California Assembly Bill 392, signed into law on August 19, 2019, rewrote the state’s deadly force statute so that police may use lethal force only when it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, replacing the older “reasonable” standard. The change, written into Penal Code Section 835a, is widely considered one of the strictest deadly force rules in the country and goes further than the federal constitutional floor set by the U.S. Supreme Court.1California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 392 – Peace Officers Deadly Force
What the Law Actually Changed
Before AB 392, an officer in California could use deadly force whenever a reasonable officer would have believed it was appropriate. Under the current statute, deadly force is justified only when a reasonable officer would believe it is required to prevent death or serious injury. The word swap sounds small on the page. In practice it moves the legal question from “could a reasonable officer have fired?” to “did the situation actually leave no safe alternative?”2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
The Legislature framed its intent plainly in the statute itself: “peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life.”2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
When Deadly Force Qualifies as Necessary
Section 835a, as amended by AB 392, identifies two situations where deadly force is legally justified:
- Imminent threat: The officer reasonably believes, based on everything known at the time, that deadly force is needed to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or someone else.
- Dangerous fleeing suspect: The officer is trying to apprehend someone who committed a felony that threatened or caused death or serious bodily injury, and the officer reasonably believes the person will cause further death or serious injury unless caught immediately.
Before firing, officers must use other available tactics when doing so is reasonably safe and feasible. That includes de-escalation and any alternative to lethal force that the circumstances allow.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
How an Officer’s Decision Gets Judged
The law does not evaluate officers with the benefit of hindsight. A shooting is reviewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the information the officer knew or perceived at the time. Fast-moving encounters and split-second choices are part of that analysis.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
At the same time, the statute directs that the review be “careful and thorough, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority.” Reviewers also look at whether the officer’s conduct lined up with department policies and training. A shooting that might survive a federal constitutional challenge can still be found unjustified under California law if an objectively reasonable officer could have handled the encounter without lethal force.
The Disability Provision
AB 392 also wrote a specific finding into the statute: people with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are disproportionately affected by police use of force, and the Legislature estimated they are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement. That finding signals to courts that an officer’s failure to recognize and adapt to a person’s disability can weigh against a claim that deadly force was necessary.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
How AB 392 Differs From the Federal Standard
Federal constitutional law sets a floor that every state has to meet, and California deliberately built above it. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions define the federal baseline.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) held that officers may use deadly force against a fleeing person only when they have probable cause to believe the person poses a serious threat of death or physical injury to others, and only when less extreme measures would not work. Where feasible, the officer must give some warning before firing.3Justia. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Graham v. Connor (1989) established the “objective reasonableness” test that still governs federal excessive-force claims. A court evaluates force from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene and weighs factors like the seriousness of the suspected crime, whether the person posed an immediate safety threat, and whether they were resisting or trying to flee.4Library of Congress. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Those cases ask whether force was reasonable. AB 392 asks whether it was necessary. That is the gap California opened up, and it is why the same set of facts can produce different answers in state and federal review.
Criminal Exposure When Force Is Not Necessary
AB 392 did not create new criminal penalties for officers. What it did was narrow the definition of justifiable homicide, so existing criminal statutes now reach further.
Penal Code Section 196 defines when a homicide by a peace officer is legally justified. There are only two paths: carrying out a lawful court judgment, or using force that complies with Section 835a. If the deadly force does not meet the “necessary” standard, the homicide is not legally justified, and prosecutors can pursue murder or voluntary manslaughter charges under the same statutes that apply to anyone else.5California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 196 – Homicide
The charging bar is still high, because prosecutors have to prove the officer’s actions fell outside what Section 835a allows. It is meaningfully lower than the old “reasonable” bar, though, and gives district attorneys more room to file charges when the facts support it.
Where AB 392 Fits in the Broader Framework
AB 392 is the piece of California law that defines when deadly force is justified. It sits alongside several other laws that shape what happens before and after a use-of-force incident, and it helps to know where AB 392 ends and those other rules begin.
Government Code Section 7286 required every California law enforcement agency to adopt a written use-of-force policy by January 1, 2021, covering de-escalation, proportional force, firearm restrictions, bystander safety, medical aid, reporting, complaint procedures, and a duty for officers to intercede when a colleague uses excessive force.6California Legislative Information. California Government Code 7286 The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training published statewide guidelines to help agencies implement those requirements.7California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Use of Force Standards and Guidelines
Assembly Bill 1506 requires the California Department of Justice to investigate all officer-involved shootings that result in the death of an unarmed civilian. When the Attorney General’s office declines to file charges, it publishes a written report explaining the facts, the legal analysis, and its reasoning, and it can recommend policy changes to the involved agency.8California Attorney General. AB 1506 Officer-Involved Shooting Investigations and Reviews For other shootings, the local district attorney typically handles the review.
Senate Bill 1421 opened previously confidential police personnel records to public access in specific categories, including any incident where an officer fired a gun at a person and any use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury.9California Legislative Information. California Senate Bill 1421 – Peace Officers Release of Records
AB 392 is the standard those investigations, policies, and disclosed records ultimately measure officers against. Whether the “necessary” test is met decides whether a shooting is lawful under California law, whether it can be charged as a homicide, and whether it counts as compliant with department policy.