 The primary considerations in the use of force are the timely and effective application of the appropriate level of force required to establish and maintain lawful control and the preservation of life and prevention of bodily injury. This deadly force video outlines the minimum guidelines of the use of force policy as promulgated by the Departments of Justice and Treasury. The scenarios portrayed were selected to demonstrate the application of the guidelines. They are not intended to recommend operational tactics or procedures. Although composites of real government agents and attorneys, the names of the characters as well as the characters portrayed in this videotape are fictitious. Actors were employed in the production of this videotape to accurately depict these fictitious characters in order to achieve the best possible quality. Welcome. My name is Joe Reed and today we're going to discuss a topic that affects each and every one of you, the federal policy on the use of deadly force. We all recognize the paramount value of all human life and acknowledge our commitment to take all reasonable steps to prevent the need to use deadly force. Unfortunately, even the best prevention policies, training and tactics may not be effective under some circumstances and we must resort to the use of deadly force. If our actions are objectively reasonable, we will be immune from suit. But what if deadly force is used in an objectively unreasonable manner? We could face criminal prosecution, be civilly liable and still face agency administrative action against us up to the point of being fired. Additionally, our fellow officers and supervisors may also be brought into both criminal and civil actions with us and the agency could be found liable in a civil action. As you can see, in addition to the possible loss of life, there are a number of negative consequences that could follow the unreasonable use of deadly force by an officer who was under-trained, lacked good judgment or both. That is why understanding this deadly force policy is so important to you. Regardless of whether you're a federal, state or local officer, as a member of this federal task force, you'll be operating under the federal policy, including the use of deadly force. This policy will provide guidance to you when confronted by circumstances where it is objectively reasonable for you to use deadly force. Because federal guidelines on deadly force might be more restrictive than those you're operating under now, it's important that you understand the difference. To help make all this clear, with the help of Satellite Hookup, we're going to hear from two legal experts and two law enforcement officers and get their comments. And we'll examine some actual scenarios and see how the guidelines apply in each case. Now, you'll probably have some questions after watching this video, and that's good. Ask the federal official conducting this session about anything you're not clear on. He or she will be happy to help. After a final review of the policy, each of you will receive a copy for your records. You may be asked to sign a form stating you attended this orientation and understand the federal policy on the use of deadly force. So let's get started. My first guest is Dr. Paul Cushman, a constitutional law expert. In private practice, Dr. Cushman represented citizens alleging civil rights violations by police officers. We also have with us Dr. Joyce Brown, a constitutional law expert who has represented municipalities in civil rights violations and was a consultant to the federal government in developing the new deadly force policy. Welcome to you both. Thank you. Thanks again. Let's start with you, Dr. Brown. Please give our officers a little background on why this policy was adopted. All officers know that every situation they encounter is both different and fluid. The circumstances and players can change instantly. And although officers can't control the variables of each situation, they must control the level of their response. To this end, the departments of justice and treasury adopted the deadly force policy. So when it comes to using deadly force, we'll all be using the same guidelines. Exactly. All justice and treasury agencies and task force members follow these guidelines to ensure a uniform response in deciding when to use deadly force on subjects. Each department can still conduct their own training on deadly force, right? Yes. But they'll be teaching these guidelines, which apply to all. Dr. Cushman, how was this policy developed? Input was requested from various federal law enforcement agencies whose officers can use deadly force as well as private sector consultants and outside experts such as my colleague. This made sure the concerns from all sides were heard. Now, I understand there are some Supreme Court guidelines on the use of deadly force? In several cases, the Supreme Court has issued limited guidelines on the use of deadly force. This policy does not exceed those guidelines. In fact, it falls well below them. Okay. Before we go any farther, I want to read verbatim, the federal use of deadly force policy. Law enforcement officers may use deadly force only when necessary. That is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person. I don't know about you, but to me some of these words seem open to interpretation, like deadly force, necessary and imminent. That's a good point. