One of the most debated topics in criminal justice and law enforcement is the authorization and accountability related to the use of force by Police officers.  This can have a dramatic impact on the lives of civilians, police officers, and also the overall operation of the United States criminal justice system 

In light of recent events involving George Floyd and others, the debate of this topic has again taken to the front page of many news outlets.   

What has been realized is that the general public has a strong misconception and misunderstanding of police use of force and the obligations of a citizen. 

Prominent “Use of Force” SCOTUS Cases 

We will start the discussion with one of the most prominent police use of force cases that dates back to 1985 when the United States Supreme Court decided a case of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). 

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): In the Garner decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police use of deadly force violates the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures unless the suspect poses a threat of serious harm to the officer or others.  The Garner decision left a lot of unanswered questions regarding the use of force and when it would be deemed appropriate so – four years later – the Supreme Court clarified the matter in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989): The United States Supreme Court in Connor gave a level of clarity to the Garner decision when they declared that all uses of force that occur at any point in an interaction between police officers and civilians would be governed by an objective reasonableness standard.  

The “Reasonableness” Standard 

The “reasonableness” standard can be found and many areas of jurisprudence that stems from the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution. However, when applied to a use of force by a law enforcement officer against a civilian, the Supreme Court found that among the primary relevant circumstances that should be assessed in order to attempt to gauge the officer’s reasonableness would be:  

1. The seriousness of the crime at issue; 
2. Whether the subject or potential perpetrator was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee; and  
3. Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. 

“Use of Physical Force”

From the Graham decision until today, many states used the guidance from the Supreme Court to enact their own use of force provisions.  For example, in New York, Penal Law Section 35.30 governs when a police or peace officer may use physical force.  

New York Penal Law §35.30 

Penal Law Section 35.30 states that a police officer a peace officer may use physical force, and to the extent necessary, when he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to: 

• effect an arrest;  
• prevent escape;  
• in self-defense of the individual officer or another officer; or  
• to defend a third-party civilian. 

When we begin to assess some of the interactions between police officers and civilians and engage in the debate of what is reasonable – which is a clear standard on both the state and federal levels for assessing the use of force – we have to take into account: 

• who the individual is; 
• who has used the force; and 
• include any information that we may have about not only the suspect’s background but also the police officer’s background in history.  

Violence in Police Families 

For example, an executive member of Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, Tali Farhadian Weinstein, published an article in New York Daily News on June 13th, 2020, titled, “Now, shine a light on police and domestic violence.”  

In the article, one of the important things that Ms. Weinstein did point out was that, based upon statistics generated by the National Center for Women and Policing, nationwide police records and statistics show that violence in police families is an estimated two to four times more likely to occur. 

What that tells us, unfortunately, is that for some reason, police officers are between two and four times more likely than the general public to use violence within their household. This gives us a starting point at which we can begin to consider what is reasonable and when a true use of force should be accepted by the public and when we should reject it. 

Police Chokeholds in New York 

N.Y.C. Police Department’s Complete Ban on Chokeholds Has Been in Place Since 1993 

As we begin to attempt to dissect the reasonableness of the use of force, it is important that we also take the following fact into account. 

In 1993, The New York City Police Department explicitly banned the use of any form of a chokehold in detaining a defendant or suspect without exception.  

However, despite the ban that is almost thirty (30) years old, New York has seen: 

• The Anthony Baez Case: Where a motorist was stopped, an altercation ensued, and that individual was ultimately killed while also using a chokehold.  
• The Eric Garner Case: We also were unfortunate enough to witness the video of Eric Garner – who was suspected of selling loose cigarettes (which violated New York State cigarette tax laws) – who was choked to death by a police officer while he repeatedly said that he could not breathe. 

“The Eric Garner Chokehold Ban” – NYPL §121.13(a) 

In the name of Eric Garner, New York State finally enacted the New York Penal Law Section 121.13(a) in June of 2020.  New York Penal Law 121.13 came on the heels of nationwide protests in almost every city in the United States and established a C–level felony, which is classified as aggravated strangulation when a police officer or peace officer uses a chokehold to execute an arrest.  

First Prosecution of Eric Garner Chokehold Ban 

Despite the continued protest and political debates – as well as the deaths that we have watched – a few days after the enactment of the Eric Garner chokehold ban, New York City police officer David C. Evans can be seen on a video choking Ricky Belleville until Mr. Bellville became unconscious and another police officer had to remove the officer from Mr. Belleville’s neck.  

Officer Evans will now be the first New York City police officer charged under the Eric Garner chokehold ban with aggravated strangulation – which carries a maximum sentence of up to fifteen (15) years. 

When we look at the Eric Garner, George Floyd, or even the Ricky Belleville case, what you can find is that a large segment of the public nationwide are under the belief that police officers have an absolute right to detain and arrest any individual when they deem fit. 

However, individuals maintain certain First Amendment protections… 

First Amendment Protections 

1. Interacting with Police Officers and Public Officials Generally 

Mr. Belleville’s case is reported as having been a verbal dispute between Mr. Belleville, his friends, and a group of police officers.  At some point, Mr. Belleville is recorded as having said, “are you scared?” and, “you can’t tell me where to go,” to the group of police officers.   

Many people were under the false belief that the conversation between Mr. Belleville and the police officers justified the officer attempting to arrest Mr. Bellville. 

Some people also believe that when the officer made the attempted arrest of Mr. Belleville, Mr. Belleville was mandated to be fully compliant. However, our case law in the United States in general and, more specifically, in New York, takes a different stance on these situations.  

Many of the comments and actions that are made by individuals to police officers, including the videotaping of police and civilian interactions, whether we agree with them or not, or whether we find the conduct offensive or annoying, are all protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution – which prohibits a law enforcement officer or any government official from penalizing the individual for exercising those rights. 

2. “Verbal Criticism” directed at Officers is Protected by the First Amendment 

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987): For example, in a case titled City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), which was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1987, Raymond Hill is reported as having told the officer, while the officer was arresting his friend, “why don’t you pick on someone your own size?”  The officer, in turn, attempted to arrest Mr. Hill and a brief scuffle ensued. Acknowledging the comment that Mr. Hill had made to the police officer, the United States Supreme Court said that the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenges directed at police officers. 

3. “Flipping-the-Bird” is Protected by the First Amendment 

Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2013): In the more recent case of Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit was asked to address an issue that stemmed from a civilian flipping an officer, what some call a bird or, in other words, showing an officer a middle finger – which implies the commonly found derogatory statement “F*** Y**.”    In Swartz, the court found, without much discussion, that flipping a bird at an officer is protected by the 1st amendment.  So, that did not give the officers ground to arrest summons or penalize the defendant in that case. 

Thirairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2019): In the case of Thirairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2019), a defendant was reported as having yelled “F*** Y**” out of his car to an Arizona State trooper.  When reviewing that case, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the criticism of law enforcement officers, even with profanity, is protected by the First amendment. 

People v. Stephen, 153 Misc. 2d 382 (NY Crim. Court, 1992): The New York case of People v. Stephen, 153 Misc. 2d 382 (NY Crim. Court, 1992), involved an allegation that an individual groped his own genitals while cursing at an officer.  The court in Steven’s found that also was protected by the First Amendment. 

4. “Using Profanity” Towards A Police Officer is Protected by the First Amendment 

A lot of the instances where we have seen situations escalate between officers and civilians usually involve a civilian criticizing a police officer and, in some cases, using profanity – either in word or gesture – directed at a police officer.  

Courts across the country have repeatedly said that in general, the criticisms and many levels of profanity used against a police officer who is a public official is protected by the 1st Amendment.   

The reason for that is that the courts have deemed that police will encounter vulgarities with some level of frequency, but that the police officers professional training will enable them to defuse a volatile situation without physical retaliation or force. The words that may provoke a violent response from the average citizen should not provoke a police officer who is a trained professional. 

So, in many instances when we have seen members of the public in an uproar from verbal interactions that turned into events where civilians were badly injured and, in some cases, deadly altercations, the public has to be reminded that a police officer is