Every person has the constitutional right not to be subjected to unreasonable or excessive force by a law enforcement officer. On the other hand, in making an investigatory traffic stop, making an arrest, etc. an officer has the right to use such force as a reasonable officer would believe is necessary under the circumstances to complete the investigatory traffic stop, effectuate what a reasonable officer would believe to be a lawful arrest, etc.. Whether or not the force used was unnecessary, unreasonable or excessively violent is an issue for you to decide on the basis of that degree of force that a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would have applied under the same circumstances disclosed in this case. The test of reasonableness requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances including, but not limited to, the severity of the crime the officer was investigating, crime for which the arrest was made, etc.; whether the client posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others; whether he/she was actively resisting the investigatory traffic stop, arrest, etc.; and the severity of any injury to him/her.

The ―reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the standard of reasonableness at that moment applies. Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary, violates the Constitution. The determination of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

The ―reasonableness inquiry is an objective one. The question is whether an officer‘s actions are ―objectively reasonable in light of all the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, without regard to the officer's underlying intent or motivation. Evil intentions will not make a constitutional violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; and good intentions will not make an unreasonable use of force proper.

Recent developments in policing have elevated concerns about police use of force beyond ordinarily high levels. In particular, community policing, which is becoming widespread as a result of financial incentives by the Federal Government, and “aggressive” policing, which is becoming widely adopted, have come to the fore as perspectives of choice by policing experts. Community policing emphasizes the role of the community as “coproducers” of law and order in conjunction with the police. Communities naturally vary in attributes, and they vary in how they are defined for the purposes of community policing. Consequently, some communities look to add restrictions on police use of force, while others are satisfied with the status quo, and still others seek to ease current restrictions. Regardless of the community’s orientation on this issue, community policing means increased levels of accountability and responsiveness in key areas, such as use of force. Increased accountability hinges on new information, and new information stimulates debate.

The other emerging perspective is “aggressive” policing, which often falls under the rubric of the broken windows theory, and, as a strategic matter, is concerned with intensifying enforcement against quality-of-life and order maintenance offenses. The influence of aggressive policing can be seen in the proliferation of “zero tolerance” enforcement strategies across the Nation. The concern is that the threat posed by petty offenders may be exaggerated to the point that use of force becomes more commonplace and abuses of force more frequent.