The use of deadly force by the police is a highly charged and debated issue. Nevada is no exception to these discussions. The matter is intricate. It involves aspects of law enforcement, public safety, and individual rights. Determining when deadly force becomes necessary and justifiable is challenging, especially given law enforcement's complex and demanding nature. Officers frequently encounter high-pressure situations where split-second decisions carry profound consequences.

Efforts to tackle this challenge include a range of strategies, for example, ongoing training for officers and community policing initiatives to foster trust and understanding. Added to the list is the establishment of clear and consistent use-of-force policies. These measures have been implemented to navigate and address the complexities of law enforcement using deadly force. Below are some policies adopted thus far that address the question, “When are police officers allowed to use deadly force?”

When Defending Themselves or a Third Party Against an Immediate Threat of Bodily Harm

The rationale behind law enforcement officers resorting to deadly force rests on the fundamental principle of protecting their lives or the lives of others in the face of an immediate threat of severe bodily harm or death.

The officer's judgment depends on reasonably believing in the presence of an imminent threat to their own life or the lives of others. This assessment relies on the information available at the time of the incident.

Moreover, the application of force, including deadly force, is expected to be proportionate to the severity of the perceived threat.

When Making Arrests

Law enforcement officers can typically use deadly force when there is an immediate threat of serious harm or death to themselves or others. This situation could arise when a suspect is dangerous and fails to comply with verbal warnings or attempts at de-escalation, even when non-lethal methods have been tried.

Officers receive training emphasizing the importance of de-escalation techniques and using non-lethal force when appropriate. However, if confronted with a life-threatening scenario and other reasonable measures prove unsuccessful or ineffective, law enforcement officers resort to deadly force as a last option to safeguard themselves or others.

When Attempting to Stop a Fleeing Suspect

Law enforcement officers can use force proportionate to the threat a suspect poses. In the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court established that, under specific circumstances, the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect is constitutionally permissible. These circumstances involve:

  • Probable cause for a felony — Deadly force could be justifiable if there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a felony involving grave bodily harm or the use of lethal force.
  • Imminent threat — The use of deadly force could be warranted if the suspect poses an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or others. The use of force is considered a last resort, and officers are expected to assess the threat level before deciding on the use of force.
  • Warning (if feasible) — Officers are generally expected to issue a warning before resorting to lethal force when feasible. However, the feasibility of providing a warning depends on the circumstances. Police officers could be exempt from this requirement if it compromises their safety or the safety of others.

What happens in situations that involve felony offenses?

In cases involving felonies, law enforcement can pursue the recapture of an escaped inmate who has been committed, arrested, or convicted for a felony offense. Authorities have the legal mandate to apprehend and return an escaped inmate arrested for or convicted of a felony.

Although it is generally deemed inappropriate for officers to use lethal force when dealing with individuals who have committed misdemeanors, an exception is made if the suspect poses a serious risk to the life of the officer or a third party. This risk warrants the use of lethal force as necessary and proportional to address an imminent threat.

When Suppressing Riots

Riots have the potential to escalate into dangerous situations. This leads law enforcement officers to potentially employ deadly force to quell unrest and restore order or peace. Deadly force is a last-resort measure used when there is an imminent threat to public safety or lives. This happens, especially when alternative crowd control or de-escalation methods prove ineffective. In these critical scenarios, officers must protect themselves, others, or public property from harm.

However, individuals expressing anger during a protest, even in an otherwise peaceful setting, do not justify the application of lethal force. Lethal force is reserved for situations involving clear and immediate threats to life or serious bodily harm. Law enforcement officers must employ non-lethal means and de-escalation strategies during peaceful protests. There is a need to strike a balance between maintaining order and respecting the rights of individuals.

Internal Affairs Investigations

Individuals who believe they are victims of police misconduct, including incidents like police killings, generally have the right to file complaints with the relevant law enforcement agency. In Nevada, complainants can submit their grievances directly to the specific police department employing the officers implicated in the incident.

Police departments commonly maintain internal affairs divisions or units investigating complaints against their officers.

When initiating a complaint, individuals need to furnish details about the incident. It should include dates, times, locations, and any supporting evidence they possess. It is prudent to adhere to the precise procedures outlined by the concerned police department or oversight agency.

