Use-of-force law in Missouri

Last updated

Use-of-force law in Missouri refers to the law & legal doctrine which determine whether a member of law enforcement in the state of Missouri is justified in the amount of force used to gain control of an unruly situation or person, including situations involving death. In the United States, doctrine about use of force is primarily defined by the individual states, although there have been some Supreme Court decisions of limited scope.

Contents

Missouri's legal experts have said the use of force laws in Missouri are considered more officer-friendly than that in other states. [1] Such laws have come under national scrutiny in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014. [2]

Current law governing use of force is specified in Missouri Revised Statutes chapter 563, [3] which differ substantially from the laws of neighboring states. [4]

Background

Use of force

In the course of their duties, law enforcement personnel use force to subdue suspects. The use of force consists of two parts: the amount of force that may lawfully be used on a continuum that includes deadly force; and the circumstances under which it may be used, including the level of imminent threat reasonably perceived by the member of law enforcement and the concern that a fleeing felon may harm the public. [5] Doctrines are intended to balance security needs with ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects. In the event that members of the public are injured, this may give rise to issues of self-defense as a justification. [6] In the event of death during a reasonable use of force, this may be legally considered a justifiable homicide. The application of excessive force is considered Police brutality. [7]

Use of force national guidelines

State police in the United States are generally given considerable leeway in making the decision about the amount of force needed to save themselves or others. While there is no national definition, the United States Supreme Court has created legal standards for use of force through two key decisions. "Objective reasonableness" is a concept from the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision that stated that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape but only if the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community. [8] In the 1989 decision of Graham v. Connor , the court ruled that "the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." [9] Current local and state doctrines vary in defining these decisions and are tested in civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions on a case-by-case basis. [10] If a case where the use of force has been applied unevenly based on a suspect's race, sex, disability, religion, or national origin, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice is empowered to bring charges for breaking Federal law governing civil rights. [11] [12] When the Department of Justice investigates a pattern of use of force abuses, it can work with a state or agency to create new policies that align with national law and precedent. [13]

Missouri doctrine

Law enforcement agencies in Missouri exist at the town, county, and state levels and are subject to national guidelines, state laws, and applicable local or county policies. Use of force doctrine is defined in Missouri by state law as well as local policy. [1] From the 1860s, when Missouri became a state, until the 1960s, individual states wrote their own codes, often using common law as a basis. In 1962, the Model Penal Code was published with recommendations to modernize and standardize penal law and criminal law nationally. [14] The code served and continues to serve as a basis for the replacement of existing criminal codes in over two-thirds of the states. [15] Missouri did not incorporate the recommendations. [16] The statutes concerning use of force in Missouri included the stipulation that police officers could use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect of a felony including the event that the felony was not of a violent nature, such as a crime against property. In 1977, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down these statutes in Mattis v. R Schnarr. [17] The court found that the Missouri statute authorizing the use of deadly force by police attempting to arrest any fleeing felon was unconstitutional as "an arbitrary imposition of death" and violation of due process. [16]

In Tennessee v. Garner, Justice Byron White wrote for the Majority opinion addressing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the deadly force. Because it deprives the suspect of his life, White concluded that deadly force should be applied only when there is a "reasonable suspicion" that a suspect is armed or dangerous. The legal concept derives from a prior decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968) where court recognized law enforcement's right to stop a possible suspect for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. [18] In 1989, Graham v. Connor, a similar finding was held; ""the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." [9] Although Missouri statute still stated that law enforcement could use force including deadly force on any suspect that "has attempted to commit or has committed a felony," the concept of reasonableness was included. [19] "...An officer may only use deadly force as permitted by other justifications such a self defense or when he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested a)Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay." [20] [21]

Investigation into possible use of force violation is first conducted internally. A state prosecutor can also apply to judge or grand jury to decide whether there is enough evidence to pursue a prosecution. [22] The application of the standard is interpreted by a jury in criminal cases. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Detective</span> Investigator in law enforcement

A detective is an investigator, usually a member of a law enforcement agency. They often collect information to solve crimes by talking to witnesses and informants, collecting physical evidence, or searching records in databases. This leads them to arrest criminals and enable them to be convicted in court. A detective may work for the police or privately.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deadly force</span> Use of force, likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person

Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defense to culpable homicide. Generally, there is a burden to produce exculpatory evidence in the legal defense of justification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right to life</span> Belief that a being should not be killed by another entity

The right to life is the belief that a human being or animal has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity. The concept of a right to life arises in debates on issues including capital punishment, with some people seeing it as immoral; abortion, where the unborn is a human being in an early state of development whose life should not be ended; euthanasia, where the decision to end one's life outside of natural means is seen as incorrect; meat production and consumption, where the breeding and killing of animals for their meat is seen an infringement on their rights; and in killings by law enforcement, which is seen by some as an infringement of a person's right to live. Various individuals may disagree in which of these areas the principle of a right to life might apply.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Use of force</span> Force needed to compel compliance

The use of force, in the context of law enforcement, may be defined as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject".

