NCJ Number
192533
Journal
Law and Order Volume: 49 Issue: 11 Dated: November 2001 Pages: 87-91
Date Published
November 2001
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article describes litigation and judicial decisions regarding the use of the beanbag round as an alternative to lethal force and considers the implications of these decisions for police agencies.
Abstract
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Deorle v. Rutherford in March 2001. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision in favor of the police officer and remanded the case for further proceedings. The opinion directly addressed crucial points never previously covered. The opinion stated that firing bean bag rounds at an unarmed suspect without first issuing a verbal warning represented excessive force and asserted that the beanbag round represented force with a significant risk of serious injury. A dissenting opinion that represents the thoughts of many police officers stated that the beanbag round is designed to prevent serious injury and not to kill or injure. The appellate court decision left many tactical officers and patrol supervisors with more questions than answers. Recent incidents in Seattle have the city embroiled in a debate over the use of less-lethal weapons. In addition, two California cases demonstrate the difficulty of avoiding litigation despite the use of less-lethal weapons such as pepper spray and beanbag rounds. Suggestions from police agencies to add to the Deorle decision regarding reducing litigation when using beanbag rounds include designating or dedicating weapons, requiring officers to load their own ammunition, implementing a backup system, and giving the suspect a verbal warning before firing when possible. Photographs