Police Use of Force FAQ and Legal Standards

Yes. Services are provided to both criminal defense attorneys and plaintiff’s counsel in civil litigation.

All opinions are based on objective analysis of the facts, evidence, and applicable legal standards—independent of which party retains the expert.

Common case types include:

• Officer-involved shootings

• In-custody deaths

• Excessive force claims

• Arrest-related use of force

• Encounters involving mental health crises

Expert analysis can assist in both evaluating case strength and presenting complex issues clearly in court.

Yes. Early case evaluation is often critical.

Pre-litigation review can help attorneys:

• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of a case

• Identify key evidentiary issues

• Determine whether expert testimony will be necessary

• Assist in discovery requests

My analysis is based on practical law enforcement experience, training, and the real-world application of force—not solely academic or theoretical frameworks.

As a police supervisor and command officer, I evaluated officer tactics, reviewed use-of-force incidents, assessed whether officers acted within policy and training, and made recommendations regarding tactics, decision-making, and force applications. That experience gives me a practical understanding of how police encounters develop, how officers are trained to respond, and how tactical decisions are reviewed after the fact.

This allows for:

• More accurate interpretation of officer decision-making

• Clearer explanation of tactics, supervision, and procedures

• Opinions grounded in how situations actually unfold in the field

• Greater contextual nuance from having personally evaluated officer tactics and use-of-force decisions as a police manager

Use-of-force cases are analyzed by examining all available evidence, including:

• Body-worn camera footage

• Police reports and statements

• Dispatch timelines

• Witness accounts

• Forensic evidence

The analysis focuses on reconstructing the event from the officer’s perspective while identifying factors that may influence how the incident is interpreted by a judge or jury.

A use-of-force expert evaluates more than the moment force was used. The review may include officer decision-making, threat perception, tactical planning, policy compliance, supervision, command and control, video evidence, witness statements, and whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Police use of force is primarily evaluated under the standard established in
Graham v. Connor, which requires analysis based on objective reasonableness.

This means the officer’s actions are judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering:

• The severity of the crime

• The immediacy of the threat

• Whether the subject was resisting or attempting to flee

Importantly, the analysis avoids hindsight bias and focuses on what was known at the time force was applied.

Objective reasonableness is not a theoretical concept—it is a practical assessment of decision-making under real-world conditions.

In practice, it considers:

• Time constraints and rapidly evolving circumstances

• Limited or incomplete information available to the officer

• Environmental factors (lighting, distance, number of subjects)

• Officer training and experience

The question is not whether a different decision could have been made, but whether the decision made was reasonable given the circumstances.

To assess reasonableness, the Court identified three guiding factors:

1. Severity of the suspected offense.

2. Immediate threat posed to officers or others.

3. Resistance or flight by the suspect.
   Courts must consider the totality of circumstances and the perspective of a reasonable officer making split-second decisions in tense, uncertain conditions.

Force may be considered excessive when it is disproportionate to the threat or not justified under the totality of the circumstances.

Examples may include:

• Use of lethal force without an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death

• Continued force after a subject is controlled

• Escalation without clear justification

Each case, however, is highly fact-specific and must be evaluated within its full context.

The lead-up matters because poor planning, unclear roles, rushed contact, weak containment, or lack of supervision can turn a manageable situation into a compressed, rapidly evolving encounter.

Yes. Under stress, time pressure, poor visibility, or prior information that a suspect may be armed, officers may interpret ambiguous movement as weapon-related. That does not automatically mean they fabricated anything; it means there can be a difference between perceived threat and objectively confirmed threat.

No. Video can be powerful, but it may be limited by angle, obstruction, blur, lighting, distance, timing, or resolution. A proper review distinguishes between what the video clearly shows, what it does not show, and what remains dependent on testimony or other evidence.

Command and control refers to whether someone effectively directed personnel, assigned roles, managed resources, communicated objectives, and minimized risk. In critical incidents, the absence of clear command can lead to fragmented decision-making, duplicated lethal cover, poor containment, and increased danger to officers, subjects, and bystanders.