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop. Additional rules apply to stops that occur on a bus.

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop and identify statutes</span> US state laws allowing police to require identification of those suspected of a crime

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify themself, even in these states.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "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."

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of vague laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide "credible and reliable" identification.

In the state of Maryland, the right of self-defense is mostly governed by case law, but there is also a statute.

In the United States, use of deadly force by police has been a high-profile and contentious issue. In 2022, 1,096 people were killed by police shootings according to The Washington Post, while according to the "Mapping Police Violence" project, 1,176 people were killed by police in total.

A forcible felony, in the criminal law of various US states, is a felony that is subject to special penalties because it involves the use or threat of physical force. Forcible felonies are defined by statute. Typical examples of forcible felonies include murder, arson, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

California Assembly Bill 392, officially the California Act to Save Lives and often dubbed the Stephon Clark law, is a California statute, signed August 19, 2019, which reforms California's standard on police use of force. The bill was introduced to the California State Assembly by Assemblymember Shirley Weber in response to the shooting of Stephon Clark and the subsequent decision by the Sacramento County district attorney to treat Clark's death as legally-justifiable. It is the first reform to the state's use of force standard since the standard was first promulgated in 1872.

References

  1. 1 2 Jones, Ashby (November 24, 2014). "Why Ferguson Officer Wasn't Charged: A Look at 'Use of Force' Doctrine". Wall Street Journal (Law Blog). Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  2. ↑ Condon, Stephen (November 25, 2014). "After Ferguson, can the use of force by police be addressed?". CBS News. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  3. ↑ Missouri General Assembly (1977). "L. S.B. 60 Effective 1-01-79—Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest Archived 2014-11-28 at the Wayback Machine ". Missouri Revised Statutes Ch. 563 Defense of Justification § 046 r. 2.
  4. ↑ Keefe, Brendan (November 11, 2014). "Deadly force laws different on each side of Mississippi". KSDK. Retrieved December 19, 2014.
  5. ↑ Keefe, Brendan (November 12, 2014). "Ferguson shooting highlights deadly force laws". USA Today. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  6. ↑ Buchanan, Larry; K.K. Rebecca Lai; Haeyoun Park; Alicia Parlapiano; Archie Tse; Tim Wallace; Derek Watkins; Karen Yourish; Ford Fessenden (November 25, 2014). "What Happened in Ferguson?". New York Times. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  7. ↑ Cassens Weiss, Debra (November 25, 2014). "Missouri's 'officer-friendly' use-of-force law likely helped Ferguson officer avoid charges". ABA Journal. American Bar Association. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  8. 1 2 Leonnig, Carol D. (August 28, 2014). "Current law gives police wide latitude to use deadly force". Washington Post. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  9. 1 2 Johnson, Joe (July 28, 2014). "Use of force: What does the law say?". The Sentinel. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  10. ↑ Kindy, Kimberly (November 24, 2014). "How the Ferguson grand jury process works". Washington Post. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  11. ↑ Staff writer (September 4, 2014). "Feds launch investigation into Ferguson police department". CBS News. The Associated Press. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  12. ↑ Johnson, Carrie (November 25, 2014). "Federal Ferguson Investigation Will Remain Independent, Holder Insists". NPR: National Public Radio. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  13. ↑ Cavaliere, Victoria (May 29, 2014). "Seattle police file federal lawsuit over 'use of force' policy". Reuters. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  14. ↑ Sanford H. Kadish, "Codifiers of the Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors", 78 Columbia Law Review 1098 (v.78, n.5, June 1978) and Monrad G. Paulsen and Sanford H. Kadish, "Criminal Law and Its Processes" , 77 Harvard Law Review 790 (v.77, n.4, February 1964)
  15. ↑ "Criminal Law Basics". Mojo Law. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  16. 1 2 Popek, Karen A. (January 1979). "Unconstitutional Use of Deadly Force by the Police, The". Chicago-Kent Law Review. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 55 (2). Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  17. ↑ "547 F. 2d 1007 - Mattis v. R Schnarr". United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 1, 1976. p. 1007. Retrieved 2013-06-12.
  18. ↑ For the Court in Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984), Justice Marshall wrote
    "the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called 'Terry stop,' see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)" (468 U.S. at 439)
  19. ↑ Wilson, Darren; Chad Flanders (August 25, 2014). "Missouri's Use Of Force Statute Goes Against Constitutional Rulings". St Louis Public Radio. National Public Radio. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  20. ↑ Rioux, Luke (November 23, 2014). "Missouri and Maine police use of force laws: when is deadly force justified?". The Press-Herald. Maine Free Press. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  21. ↑ Staff reports (November 25, 2014). "Darren Wilson said fight at car justified use of force against Michael Brown". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
  22. ↑ Staff writer (November 24, 2014). "Michael Brown: The workings of the grand jury explained". BBC News. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.