California Penal Code 835a: Deadly Force Standard and Remedies

California Penal Code section 835a sets the rules for when a peace officer in California may use physical force, and it draws a sharp line between ordinary force and deadly force. For non-deadly force during an arrest, the standard is “objectively reasonable.” For deadly force, the standard is stricter: it must be necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, or to catch a fleeing suspect who committed a violent felony and would likely hurt someone else if not stopped immediately. The statute took its current shape through Assembly Bill 392, effective January 1, 2020, and was most recently amended by SB 857 effective January 1, 2026, though its core use-of-force standards remain substantively the same.¹

Non-Deadly Force: The Objectively Reasonable Standard

An officer who has reasonable cause to believe someone has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to make the arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance.¹ Reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of hindsight, which mirrors the Fourth Amendment framework from Graham v. Connor.²

The statute states plainly that every person has a right to be free from excessive force by officers acting under color of law, while also recognizing that officers sometimes make split-second decisions that the totality of the circumstances must account for.¹

Deadly Force: The Necessary Force Standard

Before AB 392, California officers could use deadly force whenever it was “reasonable.” The current statute narrows that authority to force that is necessary, and the word does real work.³ Under the older framework, an officer could point to a range of reasonable responses and justify force as one of them. Under 835a, the officer has to show that no reasonably safe alternative existed.

An officer is justified in using deadly force only when they reasonably believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that it is necessary for one of two reasons:¹

To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
To apprehend a fleeing person who committed a felony that threatened or caused death or serious bodily injury, when the officer reasonably believes that person will cause death or serious injury to someone else unless immediately caught.

What “Imminent” Means

The statute defines an imminent threat as one where a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe the person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. Fear of future harm doesn’t qualify, no matter how likely that harm may be.¹

All three elements matter. A person shouting threats but locked behind a barrier has apparent intent without present opportunity. Someone armed but walking away from officers has ability and opportunity without apparent intent to immediately harm. Neither scenario meets the imminent threat standard on its own.

Fleeing Suspects

The fleeing-suspect provision is deliberately narrow. Officers can use deadly force to stop an escape only when the person committed a felony involving death or serious bodily injury and the officer reasonably believes they will cause further death or serious injury if not caught immediately. A nonviolent felony suspect who runs does not meet this threshold, even if apprehending them later would be difficult.¹ This tracks and arguably tightens the federal floor from Tennessee v. Garner, which barred deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.⁴

People Who Endanger Only Themselves

The statute expressly prohibits deadly force against a person based solely on the danger that person poses to themselves. If a reasonable officer would conclude the person doesn’t pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the officer or anyone else, deadly force is off the table.¹ This carve-out matters most in mental health crisis calls, where a person may be self-harming without threatening others.

Totality of the Circumstances Includes Pre-Force Conduct

Both standards are judged by the totality of the circumstances, which the statute defines as all facts known to the officer at the time, including the conduct of both the officer and the subject leading up to the use of force.¹

That inclusion of pre-force conduct is a significant practical change. Under the older framework, courts typically examined only the moment force was used. Now, an officer’s decisions in the run-up to the confrontation matter. Charging into a situation without attempting to communicate, create distance, or wait for backup factors into whether the eventual use of force was justified.

De-Escalation and Warnings

The statute doesn’t label de-escalation as a standalone mandate, but it builds it into the deadly force standard. Officers must evaluate whether other resources and techniques could resolve the situation in a way that is reasonably safe and feasible before resorting to deadly force.¹ When feasible, officers must also identify themselves and warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person already knows those facts.³

The statute also clarifies that an officer doesn’t lose the right to self-defense, and doesn’t become the aggressor, by using objectively reasonable force to make an arrest. But it distinguishes retreating from a lawful arrest (not required) from tactical repositioning and other de-escalation moves (expected when safe).¹

People With Disabilities

Section 835a includes a legislative finding that people with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience higher levels of force during police encounters, and that their disabilities may affect their ability to understand or follow officer commands. The statute estimates that people with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.¹

This finding doesn’t create a separate standard, but it signals that an officer’s failure to recognize signs of disability and adjust their approach is relevant to the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Criminal Consequences When an Officer Exceeds 835a

AB 392 also rewrote Penal Code 196, which defines when homicide by a peace officer is legally justifiable. The current version is short: a homicide by an officer is justifiable only when it results from force that complies with Section 835a, or when carrying out a court judgment.⁵

That tight link is what gives 835a its criminal teeth. If a district attorney concludes an officer’s force violated 835a, the officer can be prosecuted for manslaughter or, in extreme cases, murder, without the shield of the older, broader justifiable-homicide defense.

Civil Remedies for People Injured by Excessive Force

Beyond criminal exposure, officers and their employing agencies face civil liability. Someone injured by excessive force in California generally has three paths to compensation.

Federal Civil Rights Claims Under Section 1983

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, anyone whose constitutional rights are violated by a person acting under state authority can file a federal lawsuit for damages.⁶ Excessive force is analyzed as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Officers may raise a qualified immunity defense, arguing that the specific right they allegedly violated wasn’t clearly established at the time. When immunity is denied, cases can proceed to trial or settlement.

The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act

California Civil Code 52.1, known as the Bane Act, lets individuals sue anyone who interferes with their constitutional or statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion, which includes excessive force by officers. A successful plaintiff can recover damages and injunctive relief, and the court may impose a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation. District attorneys and city attorneys can also bring Bane Act claims on behalf of the public.⁷

Government Tort Claims and the Six-Month Deadline

Under California Government Code 815.2, a public entity such as a city or county is liable for injuries caused by its employees acting within the scope of employment.⁸ Before suing a government agency for personal injury or death, you must file a formal government tort claim within six months of the incident.⁹ Missing that six-month deadline can permanently bar the claim. It’s the most common way people lose otherwise valid excessive-force cases against agencies.

Duty to Intercede and Report

Several obligations people associate with 835a actually sit in Government Code 7286. That statute requires California law enforcement agencies to adopt policies that impose a duty to intervene when an officer witnesses another officer using clearly excessive force. Intervention can mean physically stopping the force, activating a body camera to record it, confronting the officer during the incident, or reporting to dispatch with the offending officer’s identifying information.¹⁰

The same statute requires officers to immediately report potential excessive force to a supervisor when they observe another officer using force they believe exceeds what is necessary. An officer who has received training on the duty to intercede and fails to act faces discipline up to and including the same consequences as the officer who committed the excessive force.¹⁰

Training That Puts the Standard Into Practice

Senate Bill 230, also passed in 2019, directed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to develop use-of-force training courses and minimum guidelines for every California law enforcement agency. The curriculum covers the legal standards in 835a, de-escalation using time, distance, cover, and concealment, interpersonal communication, implicit and explicit bias, cultural competency, mental health awareness, interactions with people who have disabilities or behavioral health conditions, less-lethal alternatives, and scenario-based decision-making.¹¹

The Legislature intended every agency to adopt policies consistent with these guidelines and require periodic training on them. The point is that the 835a standards are supposed to reach officers not just as statutory text but as practiced tactics for the situations where split-second force decisions actually happen.

1
California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a
2
Library of Congress. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
3
California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill 392
4
Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
5
California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 196
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
7
California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 52.1
8
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 815.2
9
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 911.2
10
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 7286
11
California Legislative Information. Senate Bill 230