Limit harmful and/or lethal police encounters and create additional mechanisms for challenging the culture of police violence by supporting legislation that creates greater restrictions on, and clearer standards for, police use of force.

State level.

Priority states:

  • Louisiana
  • New Mexico

State level partners:

We’re looking for statutes that require law enforcement officers to exhaust de-escalation tactics prior to using force, limit the use of deadly force, and impose restrictions on practices such as firing into fleeing vehicles, chokeholds, prone restraints, no-knock raids, and the discharge of impact munitions. 

Our ideal legislation would include some or all of the following features:

  • Prohibition or sharp restriction on specific violent practices, including:
    • chokeholds;
    • prone restraints;
    • shooting into fleeing vehicles;
    • no knock raids.
  • Clear and separate standards for use of force and use of deadly force;
  • A standard for use of deadly force that prohibits deadly force against a person who only poses a risk to themselves or property;
  • Support for non-police crisis intervention programs;
  • A duty to intervene for police officers who observe colleagues using excessive force;
  • A duty to report all instances of prohibited use of force to command-level supervisors;
  • A training requirement that ensures officers are aware of the restrictions and standards for use of force that they are required to follow;
  • An enforcement mechanism to ensure civilians are able to seek relief through civil remedies when they are harmed by officers’ violation of use of force standards and restrictions.

Interested in advancing police accountability legislation where you live?

Contact Lauren at legal.npap@nlg.org

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. Shouldn’t the police be able to use their discretion on what tactics they use to keep the public safe?
  2. Can’t this issue be addressed through better police training?
  3. Will more restrictive use of force laws increase the risk of physical harm to officers?
  4. Don’t police departments have internal policies limiting use of force? Why is it important that state law determine these restrictions?
  5. Does this really matter if qualified immunity is still in place? What use will it be restricting certain uses of force if police cannot be held liable for constitutional rights violations?

 

1. Shouldn’t the police be able to use their discretion on what tactics they use to keep the public safe?

While legal standards should, and do, provide police officers with some discretion, there are certain tactics and techniques that should be categorically banned or sharply restricted. These sorts of tactics—such as chokeholds and shooting into fleeing vehicles—do not make police more effective in detaining an individual or preventing a crime, but do substantially heighten the risk of harm or death for individuals who come into contact with the police. 

 

2. Can’t this issue be addressed through better police training?

No. Even among agencies that have created effective restrictions, limitations on employment consequences for policy violations have severely undermined their ability to enforce those standards. Accordingly, even in states where the largest police agencies have adopted more restrictive use of force policies, there is value in creating a mechanism where victims of police violence can address concerns about their treatment through an independent body.

Beyond the limitations of police departments in enforcing internal policies that restrict use of force, these tactics simply do not justify the harm they cause. This harm is not only to individuals who encounter police: police officers in departments that have implemented more restrictive use of force policies are less likely to be assaulted or killed in the line of duty than those in departments that have not implemented more restrictive policies. This suggests that more restrictive policies make both police and civilians safer. There is simply no reason not to restrict these sorts of tactics.

 

3. Will more restrictive use of force laws increase the risk of physical harm to officers?

No. Regulations on categorically dangerous policing practices—like chokeholds and shooting into fleeing vehicles—have a proven track record of reducing officer-involved deaths without exposing police to danger.*

And, as noted in the question above, police officers in departments that have implemented more restrictive use of force policies are less likely to be assaulted or killed in the line of duty than those in departments that have not implemented more restrictive policies.

*Samuel Sinyangwe: Examining the Role of Use of Force Policies in Ending Police Violence

 

4. Don’t police departments have internal policies limiting use of force? Why is it important that state law determine these restrictions?

While some police departments provide more explicit restrictions on when force can be used, these rules provide only piecemeal protection to civilians and are not legally binding. 

In addition to this (as noted in question 2), even among police agencies that have created effective restrictions, limitations on employment consequences for policy violations have severely undermined their ability to enforce those standards. Accordingly, even in states where the largest police agencies have adopted more restrictive use of force policies, there is value in creating a mechanism where victims of police violence can address concerns about their treatment through an independent body.

Absent clear, legally enforceable guideposts, communities, in particular communities of color and people with disabilities, are vulnerable to serious injury and death in situations that should be deescalated. State legislation limiting force will protect members of the public from unwarranted physical harm.

 

5. Does this really matter if qualified immunity is still in place? What use will it be restricting certain uses of force if police cannot be held liable for constitutional rights violations?

Any effective use of force statute would include an enforcement mechanism for precisely this reason. Legislation aimed at restricting use of force should permit people harmed by violations of the statute to pursue relief through civil remedies. This could come in the form of a cause of action for violations of the statute or permitting the Attorney General to sue local police departments in state court. Additionally, violations of the statute should carry a potential penalty of decertification. When creating a specific cause of action for violations of such a statute, legislators should be sure to include language that bars defenses based on immunities like qualified immunity.

Copyright © 2019 National Police Accountability Project. All rights reserved.