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, the policy includes definitions and explanations of exactly what it means. Deadly force is the use of any force likely to cause death or serious injury. However, using a force not likely to cause death or serious injury but does result in death or serious injury is not governed by this clause. Can you give an example? Sure. Say an officer is trying to control a subject who is out of control, like someone high on PCP. He or she sprays the subject with pepper spray, and the subject goes into cardiac arrest and dies. Although the subject died from being sprayed, the force applied was not deadly force. It was neither intended nor designed to cause such results, and therefore would not fall under the policy. But Dr. Cushman, how does an officer know when deadly force is necessary? Well, necessary means no other reasonable alternative is available and all other available means of preventing imminent danger to yourself or others have failed or will likely fail. I'm sure these men and women would like to hear a scenario. Sure. Officers approach a house at night to arrest a bank robbery suspect who threatened tellers with a gun during the robbery. Two officers go to the front door, others provide cover. OK, what's next? Suddenly, one officer gets a view inside the lighted house through a window. When the officers at the front door knock and announce themselves, the officer watching through the window sees the suspect, matching the description of the robber, pick up a rifle and approach the front door gun in hand. What does he do? The officer fires through the window glass, striking the suspect in the back and the sides. And under the deadly force policy? Use of deadly force is permissible. Why? Deadly force was necessary to eliminate the imminent danger to the other officers. The bank robbery suspect armed himself with a deadly weapon after the officers announced themselves, giving probable cause he intended violent resistance. Verbal warnings were not feasible because of this imminent danger. Joe, I've charted some items to consider when trying to determine necessity. Let's take a look. The likelihood the subject will use deadly force is an obvious factor. So is any knowledge that the subject will submit if the officer uses lesser or no force. Capabilities of the subject such as any physical limitations that could prevent certain actions. The subject's access to weapons, that is, is he armed? The presence of hostages who may be at risk and knowledge of the subject's criminal record. Each answer helps you decide necessity. Okay, here's something else. It says officers may use deadly force if they have reasonable belief the subject poses imminent danger. But let's talk real world. These officers don't have time to pull up criminal records on a subject in the heat of a confrontation. And the federal policy recognizes that. Reasonable belief and probable cause means facts and reasonable inferences drawn by officers at the time of confrontation. Every situation is different. Officers have to make split second decisions and scenarios that unravel second by second. Rest assured, this has been factored into this policy. Dr. Cushman explained to me and our viewers exactly what imminent danger is. Certainly. The most important distinction here is that imminent does not relate to a specific point in time, but rather covers a period of time relevant to the situation. That sounds kind of vague. Give us an example. Well, a subject may pose an imminent danger even if he or she is not, at that moment, pointing a gun at an officer. How's that? If there's a weapon within reach of the subject, if the subject is running with a weapon or to a place where a weapon is, that poses imminent danger. Give us a scenario. Well, let's say that officers approach a house to arrest a different bank robbery subject who also threaten tellers with a gun during the robbery. Before a perimeter can be set up, a person matching the suspect's description bursts from the back door with a gun in his hand and runs through the backyard toward nearby homes. Officers identify themselves, shout, police, stop, or we'll shoot, but the person keeps running. An officer fires a shot from about 15 yards, hitting the subject in the back. And that's an appropriate use of deadly force because the person armed himself with a gun, he was a fleeing felon and posed imminent dangers to the officers and he ignored commands to stop. Right. As long as he was in gunshot range, he could fire on the officers and he therefore posed an imminent danger to residents nearby homes. But shooting at a suspect in a neighborhood poses its own set of risks. Definitely. Again, it's a split-second decision, but officers must decide if shooting in a neighborhood creates a danger to others that outweighs the benefits of using deadly force. Dr. Brown, the policy specifically states that deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of fleeing felons. Only if there is probable cause the subject committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury or death. And if his escape would pose imminent danger to the officer or others. On the other hand, Say you're serving an arrest warrant for interstate flight to avoid prosecution for mail fraud. The subject jumps in his car and a high-speed chase ensues. He eventually crashes the car, jumps out and runs into the woods. You should not use deadly force. Right. He's committed no physical injury to others and therefore poses no imminent danger. Well, this has been a very helpful discussion. Thank you both for taking time out to talk with us. I'm sure we'll be talking with you again on future subjects down the road. