 20/20 hindsight vision." Because deadly force was justified, Ofc Anderson did not need to give a second warning before shooting. Ofc Anderson's actions were objectively reasonable and is entitled to qualified immunity.

A Michigan police officer stopped Mitchell on traffic on a report that he assaulted someone and was driving drunk. Mitchell stopped than sped away causing a car chase. Mitchell fled through neighborhoods and drove at speeds of 100 mph in the pouring rain. After a 10 minute chase, Mitchell crashed in a ditch. The officer drew his gun and approached Mitchell, who had exited his vehicle. The officer repeatedly ordered Mitchell to get on the ground. Mitchell, instead, turned and walked toward the officer. He had clenched fists, wide eyes, and walked quickly toward the officer. He refused to follow any commands. The officer was pointing his gun at Mitchell. The officer backed away from Mitchell, but Mitchell closed the gap and got within approx. 21 ft of the officer. The officer shot him once. Mitchell continued to purposely approach the officer. He shot again, killing Mitchell. A family member sued the officer for excessive use of force. The court held that the officer was alone in an unpopulated forest after a 100 mph chase. Mitchell disregarded a gun being pointed at him and charged the officer. The officer was justified in shooting him. The officer had qualified immunity.

Gorman was stopped and arrested for driving drunk. She refused to get in the police car after arrest. She stiffened up and actively resisted getting in the vehicle. The officer gave her several warnings that she would be Tasered if she did not get in the vehicle. She refused to cooperate. The officer gave her a drive-stun. She then cooperated. The Court held: "... that the force that was applied in this case was employed for the sole purpose of placing Plaintiff into the police car and was, we find, the minimal amount of force needed under the circumstances to accomplish this objective."

This case sets aside the standard for determining the excessive use of force as established in the 1973 case of Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2nd Cir. 1973). If the use of force violates the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then the standards listed in this Amendment will be used." All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard." In other words, was the decision of the officer reasonable based on the information he had at the time.

The case further dictates that the arrest must be reasonably proportionate to the need of force as measured by:

• The severity of the crime.

• The danger to the officer.

• And, the risk of flight.

The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.