Use of Force in Jails-The Objective Reasonableness Standard

By Todd Duncan, Law Enforcement and Safety Specialist

This month’s Safety Short provides guidance on the legal liability associated with the use of force in jails, emphasizing the standards established in the Supreme Court case Kingsley v. Hendrickson[1] (2015). Corrections officers must understand these principles to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and minimize legal risks.

The Due Process Clause (14th Amendment)

In Kingsley, the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard for evaluating claims of excessive force against pretrial detainees under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The case arose when Michael Kingsley, a pretrial detainee, alleged that jail officers used excessive force by forcibly restraining him and applying a Taser while he was in custody. The Court ruled in Kingsley’s favor, holding that claims of excessive force by pretrial detainees are to be assessed using an objective reasonableness standard, which focuses on whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, regardless of the officer’s subjective intent. This decision clarified that the protections for pretrial detainees differ from those for convicted prisoners, who are covered by the 8th Amendment. Kingsley underscores the need for corrections officers to carefully consider the proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness of force used in jails, as liability does not depend on intent but on the objective nature of their actions.

Objective Reasonableness Standard:

The Court ruled that the use of force against a pretrial detainee must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, considering the circumstances, without the benefit of hindsight. Factors the courts will consider in light of Kingsley when evaluating whether a use of force on a pretrial detainee was reasonable include:

1. The relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used:
   Evaluate whether the level of force applied was proportional to the situation, considering the need to maintain order or safety.
2. The extent of the detainee’s injuries:
   Consider the physical impact of the force used and whether the injuries were avoidable under the circumstances.
3. The threat reasonably perceived by the officer:
   Assess whether the detainee’s actions posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer, other detainees, or facility staff.
4. Efforts made to temper or limit the use of force:
   Examine whether the officer took steps to de-escalate the situation or minimize the amount of force used.
5. The severity of the security problem at issue:
   Determine the seriousness of the problem the officer was addressing, such as whether the detainee was actively resisting or attempting to flee.
6. The availability of alternative actions:
   Consider whether other, less forceful options were feasible under the circumstances.
7. The degree of resistance by the detainee:
   Evaluate the nature of the detainee’s resistance, whether it was active, passive, or non-existent.

Legal Implications and Risk Management Recommendations

1. Prioritize de-escalation whenever possible.
2. The shift in focus to whether actions were objectively reasonable may mean that your good intentions won’t be enough to avoid incurring legal liability.
3. Jail policies and practices must align with the Kingsley While Kingsley focused on force used against pretrial detainees, it is recommended from a liability and practical standpoint that policies require officers to follow the objective reasonableness standard in all uses of force against detainees, regardless of their legal status (pretrial vs. convicted).
4. Officers should receive regular, documented training on de-escalation techniques, alternatives to force, and appropriate responses to resistance.
5. All use-of-force incidents must be meticulously documented, including the reasoning for force, efforts to de-escalate, and the detainee’s behavior. Proper documentation protects against liability by demonstrating objective reasonableness.
6. Always assess the necessity and proportionality of force before acting.
7. Follow departmental use-of-force policies strictly.
8. Seek immediate medical attention for detainees following any use-of-force incident.

Conclusion

Understanding and adhering to the Kingsley standard is critical to ensuring lawful, ethical, and effective operations in jail settings. Compliance not only protects detainees’ constitutional rights but also shields corrections officers and agencies from legal and financial liability. Regular training, adherence to policy, and thorough documentation are essential to achieving these goals.

[1] 576 U.S. 389 (2015)