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, we've heard the policy and know the key terms like necessary and imminent which help us decide when to use deadly force. Now to discuss the issues surrounding verbal warnings, warning shots, and use of vehicles, we'll hear from two of our own. Special Agent Paul Martinez of the Secret Service is working in the Baltimore Field Office where he's assigned to the Protection Squad. Prior to that, he worked on the Counterfeit Squad and helped develop this deadly force policy. Representing the United States Marshals Service is Deputy U.S. Marshal Frank Morris. Deputy Morris has been an instructor at the Marshall Service Training Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and helped develop this deadly force policy. Before that, he worked in the Northern District of Illinois. Welcome, gentlemen. Glad to be here. Thanks. Let's talk verbal warnings. The policy says that verbal warnings to submit should be given prior to using deadly force if it's feasible and if doing so would not increase the danger to officers or others. Right, but we're not required to put ourselves or others in danger before using deadly force. Again, it's a call each agent must make based on everything he or she knows right then as the circumstances unfold. Yes, yes, that is correct. Are warning shots different? As a general rule, the Federal policy does not allow warning shots by its officers. If an officer shoots, it's to stop a subject, it's to stop warning. Well, there are limited agency exceptions to this rule and if applicable, they'll be discussed following this video presentation. Okay, let's turn now to vehicles. Frank, what's the policy on this? Generally, officers are not allowed to shoot at vehicles solely to disable them. Well, there is, however, one exception relating to the protective responsibilities of the Secret Service. So if you're losing them in a high-speed chase, you can just shoot because they're getting away. Right. What about shooting at the driver or occupants of a vehicle? Officers can only shoot at the driver or occupants of a moving vehicle. If the officer has reasonable belief, the subject poses imminent danger to himself or others. And if the shooting does not create an increased risk to the public. So deciding to shoot at a driver during a high-speed chase down a deserted road would be a quite different decision than deciding to shoot at a driver in a chase down a crowded highway. Yes, that's correct. And it's not just the public risk that you have to think about. Shooting at another vehicle might cause you to crash or be hit by ricocheting bullets or to draw return fire by the driver or the occupant. It's a lot to consider. You've got to weigh the facts at the time and make your best call based on what's authorized. Now, deadly force, obviously, can be used against dogs or vicious animals in self-defense and defense of others. Yes, that's correct. And the non-deadly force clause? Well, what it says is that if force other than deadly force can reasonably be used to accomplish your mission, then deadly force is not permissible. One last scenario. Okay. Let's say officers move in to serve an arrest warrant on a suspect who's committed a series of bombings over the years, resulting in several deaths. When they approach, he sees them and runs, and the officer yells, police, stop or I'll shoot. When the suspect continues to run, the officer fires two rounds, striking him in the back. Deadly force should not have been used. That's exactly right. Although the subject's prior crimes justify he's dangerous, he posed no imminent danger unless her force should have been used. Certainly his crimes are heinous and there's a strong possibility that they'll end, but neither of these situations justifies using deadly force. Well, you certainly cleared up a lot for me, and I'm sure for our viewers as well. As always, it's been a pleasure. Deputy Morris, Special Agent Martinez, thank you both for coming. Thank you. Anytime. No problem. Well, we've covered a lot, so let's quickly review the basics. If you can safely use less than deadly force and publish your mission, then do so. Don't put yourself or others in danger in an attempt to use lesser force. If a subject poses an imminent and grave danger to the officer or others, then deadly force may be used. If the escape of a violent, fleeing felon presents imminent and grave danger to yourself or others, then deadly force is justified. You can fire at occupants in a vehicle only if they pose imminent and grave danger to you or others, and the benefits outweigh the risk to the public. We all know that every situation you run into is unique, each with different players and different circumstances. We hope this discussion will help clarify that we're all operating under the same policy which should help keep you safer on the job and make your job easier. Now that you've heard everything, you probably have a few questions. The federal official assisting in this presentation can answer questions you have about this policy, so feel free to ask. We hope you enjoy your work on this federal task force and thank you for your time. From all of us at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, good day.