Recent national events have again thrust law enforcement’s use of force into the spotlight. In Minneapolis, fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents have sparked protests and renewed questions about when officers are legally allowed to use force and what recourse exists when that force crosses the line.
While every situation is different, police use of force in the United States is governed by well-established legal rules rooted in the Constitution.
The Basic Legal Rule: Reasonableness
The Fourth Amendment protects people from “unreasonable” searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted this protection to mean that police may only use force that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. In simple terms, the law asks: Would a reasonable officer in the same situation believe that force was necessary at that moment? Officers may only use force when it is needed to gain control of a situation or to protect the safety of officers or others, and only when less forceful options are not reasonably available.
When reviewing a use-of-force incident, courts look at several common factors, including:
- The severity of the suspected crime
- Whether the person posed an immediate threat to the officers or the public
- Whether the suspect was resisting arrest or attempting to flee
Courts look at all the information available to the officer in that moment and even when force is necessary, it must remain proportional to the situation.
Deadly force—force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury—is subject to the strictest legal limits. Police may only use deadly force when they reasonably believe an individual poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or to another person. Deadly force cannot be used solely to prevent someone from fleeing, and it generally cannot be used against someone who poses a danger only to themselves or to property.
Modern policing standards emphasize de-escalation tactics and techniques, meaning officers should attempt to calm situations and gain voluntary compliance when it is safe and reasonable to do so before resorting to force.
Officers also have a duty to intervene if they witness another officer using excessive force or otherwise engaging in conduct that violates the Constitution, the law, or departmental policy. Failing to step in can itself create legal liability.
What Counts as Excessive Force?
Excessive force occurs when police use more force than is reasonably necessary for the situation. This may include:
- Using force that greatly exceeds what the circumstances require
- Continuing to use force after a person has been restrained or subdued
- Failing to attempt less forceful alternatives when time and conditions permit
- Using prohibited or dangerous techniques
- Using force as punishment rather than for control or protection
Civil Remedies: What Legal Options Exist?
Excessive force can sometimes lead to criminal charges against an officer. But even if no criminal charges are filed, a person may still have the right to pursue a civil lawsuit for unlawful or excessive force.
Individuals may bring civil rights lawsuits against state or local officers and, in some cases, the government agencies that employ them. These lawsuits can seek compensation for medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. In cases involving particularly egregious conduct, additional damages may be available, and courts may order changes to police policies or training.
Victims may also have claims under state law, such as assault, battery, or wrongful death. These claims vary by state and may be subject to special rules or limits on damages.
When federal officers are involved, different legal pathways apply, including claims against individual officers for constitutional violations and claims against the federal government for wrongful acts committed in the scope of employment.
In many civil rights cases, law enforcement officers raise the defense of qualified immunity, which can shield them from personal liability unless the law clearly established that their conduct was unlawful at the time. The doctrine is intended to allow officers to perform their duties without constant fear of litigation, but it does not protect officers who are plainly incompetent or who knowingly violate the law. Even so, qualified immunity has been widely criticized as it often limits civil claims even when serious injuries occur and remains a significant hurdle in excessive-force litigation. Some states, including Maryland, have enacted laws that restrict certain immunity protections and provide additional avenues for accountability under state law.
Key Takeaway
The rules on police use of force apply to all officers—local, state and federal, including ICE. While agencies may have different policies or training, every officer is bound by the same constitutional limits. Understanding these limits helps the public recognize when force may have crossed the line. Even when the Constitution sets the baseline, civil lawsuits often provide real accountability, transparency and sometimes systemic change.
