Part D - The Use of Deadly Force

PART D - THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

General.

AR 190-14 applies to "DA law enforcement and security personnel."

Deadly force is considered to be a "last resort," to be used "when all lesser means

have failed or cannot reasonably be used."

It is justified under several

circumstances. One is in self-defense "when in imminent danger of death or serious

injury." Another example is "to prevent actual theft or sabotage of property (such

as operable weapons or ammunition) which could cause deadly harm to others in the

hands of an unauthorized person." Another is "to prevent serious offenses against

a person or persons" (e.g., armed robbery, rape, or violent destruction of property

by arson, bombing)."

The Constitutional issue. In Tennessee v. Garner, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the

police responded to a "prowler inside" call. It was 10: 45 P.M. Upon arriving at

the scene, the police saw a woman standing on her porch, gesturing toward an

adjacent house. She told them that someone was breaking in next door. The police

went to that house, heard a door slam, and "saw someone run across the backyard."

A police officer, with the aid of a flashlight, could see the suspect's face and

hands, saw no sign of a weapon, and "figured" the suspect was unarmed.

He also

thought the suspect was 17-18 years old. When the officer yelled for the suspect

to halt, the individual started to climb a fence to escape. The officer then fired

a single shot, striking the suspect (a 15-year old) in the back of the head,

killing him.

The officer had acted on the basis of Tennessee's "fleeing felon

rule."

The Supreme Court held that an apprehension by the use of deadly force is a

"seizure;" thus, it must meet the Fourth Amendment's standard of reasonableness.

Even if there is probable cause for the apprehension, this does not always justify

killing the suspect in the process, at least where the suspect is "nondangerous."

The Court explained:

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects,

whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable...where the

suspect poses no threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm

resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of

deadly force to do so...A police officer may not seize an unarmed

nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead."

QUESTION:

UNDER THIS STANDARD, WHEN WOULD DEADLY FORCE BE AUTHORIZED IN THE

APPREHENSION OF A FLEEING FELON?

ANSWER:

THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED: . "WHERE THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO

BELIEVE THAT THE SUSPECT POSES A THREAT OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM, EITHER

TO THE OFFICER OR TO OTHERS, IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY UNREASONABLE TO

PREVENT ESCAPE BY USING DEADLY FORCE. THUS, IF THE SUSPECT THREATENS THE

OFFICER WITH A WEAPON OR THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAS

COMMITTED A CRIME INVOLVING THE INFLICTION OR THREATENED INFLICTION OF

SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM. DEADLY FORCE MAY BE USED."

1-19

MP1018