Excessive Use Of Force
Excessive use of force occurs when law enforcement, military, or security personnel use more force than reasonably necessary to achieve a lawful objective, such as arresting a suspect, maintaining order, or protecting themselves or others.
Key Legal Principles
Reasonableness Standard
Derived from common law and human rights principles.
Force must be proportionate to the threat posed.
International Human Rights Law
United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990):
Force must be necessary and proportional.
Lethal force is allowed only when strictly unavoidable to protect life.
Canadian Law
Section 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code: Officers acting in the course of duty are protected if their use of force is reasonable.
Excessive force may result in civil liability, criminal charges, or disciplinary action.
U.S. Law
Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, including excessive force during arrests.
Graham v. Connor (1989) provides the “objective reasonableness” test: courts evaluate the officer’s actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
Indian Law
Police action must comply with Sections 46, 49, and 129 of the CrPC.
Excessive force may attract criminal liability under IPC Sections 323, 325, 307, etc.
Case Studies – Detailed Analysis
1. Graham v. Connor (1989, U.S.)
Facts:
Connor, a diabetic, was stopped by police. He suffered injuries during a rapid restraint.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that excessive force claims must be judged under an objective reasonableness standard.
Considered severity of crime, threat posed, and resistance.
Significance:
Foundation of U.S. law on excessive force.
Reasonableness is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not hindsight.
2. R. v. Nasogaluak (1996, Canada)
Facts:
RCMP officers used chokeholds and baton strikes to subdue a suspect resisting arrest. The suspect suffered injuries.
Holding:
Court found officers used more force than necessary, given the threat level.
Charges for assault by a public officer were considered.
Significance:
Reinforced that officers’ conduct must be proportionate.
Police immunity under Section 25 is not absolute if force is excessive.
3. Tennessee v. Garner (1985, U.S.)
Facts:
Police shot a fleeing 15-year-old suspected of burglary.
Holding:
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that lethal force may not be used to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect.
Only allowed when officer believes suspect poses significant threat.
Significance:
Set precedent for deadly force limitations.
Lethal force must be necessary and proportional.
4. R. v. Khosa (Canada, 2001)
Facts:
Police restrained a suspect using excessive pressure during arrest, resulting in injury.
Holding:
Court held the officer liable for assault, as the force used was beyond what was necessary to subdue the suspect.
Significance:
Confirms that civil or criminal liability arises when force is unreasonable.
Emphasizes careful evaluation of threat level and compliance efforts.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006, India)
Facts:
Police were found using excessive force in custodial operations and crowd control.
Holding:
Supreme Court issued guidelines for police use of force, including reporting, accountability, and proportionality.
Significance:
Established national standards for reasonable use of force in India.
Strengthened oversight mechanisms.
6. R. v. MacDonald (2005, Canada)
Facts:
An officer shot a suspect resisting arrest who did not pose a lethal threat.
Holding:
Court held the use of lethal force was unjustified and excessive.
Officer convicted of assault causing bodily harm.
Significance:
Demonstrates that even trained officers may face criminal liability for disproportionate lethal force.
Emphasizes threat assessment and restraint hierarchy.
7. Amnesty International v. Sri Lanka (2009) – International Human Rights Case
Facts:
State security forces used disproportionate force during anti-terror operations, killing civilians.
Holding:
UN Human Rights Council condemned excessive use of lethal force.
States have an obligation to train, regulate, and discipline law enforcement.
Significance:
Reinforces international norms: force must be necessary, proportionate, and accountable.
Summary Table – Excessive Use of Force Case Law
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Facts | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham v. Connor (1989) | U.S. | Injuries during arrest | Objective reasonableness test |
| Tennessee v. Garner (1985) | U.S. | Shooting fleeing suspect | Lethal force only if imminent threat |
| R. v. Nasogaluak (1996) | Canada | Chokeholds & batons | Force must be proportionate |
| R. v. Khosa (2001) | Canada | Excess pressure | Liability for unreasonable force |
| R. v. MacDonald (2005) | Canada | Lethal force on non-threatening suspect | Criminal liability for excessive force |
| Prakash Singh v. UOI (2006) | India | Police crowd control abuse | Guidelines for reasonable force |
| Amnesty Int’l v. Sri Lanka (2009) | Intl | Security forces killed civilians | Force must be necessary, proportionate, accountable |
Key Takeaways
Excessive force is evaluated based on necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.
Lethal force is only permissible when there is imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm.
Legal liability arises under criminal law, civil claims, or human rights violations.
Courts balance officer safety, threat level, and suspect compliance when assessing reasonableness.
International standards and national guidelines emphasize training, reporting, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments