However, a number of recent high-profile police shootings and other law enforcement-related deaths have reignited the debate about how much force police should wield in a democratic society that values both law and order and the personal liberty of each of its citizens under law. Certain segments of the law enforcement community and its supporters have argued that regulating local police is best left to the province of state and local governments, and that a one-size-fits-all approach would hamper local experimentation. On the civil side is 42 U.S.C. To provide legal context for this debate, this report will address three overarching questions: (1) what are the constitutional rules governing an officer's use of force; (2) what role has Congress played in providing a remedy for a violation of these rules; and (3) what are the potential reforms to these rules and remedies? While this provision is best known for providing restraints on government searches and surveillance and the procedures under which they may be conducted, in a series of cases beginning in the 1980s the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment as the primary federal legal restraint on excessive force. Resolving a dispute in the lower federal courts about whether the Fourth Amendment applied outside the context of deadly force, the Supreme Court held that " all  claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its 'reasonableness' standard." That said, a few general trends can be noted. In rejecting Singleton's Section 1983 claim premised on excessive force, the court held that the use of the pepper spray was not unreasonable because (1) the state had a significant interest in keeping public roads clear; (2) the officer faced an "explosive situation" in which he was greatly outnumbered by the protesters; (3) he provided a warning before using the spray; and (4) pepper spray was likely the least intrusive force available to the officer. Remedies for Use of Force

To provide legal remedies for the unconstitutional use of force by law enforcement officers, Congress has primarily relied on three federal statutes: (1) a criminal offense for violations of constitutional rights, including excessive force; (2) a civil cause of action for deprivation of such rights; and (3) a statute authorizing the Attorney General to bring civil suits for injunctive relief against police departments engaged in a "pattern or practice" of such unconstitutional use of force. Federal Criminal Civil Rights Statute (18 U.S.C. §242)

Following the Civil War, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which made it a criminal offense to deprive another of a civil right while acting under color of law. Circuit Courts' Interpretation of Section 242

In the wake of Screws , the lower courts have been left to determine the meaning of "willfully" and how to apply Section 242's specific intent requirement. Federal Civil Rights Claims (42 U.S.C. This doctrine has frequently come under attack for shielding officers from liability even when they have engaged in unconstitutional conduct. The right to indemnification is not governed by federal law, but is a matter of state or local law. Municipal Liability

In addition to suing the police officers directly involved in an incident of excessive force, many Section 1983 plaintiffs can go after the "deep pocket of municipalities" that employ these officers. Section 14141, the "pattern or practice" statute. Reforming Police Use of Force

In response to the recent law enforcement-related deaths in Ferguson and elsewhere, Members have introduced various bills in the 114 th Congress to rein in police use of excessive force and provide accountability. 2052)

The Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act of 2015 ( H.R. 1102)

The Police Accountability Act of 2015 ( H.R. 1101 ) would create a new federal crime for certain homicides committed by law enforcement officers.
Several high-profile police shootings and other law enforcement-related deaths in the United States have sparked intense protests throughout the country and a fierce debate in Congress concerning the appropriate level of force police officers should wield in a society that equally values public safety and the lives of each of its citizens under law. These incidents have been the subject of several congressional hearings, have prompted the introduction of various legislative measures, and have catalyzed a new civil rights movement in the United States aimed at reforming the criminal justice system. Reformers claim that police work too closely with local prosecutors resulting in insufficient oversight and have called for greater involvement by the federal government. The law enforcement community and its supporters have countered that these recent deaths are anomalous in otherwise exemplary police conduct, and that placing the federal government in direct regulation of state and local police would present an unwarranted intrusion into state and local affairs.
To provide legal context for this debate, this report will address three overarching questions: (1) what are the constitutional rules governing an officer's use of force; (2) what role has Congress played in providing a remedy for a violation of these rules; and (3) what are the potential reforms to these rules and remedies?
Rules. In a line of cases beginning in the mid-1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that all claims of excessive force occurring during an arrest or investigatory stop—deadly or otherwise—are governed by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Under prevailing judicial precedent, all uses of force must be "objectively reasonable" based on the totality of the circumstances viewed through the lens of the officer in the field. This requires a fact-intensive inquiry that is not easily reduced to categorical rules, but some general trends can be discerned from the case law. For instance, the courts have been deferential to officers in the field who are required to make split-second decisions in dangerous situations. Also, officers need not use the least intrusive means to effectuate a seizure so long as their actions are reasonable.
Remedies. In an effort to provide teeth to federal constitutional restraints, Congress has enacted three federal statutes that accord various remedies for police use of excessive force. First is the federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 242, which prohibits officers from willfully depriving another of a constitutional right while acting under color of law. Enacted shortly after the Civil War, many have argued that Section 242's specific intent mens rea requirement is too high a threshold to provide an adequate deterrence to excessive force. Moreover, the federal circuit courts are split on how to apply this test, with some requiring a strict form of intent and others permitting a reckless disregard jury instruction. Second is the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which provides a civil cause of action for deprivations of one's constitutional rights. While generally viewed as successful in providing monetary damages to those injured by officers in the field, the doctrine of qualified immunity has frequently shielded officers from liability when the law was not "clearly established" at the time. Third is the more recently enacted "pattern or practice" statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 14141, which authorizes the Attorney General to sue local municipalities whose police forces have engaged in a pattern of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
Reforms. Various reform bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress to provide additional restraints on police use of force, including the Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act of 2015 (H.R. 2052), which would criminalize the use of chokeholds, and the Police Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 1102), which would create a new federal crime for certain homicides committed by law enforcement officers. Additionally, several bills would place requirements on states to report use of force statistics to the federal government.