Use of Force Policy: Constitutional Standard, Restrictions, and Consequences

A use of force policy is a law enforcement agency’s internal rulebook setting out when officers may use physical force and how much, what techniques are authorized or forbidden, and what officers must do afterward. Every policy is built on the same constitutional floor: the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The policy translates that constitutional rule into working guidance an officer can apply during a tense encounter, and it sets the standard a department, a federal prosecutor, or a civil jury will later use to judge whether the force was justified.

What the Policy Covers

Use of force covers any deliberate physical action an officer takes to control a person, overcome resistance, or compel compliance. The range runs from guiding someone by the arm or applying a wrist lock, up through takedowns, electronic control weapons, chemical sprays, and batons, and finally to firearms.

The policy framework activates when a person actively resists or threatens harm. A cooperative traffic stop where the driver follows instructions does not implicate it. The moment someone pulls away, refuses commands, or poses a physical threat, everything the officer does from that point forward is subject to the policy’s standards and its reporting requirements.

The Constitutional Standard Officers Are Measured Against

Any time an officer physically restrains someone, that is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the force used has to be reasonable.¹

In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court defined “reasonable” as objective reasonableness: force is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, not with the benefit of hindsight. The analysis “must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”²

Courts weigh three factors: how serious the suspected crime was, whether the person posed an immediate physical threat to officers or bystanders, and whether the person was actively resisting or trying to flee.² No single factor controls. A jaywalking suspect who goes limp warrants a very different response than an armed robbery suspect reaching toward a waistband. Policies turn these factors into practical guidance so officers do not have to litigate constitutional law in real time.

Deadly Force Against a Fleeing Person

A separate rule governs the specific question of shooting someone who is running away. Under Tennessee v. Garner (1985), an officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only when it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.³

The Court struck down blanket “fleeing felon” rules that authorized lethal force against anyone running from a felony arrest. If the person poses no apparent danger, shooting them simply because they are getting away is unconstitutional. Where feasible, the officer must also give a warning before using deadly force.³

The Force Continuum

Most policies organize authorized responses into a structured model called a force continuum. The officer’s response is supposed to match the resistance or threat and escalate only when lower levels fail. Specific labels vary by department, but the general tiers run like this:

Officer presence. Simply arriving in uniform. For many situations, this alone produces cooperation.
Verbal commands. Clear, direct instructions. Tone and authority matter.
Empty-hand control. Joint locks and pressure points at the lower end; strikes and takedowns at the higher end, with risk of injury rising accordingly.
Intermediate weapons. Tools designed to incapacitate without killing: electronic control weapons, chemical sprays such as OC, and impact weapons such as batons.
Lethal force. Firearms or any other force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Reserved for situations where the officer reasonably believes it is the only way to prevent imminent death or serious physical harm to themselves or someone else.

The continuum is not a rigid ladder. If someone immediately produces a knife, the officer does not need to start with verbal commands. The framework is about matching response to threat, and it also requires the officer to reduce the level of force the moment the threat drops. Once a person stops resisting and is under control, continuing to apply force violates the policy and the Constitution.

Restricted Techniques: Chokeholds and Carotid Restraints

Chokeholds and carotid restraints, which cut off blood or air flow to the brain, carry a serious risk of death or permanent injury. Executive Order 14074, signed in May 2022, directs all federal law enforcement agencies to ban them except in situations where deadly force is already authorized by law.⁴ That standard effectively treats neck restraints as lethal force.

The same order also requires federal agencies to adopt policies reflecting principles of “valuing and preserving human life,” implement early warning systems to identify officers at risk of problematic conduct, and hold officers accountable for policy violations.⁴ The order directly governs only federal agencies, but it has pushed many state and local departments to tighten their own restrictions on neck restraints.

De-escalation and the Duty to Intervene

De-escalation is a set of tactics meant to resolve confrontations without physical force whenever possible. It relies on creating distance, slowing the pace of the encounter, and using communication to reduce tension and encourage voluntary compliance. The Law Enforcement De-escalation Training Act of 2022 directs the Department of Justice to develop training programs covering these techniques, along with specialized strategies for responding to people experiencing a mental health crisis or living with a disability.⁵

Separate from de-escalation is the duty to intervene. The DOJ’s own use-of-force policy states that officers “must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to intervene to prevent or stop, as appropriate, any officer from engaging in excessive force or any other use of force that violates the Constitution, other federal laws, or Department policies.”⁶ An officer who stands by while a colleague uses clearly excessive force has also violated policy. Many state and local agencies have adopted similar requirements.

What Officers Must Do After Force Is Used

Once force has been used and the scene is secure, two duties kick in: providing or summoning medical care for the injured person, and documenting what happened.

Medical aid is a policy requirement at most agencies because a person in police custody depends entirely on officers for access to help. Officers are expected to check for visible injuries and signs of distress, provide aid within their training, and call paramedics when needed. Failing to do so can turn a legally justified use of force into a liability for the officer and the department.

Reporting requirements are equally firm. After any use of force beyond routine compliant handcuffing, the officer must notify a supervisor and complete a written report covering the circumstances, the specific force used, the level of resistance that prompted it, and any injuries. The report goes through a multi-tiered review by the supervisor, an internal affairs division, or a specialized review board. Reviewers decide whether the force complied with department policy and the Graham reasonableness standard. Outcomes range from a finding that the force was justified, to retraining, to formal discipline including suspension, demotion, or termination.

Consequences When the Policy Is Violated

A use of force policy is not just an internal management tool. Breaking it can expose officers and agencies to serious legal consequences.

Civil Lawsuits Under Section 1983

The main civil remedy is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes any person acting “under color of” state law liable for money damages if they deprive someone of a constitutional right.⁷ If an officer uses unreasonable force during an arrest, the injured person can sue the officer personally. Municipalities can also be held liable if the violation came from an official policy or a failure to train.

Officers sued under Section 1983 typically raise qualified immunity. The court applies a two-part test: did the officer actually violate a constitutional right, and was that right “clearly established” at the time, meaning any reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful?⁸ If existing case law has not addressed a sufficiently similar scenario, the officer may receive immunity even if the force was objectively unreasonable.

Federal Criminal Charges

When excessive force is willful rather than negligent, federal prosecutors can bring charges under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which makes it a federal crime to deliberately deprive a person of their constitutional rights while acting under color of law. Penalties scale with the harm: up to one year in prison for a basic violation, up to ten years if the victim suffers bodily injury, and up to life in prison or a death sentence if the victim dies.⁹ These prosecutions are rare and require proof the officer acted willfully, but they represent the most severe consequence an officer can face for misusing force.

Pattern-or-Practice Investigations of Whole Departments

Individual lawsuits address individual incidents. When the problem is systemic, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 allows the Attorney General to investigate and sue any law enforcement agency that engages in a “pattern or practice” of conduct depriving people of their constitutional rights.¹⁰

These investigations usually follow a high-profile incident or a sustained pattern of complaints. When the DOJ finds systemic violations, the usual outcome is a consent decree: a court-supervised agreement requiring the department to overhaul its policies, retrain officers, improve data collection, and submit to independent monitoring for years. A department that writes a strong policy but does not enforce it can end up explaining that gap to federal investigators, and eventually to a federal judge.

1
Constitution Annotated. Amdt4.3.7 Unreasonable Seizures of Persons
2
Justia. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
3
Justia. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
4
GovInfo. Executive Order 14074 – Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety
5
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Implementation of De-escalation Training Act Program
6
U.S. Department of Justice. 1-16.000 – Department of Justice Policy on Use of Force
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
8
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. Part IX Qualified Immunity
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
10
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 34 USC 12601 – Cause of Action