California Penal Code 835: Use of Force and Duty to Intercede

California Penal Code Section 835 defines an arrest as either the physical restraint of a person or the person’s voluntary submission to an officer’s custody, and it allows officers to use whatever restraint is reasonable to make the arrest and hold the person.¹ When people say “Penal Code 835,” they usually mean the companion provision, Section 835a, which sets the detailed rules on how much force a peace officer can use and when deadly force is justified. Assembly Bill 392 rewrote Section 835a in 2019 to require that force be not just reasonable but necessary, giving California one of the stricter use-of-force standards in the country.² The statute expressly declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive force by officers acting under color of law.

What Section 835 Actually Says

Section 835 is brief. It defines an arrest as either physically restraining someone or the person’s voluntary submission, and it allows the person being arrested to be subjected to whatever restraint is reasonable for the arrest and detention.¹ That’s the whole statute. It provides the basic authority for physical restraint but says nothing about permissible levels of force, deadly force, or an officer’s obligations after force is used. All of that lives in Section 835a.

When Officers Can Use Force

Under Section 835a, a peace officer with reasonable cause to believe a person committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force for three purposes: to complete the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.² An officer using objectively reasonable force under these circumstances does not become the legal aggressor and does not forfeit the right to self-defense.

The word “necessary” carries most of the weight here. Before AB 392, California’s standard asked only whether force was reasonable. The current law requires officers to consider other available resources and techniques when those would be reasonably safe and feasible.³ That language builds a de-escalation expectation into the statute. An officer cannot skip verbal commands, tactical repositioning, or less-lethal options that were safely available and then claim the force used was necessary.

How Reasonableness Is Judged

Courts evaluate an officer’s use of force from the viewpoint of a reasonable officer in the same situation at the moment force was applied, not with the benefit of hindsight. The analysis looks at the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time.² The statute acknowledges that officers sometimes have to make split-second decisions in tense, rapidly changing situations.

One detail matters a great deal for accountability. California’s definition of “totality of the circumstances” explicitly includes the conduct of both the officer and the subject leading up to the use of force.³ Reviewers can look at whether the officer’s own tactical decisions created or escalated the confrontation. If an officer rushed into a situation that a more careful approach could have resolved peacefully, that prior conduct is fair game when the eventual force is judged.

When Deadly Force Is Permitted

Deadly force is any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including firing a weapon.² The Legislature’s stated intent is that officers use deadly force only when necessary to defend human life. The statute permits it in exactly two circumstances.

Imminent Threat to Life

An officer may use deadly force to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. The statute defines “imminent” narrowly. A reasonable officer in the same situation must believe the person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. Fear of future harm, no matter how likely, does not qualify. The threat must be one that has to be confronted right now.²

Dangerous Fleeing Suspect

An officer may also use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing person who committed a felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, but only if the officer reasonably believes the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to someone else unless immediately apprehended.³ Both conditions must be met. The underlying felony must have involved a threat to life, and the person must pose an ongoing danger to others. An officer cannot use deadly force to stop someone fleeing from a nonviolent felony, even a serious one like embezzlement or burglary of an unoccupied building.

The Warning Requirement

Before using deadly force under either scenario, the officer must make reasonable efforts to identify themselves and warn that deadly force may be used, unless doing so is not feasible or the officer reasonably believes the person already knows they are dealing with law enforcement.²

Prohibited Techniques

California has banned two specific categories of force that carry a high risk of death. Under Government Code Section 7286.5, added by Assembly Bill 1196 in 2020, no law enforcement agency may authorize the use of a carotid restraint or a chokehold by any peace officer it employs.⁴ A carotid restraint means any hold that applies pressure to the sides of the neck with a substantial risk of restricting blood flow. A chokehold means any tactic applying direct pressure to the windpipe. The ban applies regardless of the circumstances. Even in a life-threatening situation where deadly force might otherwise be justified, an officer must use a different authorized method.

Duty to Intercede

California law regulates how officers use force and also requires other officers at the scene to step in when force goes too far. Under Government Code Section 7286, every law enforcement agency must maintain a policy requiring officers to intercede when they observe another officer using force that is clearly beyond what the situation demands.⁵ Interceding can include physically stopping the excessive force, verbally confronting the officer, or reporting the situation to dispatch or a supervisor with the offending officer’s name, unit, and location.

Officers who fail to intercede face discipline up to and including the same consequences as the officer who committed the excessive force.⁵ The law also prohibits retaliation against officers who report another officer’s misconduct.

Medical Aid After Force Is Used

Every law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policy must require officers to promptly provide first aid if trained, or otherwise summon medical assistance, for anyone injured during a use-of-force incident, as soon as it is reasonably safe. That obligation covers the subject of the force, bystanders, and anyone else injured in the encounter. Visible injuries, complaints of pain, and signs of physical distress all trigger the duty.

People With Disabilities

Section 835a specifically acknowledges that people with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities face disproportionate levels of force during police encounters. The Legislature found that these individuals’ disabilities may affect their ability to understand or comply with officer commands, and that people with disabilities are involved in an estimated one-third to one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.²

That legislative finding isn’t decoration. It signals to courts reviewing use-of-force cases that an officer’s failure to recognize and account for a disability is relevant to whether force was reasonable. If someone didn’t comply because they were experiencing a mental health crisis, were deaf, or had an intellectual disability, and the officer used force without attempting alternative approaches, that context weighs against the officer in any later review.

If You Believe Force Was Excessive

If an officer used excessive force against you, you have both administrative and legal options. Administratively, you can file a complaint with the officer’s employing agency, which is required to have procedures for investigating citizen complaints about use-of-force incidents. The more consequential remedy is a civil lawsuit.

The primary vehicle is a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which lets you sue state or local government officials who violate your constitutional rights while acting in their official capacity. An excessive force claim under Section 1983 is rooted in the Fourth Amendment and asks whether the force used was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. You have two years from the date of the incident to file.

State-law claims like assault and battery against a government employee run on a much shorter clock. Under California’s Government Claims Act, you must file an administrative claim with the government entity within six months of the incident.⁶ Missing that deadline typically bars the state-law claims entirely, even if the underlying conduct was clearly excessive. This is where people lose cases they should win. They focus on the two-year federal deadline and don’t realize the state claims have a six-month fuse. If you have any potential excessive force claim, file the government claim within six months to preserve every option.

Officers can raise qualified immunity as a defense in federal Section 1983 cases. That doctrine shields officers from personal liability unless their actions violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time, which usually requires pointing to a prior court decision with sufficiently similar facts. Qualified immunity does not apply to state-law claims or to claims against the employing agency itself.

1
California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 835 – Arrest and Restraint
2
California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a
3
California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 835a – Peace Officer Use of Force
4
California Legislative Information. AB 1196 – Peace Officers Use of Force
5
California Legislative Information. AB 26 – Peace Officers Use of Force
6
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 911.2