With the recent death of Alonzo Ashley after a scuffle with police at the Denver Zoo, and the sudden resignation of Denver Safety Manager Charley Garcia — who fired eight Denver Police officers in his four months on the job — use of force by police is on citizens’ minds.
As a semi-retired police officer with 47 years on the job, 25 as a chief of police, I know a few things about the issue.
Research indicates that less than one-half of 1 percent of all police encounters involve the use of physical force, and in the majority of these cases, the force is lawful and reasonable.
The major test in determining whether or not police force is lawful and reasonable was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham vs. Connor (1989). In that case, the court ruled that the determining factor in deciding whether or not the force is lawful and reasonable is if the force was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances present.
The court ruled that the measure of reasonableness must consider allowances for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving circumstances, and that such factors are important in determining the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
In my experience, there are generally four reasons why in some cases the use of force by the police is not objectively reasonable:
1. Inadequate training. Quality police academy training for rookie police officers, followed and reinforced by quality in-service training, is an absolute must. In-service training should cover arrest control tactics; officer survival and field tactics; off-duty police encounters; firearms training, safety and qualifications; routine and emergency driving; crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques; in-custody deaths, excited delirium and positional asphyxiation; required re-certifications in such areas as Tasers, radar units, Intoxilyzers, K-9s, etc; and legally mandated trainings (in Colorado, that means anti-bias policing, witness protection and DNA collection and preservation).
Without such annual in-service training, police officers are ill-equipped to effectively handle the variety of demands placed on them, and may be inclined to use unreasonable physical force.
2. Accidental application. Occasionally, while involved in a physical altercation, a police officer may accidentally apply physical force that in most circumstances would be considered objectively reasonable. For example, if an officer is using a baton to defend himself or herself, and in an attempt to strike the suspect’s forearm actually makes contact with the individual’s neck or head, the force may well be classified as accidental. Normally, head and neck strikes with a baton are not objectively reasonable, but in a highly charged situation, an accidental strike is understandable.
3. Adrenaline overload. Sometimes a police officer can simply be out of control because of an adrenaline overload, the heat of the moment, the anxiety, and the combat-like atmosphere. As a result, the officer may simply apply force that is not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The risk to citizens and officers is quite obvious in these kinds of situations, and it is important that officers receive sufficient training to recognize and effectively manage their adrenaline overloads.
4. Retribution. Sometimes a situation occurs where a police officer decides to take care of business and administer “curbside justice.” Such scenarios are not simple mistakes of the mind. They are mistakes of the heart, and police administrators should deal with these kinds of police officers quickly and decisively.
It is never the officer’s job to punish people. Those who do so need to be removed from the police service, de-certified, and criminally prosecuted. Failure to do so may well result in a police subculture where such actions are condoned and become commonplace.
Dan Montgomery is a retired police chief from Westminster. He operates a police consulting business.
