NCJ Number
130029
Journal
Law and Order Volume: 39 Issue: 4 Dated: (April 1991) Pages: 67-68
Date Published
1991
Length
2 pages
Annotation
Citizens have the right to be free from excessive police force, yet parameters defining excessive use of police force are not clear.
Abstract
Police officers sued for excessive use of force can assert a qualified immunity defense if they can show that their actions were reasonably objective at the time of the alleged conduct. The qualified immunity defense is generally raised in a motion for summary judgment after a lawsuit is filed. Conduct alleged to constitute excessive use of force should be considered in isolation when evaluating the qualified immunity defense. As a general rule, a motion for summary judgment can only be granted in an officer's favor if a reasonable jury could not return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The officer must initially raise the qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, and the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that existing law prohibited the officer's conduct and that the officer engaged in specific conduct contrary to the law. If no disputed issues of material fact exist about whether the officer's actions were reasonable, the officer is entitled to a judgment in his or her favor. A court case is cited which demonstrates the need for police officers to yell their warnings loud enough for both suspects and witnesses to hear them. Police administrators should become more familiar with the law on summary judgment motions and the qualified immunity doctrine and train their staff to go beyond what is required to win an excessive use of force case.