Tactical planning is central. A sound plan considers personnel, containment, contact roles, cover, less-lethal options, communication, suspect movement, escape routes, and foreseeable contingencies. A weak plan can reduce time, distance, cover, and control.

Yes. Security force cases require a different framework than police constitutional-force cases. The analysis focuses on reasonable conduct and accepted practices for trained security personnel in similar circumstances.

The answer depends on the legal framework being applied.

Under federal constitutional law, use of force is evaluated under the standard established in Graham v. Connor, which focuses on whether the force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

However, some states have adopted statutes requiring that deadly force be not only reasonable, but necessary—meaning that officers must consider whether reasonably available alternatives existed at the time.

This distinction often becomes more significant in civil litigation, where the analysis may extend beyond the moment force was used to include whether the situation could have been handled differently.

“Necessary” force generally refers to whether the use of force was required under the circumstances, or whether there were reasonably available alternatives.

In practice, this may involve questions such as:

• Could officers have used time, distance, or cover more effectively?

• Was the encounter unnecessarily rushed or compressed?

• Were less-lethal options available and feasible?

• Did prior tactical decisions limit available alternatives?

This type of analysis focuses not only on what happened in the final seconds, but on how the situation developed.

Officer tactics can play a significant role in whether force is later viewed as necessary.

Tactical decisions—such as approach speed, positioning, containment, coordination, and communication—can either:

• create time and control, or

• compress the encounter and reduce options

For example, a rapid, close-range approach may limit an officer’s ability to assess and respond, increasing the likelihood that force will be used. In contrast, a more controlled approach may preserve alternatives and reduce the need for force.

As a result, the necessity of force is often tied to the tactical conditions created before the force is applied.

In some contexts, yes.

Force may be viewed as reasonable under the circumstances confronting an officer at the moment it was used, but still be questioned as unnecessary if earlier decisions contributed to the situation in which force became the only apparent option.

This issue arises most often in civil cases, where the analysis may consider the full sequence of events, including planning, supervision, and tactical execution.

Civil cases increasingly examine the totality of the circumstances, including the events leading up to the use of force.

This broader analysis looks at:

• operational planning

• supervision and command

• tactical decision-making

• availability of alternatives

Even where force meets constitutional standards, questions about necessity may influence liability, expert opinions, and how a case is evaluated by a jury.

There isn’t perfect uniformity, but the core states that have recognized necessity standards are:

• California (AB 392)

  • last resort

  • consideration of alternatives

  • totality of circumstances

• Connecticut

• Illinois

• New Jersey

• Virginia

• Ohio

• Iowa

A Terry stop, based on Terry v. Ohio, allows an officer to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

Although a Terry stop is a lower standard than probable cause, it still requires specific, articulable facts. The legality of the initial stop can be significant because it forms the foundation for everything that follows, including any use of force.

Yes. If a stop is not supported by reasonable suspicion, that may affect how the entire encounter is evaluated.

Even if force is later analyzed under a reasonableness standard, courts and juries may consider whether the officer’s actions in initiating the encounter contributed to the confrontation.

This issue is particularly relevant in civil cases, where the analysis may extend beyond the moment force was used to include whether the encounter itself was justified.

Encounters that begin as investigative stops can escalate depending on:

• The officer’s approach and communication

• The subject’s response (compliance, flight, resistance)

• The presence or perceived presence of a weapon

• The speed at which the encounter unfolds

Rapid escalation can reduce time for assessment and increase the likelihood that force will be used, especially if the situation becomes compressed or ambiguous.

• Reasonable suspicion (Terry stop): a lower standard based on specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity is afoot (has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur)

• Probable cause: a higher standard required for arrest, based on a fair probability that a crime has been committed

Understanding this distinction is important because it defines the scope of the officer’s authority at each stage of the encounter.

Terry stops matter because they often represent the starting point of the encounter.

In civil litigation, analysis may include:

• whether the stop was justified

• how the stop was conducted

• whether the officer’s actions contributed to escalation

Even where force is evaluated under a constitutional reasonableness standard, the legality and handling of the initial stop may influence liability and how the case is viewed by a jury.