Use-of-Force Recipient Status Matrix

E-Mail LAAW
(click here)

Call LAAW:
(800) 944-4485
(877) 944-4485

Law Enforcement, Corrections,
Private Security, and Civilian
Risk Management

Force Recipient	Free Person		Pre-Trial Detainee	Incarcerated and Convicted Person
Force Recipient	Seized Person - 4th Amendment	Not Seized Person Under 4th Amendment	Pre-Trial Detainee	Incarcerated and Convicted Person
Consitutional Amendment	4th Amendment	5th Amendment - Federal Officers 14th Amendment - State Officers		8th Amendment
Use-of-Force Standard	Objective Reasonableness Test	Due Process Clause Shock the Conscience Test		Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Leading Cases	Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989); Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994).	County of Sacramento v Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998); Johnson v Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1973), cert denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973) Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d. 447 (1979); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed.2d 183 (1952). See also Brothers v. Klevenhagen, 28 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 1994); Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 905, 113 S.Ct. 2998, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993).		Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)
Use-of-Force Test Parameters	-Are the officers' actions "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent of motivation? - Reasonableness is determined by balancing the nature and quality of the intrusion with the countervailing governmental interests. - Reasonableness contemplates consideration of the facts of the incident, including: 1. Is the suspect an immediate threat to officers and/or others? 2. Is the suspect actively resisting seizure? 3. Are the circumstances tense, uncertain, and/or rapidly evolving? 4. What is the severity of the crime(s) at issue? 5. Is the suspect attempting to evade seizure by flight?	County of Sacramento v. Lewis - A police officer does not violate substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. Holding - in such circumstances, "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation." Johnson v. Glick - Four-Part "Shock the Conscience Test" 1. The need for the use of force; 2. The relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used; 3. The extent of the injuries inflicted; and 4. Whether the force applied was in good faith or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm.		Whitley held that only an "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" and "actions taken in bad faith and for no legitimate purpose" are a cruel and unusual punishment. Hudson stated that the Whitley standard applies in both prison-riot and non-riot contexts. Hudson also held that all excessive force claims must show malice, sadism, and intent to cause harm.Hudson also held the 5th Circuit's "significant injury" requirement was improper under the 8th Amendment analysis.