The National Police Association (NPA) is pitching in with expert analysis of an important upcoming SCOTUS case: Kyle Smith, et al. v. Rochelle Scott, et al. The primary issue is whether the use of body weight to control a combative person is an acceptable use of force.
For the sake of the language used in the case, and as used by the media and law enforcement alike, since a death occurred, the question is whether the officers in the case used deadly force in a way they shouldn’t have.
For the civilian reader’s sake, we need to be reminded that the words “excessive force” and “deadly force” are not in the Constitution. What the Constitution does address is “reasonableness” in the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. If a person claims that the seizure of their person, i.e. an arrest, is unreasonable, federal law (see 42 USC 1983) allows the person to sue the individual or entity responsible in federal court. We also might be reminded that applying these laws to non-federal government actors was made possible by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it took about 100 years for that to apply to lawsuits against local law enforcement.
There may be lawsuits in state courts for damages that are claimed to have arisen because of an unreasonable seizure (arrest), such as a physical injury, but the loss claimed in federal court is the loss of their right to be free from unreasonable government actions, not any physical injury. Federal courts have the liberty to include such claims for efficiency’s sake, however.
So, what is “reasonable”? As courts must arbitrate claims of unreasonable force and have spent many years doing so with eager lawyers wanting to define their plaintiffs’ accusations to sustain monetary awards and government lawyers seeking to save tax-funded payouts and maintain the authority of the law to maintain order. Generally, SCOTUS has given the benefit of judgment to the police, with an understanding that rapidly unfolding and dangerous events require the freedom to use one’s best judgment in the moment, without relying on hindsight, and without blaming the cops for being there in the first place. (See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386).
Recent decisions of lower courts have eroded this principle with the idea that if the officer could have, speculatively, avoided a situation that turned ugly, or if the officer(s) made a tactical mistake or misjudgment, then the officer should be deemed at fault.
Let me be a bit philosophical and hypothetical here. What if the defund, defang, and abolish the police ideologues were successful and *poof* no more police? Would law enforcement, as we know it, evolve again? There would still be laws, and there would still be lawbreakers, despite the notion that we can all self-regulate and create so much peace and equality that there would no longer be a human motive for anti-social behavior? We can dream, but we also know and have experienced rebellion and, yes, evil. With no collectively chosen agents of government, enforcing laws for the good of all would rely on private persons or groups to challenge lawbreakers. This system would elevate only physically or economically powerful people to the role now filled by police officers. We would appoint and pay government actors to keep peace, and we would find that arming them serves the pubic safety best.
With all due respect to other peacekeepers in the land, such as religious leaders, benevolent and charitable groups, social workers, etc., we would find that offenders who are willing to use violence will not respond to all the counseling, grace, and support in the world. So, yes, police agencies would evolve very quickly, and the public would demand it.
If, as I postulate here, we find that we must have armed government agents, we do so for one purpose: so that they may coerce behavior when individuals fail to conform to reasonable laws that protect the public at large. That coercion may be showing up, it may be a pointed finger, it may be a strong statement, and it may be physical force. None of those tools, used reasonably, should be taken away.
No one has the right to harm an innocent person. No one has the right to resist a lawful arrest. The use of coercion by police officers is highly regulated, even though no tool, no policy, no court decision, no tactic can be used with certainty of the outcome because every situation is unique in hundreds of ways. If a technique is used and a death occurs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was unlawful deadly force. The coercive technique may be one factor in a death or injury, but, absent the use of a firearm, there are multiple factors, including drugs and disease, that are part of the puzzle.
Especially in mental crisis cases, there is an inevitable behavioral component. To say a mental crisis that results in a call to police is just in the person’s mind is simply not biologically accurate. Many times, physical restraint is a medical rescue. If sitting on someone is an act intended to bring a person into compliance and safety, is it not reasonable? Are officers to be required to work the physics equation of weight vs. resistance over time, divided by pre-existing physical conditions? Not a physics professor, physician, or psychic could predict such an outcome, but a reasonable officer can surmise that failing to restrain a person can, indeed, be deadly.
If you don’t want the police to do the things that only the police can do, don’t call them. Let’s hope SCOTUS listens to the NPA and others and makes a reasonable decision.
