{
  "id": "R44256",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44256",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 446953,
      "date": "2015-10-30",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:03:15.606384",
      "title": "Police Use of Force: Rules, Remedies, and Reforms",
      "summary": "Several high-profile police shootings and other law enforcement-related deaths in the United States have sparked intense protests throughout the country and a fierce debate in Congress concerning the appropriate level of force police officers should wield in a society that equally values public safety and the lives of each of its citizens under law. These incidents have been the subject of several congressional hearings, have prompted the introduction of various legislative measures, and have catalyzed a new civil rights movement in the United States aimed at reforming the criminal justice system. Reformers claim that police work too closely with local prosecutors resulting in insufficient oversight and have called for greater involvement by the federal government. The law enforcement community and its supporters have countered that these recent deaths are anomalous in otherwise exemplary police conduct, and that placing the federal government in direct regulation of state and local police would present an unwarranted intrusion into state and local affairs.\nTo provide legal context for this debate, this report will address three overarching questions: (1) what are the constitutional rules governing an officer\u2019s use of force; (2) what role has Congress played in providing a remedy for a violation of these rules; and (3) what are the potential reforms to these rules and remedies?\nRules. In a line of cases beginning in the mid-1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that all claims of excessive force occurring during an arrest or investigatory stop\u2014deadly or otherwise\u2014are governed by the Fourth Amendment\u2019s prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Under prevailing judicial precedent, all uses of force must be \u201cobjectively reasonable\u201d based on the totality of the circumstances viewed through the lens of the officer in the field. This requires a fact-intensive inquiry that is not easily reduced to categorical rules, but some general trends can be discerned from the case law. For instance, the courts have been deferential to officers in the field who are required to make split-second decisions in dangerous situations. Also, officers need not use the least intrusive means to effectuate a seizure so long as their actions are reasonable. \nRemedies. In an effort to provide teeth to federal constitutional restraints, Congress has enacted three federal statutes that accord various remedies for police use of excessive force. First is the federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 242, which prohibits officers from willfully depriving another of a constitutional right while acting under color of law. Enacted shortly after the Civil War, many have argued that Section 242\u2019s specific intent mens rea requirement is too high a threshold to provide an adequate deterrence to excessive force. Moreover, the federal circuit courts are split on how to apply this test, with some requiring a strict form of intent and others permitting a reckless disregard jury instruction. Second is the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which provides a civil cause of action for deprivations of one\u2019s constitutional rights. While generally viewed as successful in providing monetary damages to those injured by officers in the field, the doctrine of qualified immunity has frequently shielded officers from liability when the law was not \u201cclearly established\u201d at the time. Third is the more recently enacted \u201cpattern or practice\u201d statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 14141, which authorizes the Attorney General to sue local municipalities whose police forces have engaged in a pattern of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.\nReforms. Various reform bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress to provide additional restraints on police use of force, including the Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act of 2015 (H.R. 2052), which would criminalize the use of chokeholds, and the Police Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 1102), which would create a new federal crime for certain homicides committed by law enforcement officers. Additionally, several bills would place requirements on states to report use of force statistics to the federal government.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44256",
          "sha1": "2d9ab2e6e3798107352a05e4f8e0dd43e6f4c4d0",
          "filename": "files/20151030_R44256_2d9ab2e6e3798107352a05e4f8e0dd43e6f4c4d0.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44256",
          "sha1": "f6c3152f4734c1fb057a8d1bb8fe2639fcb3e94f",
          "filename": "files/20151030_R44256_f6c3152f4734c1fb057a8d1bb8fe2639fcb3e94f.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}