While conducting its mandate, the internal affairs (IA) investigation will engage in various activities. Common practices during an internal affairs investigation include:

  • Placing the officer on leave — In some instances, mainly when allegations are serious or involve potential criminal conduct, a police department could opt to put the officer on administrative leave during the investigation. This measure ensures the investigation's integrity is preserved. Additionally, it prevents the officer from participating in any law enforcement duties while under scrutiny.
  • Hearing — The nature and mandate of the hearing are subject to the department’s policies and the nature of the allegations. Some investigations involve interviews with the officer, witnesses, and the complainant.
  • Investigation process — The internal affairs investigation encompasses evidence-gathering interviews with involved parties and witnesses. After that, they review the relevant documentation. The objective is to ascertain whether the officer's actions violated department policies or procedures.
  • Outcome — Upon the completion of the investigation, an outcome will be determined. Depending on the findings, the officer may face disciplinary action, including suspension, termination, or no action if the allegations are unsubstantiated.

Online complaint forms are a convenient and streamlined way to express concerns about law enforcement conduct. In Nevada, individuals with a complaint against an officer can use the online complaint forms offered by the following police departments:

When submitting a complaint, it is advisable to seek the assistance of a personal injury attorney for optimal guidance.

Pursuing a Civil Suit Against the Police For Use of Deadly Force

When police officers deviate from the instances they are allowed to use deadly force, and it results in the demise of a loved one, you can pursue legal action. The civil action aims to secure compensation for the loss the officer’s actions caused.

You have various legal avenues for seeking redress based on the circumstances:

  1. Wrongful Death Claim

Consider pursuing a wrongful death claim in cases where excessive police force has resulted in tragic outcomes. That is, the officer’s use of force led to the untimely death of a loved one. This legal recourse enables grieving family members to seek compensation for the financial and emotional toll.

The awards from these lawsuits cover expenses such as:

  • Funeral costs.
  • Loss of financial support and
  • The profound emotional distress experienced in the aftermath.

As the plaintiff in a wrongful death claim, you are required to establish specific elements:

  • The death of a person ("decedent") — It is imperative to confirm the demise of an individual as a direct consequence of the incident under consideration.
  • Defendant’s wrongful act or negligence caused the death — A critical facet involves demonstrating a causal link between the demise and the defendant’s wrongful act, negligence, or misconduct.
  • Surviving family members suffering monetary injury — A key element is illustrating that surviving family members, specifically spouses, children, or dependents, have experienced financial losses directly attributable to the death. These losses could include the deprivation of the deceased's financial support, inheritance, or other economic contributions.
  • The plaintiff is an heir or personal representative of the decedent — You must verify your status as an heir or the authorized personal representative of the decedent's estate. This substantiates your legal standing to initiate the wrongful death claim on behalf of the deceased individual.

Other than the compensatory damages mentioned, the courts could award punitive damages. The value could be as high as three times the value of the compensatory damages awarded. You will likely receive punitive damages if the courts determine that the defendant’s actions:

  • Showed a reckless disregard for human life.
  • Showed intentional misconduct.
  • Were fraudulent or intentionally deceitful.

Punitive damages aim to punish the officer and serve as a deterrent for others not to engage in similar conduct.

  1. Section 1983 Claim

Alternatively, you could explore a Section 1983 claim. This avenue is available to you, your family, or the estate under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code. It allows individuals to seek legal remedies for civil rights violations arising from instances of excessive force by law enforcement.

It could be argued that there is no civil rights violation more severe than causing serious bodily harm or death. These actions represent egregious breaches of fundamental rights, including the right to life, liberty, and security.

Note: Only employees of city, county, or state police departments can face legal action under Section 1983. This statute provides a means for individuals to seek recourse for civil rights violations committed by those operating at the local or state level. Conversely, employees of federal law enforcement agencies can be the subject of legal action through a Bivens lawsuit. The lawsuit is a federal equivalent to a Section 1983 lawsuit.

You can recover compensatory damages for any injuries your loved one sustained before their demise. These awards also cater to the loss of future earnings and your attorney’s fees. It is also possible that the courts will award punitive damages.

  1. Battery Claims

Victims who sustain injuries but do not succumb to excessive police force have the right to pursue justice through a battery claim. In these instances, individuals who have suffered physical harm can file legal action against those responsible. The lawsuits seek damages for the intentional use of force resulting in harm.

Defendants in Lawsuits Involving the Use of Deadly Force

There are several people or entities you can sue in your pursuit of compensation for your losses that resulted from the death of your loved one. The common defenses in the use of deadly force cases include the following:

  1. Sheriff’s Deputy or Police Officers

The officers directly implicated in using deadly force are cited as defendants in the lawsuit. You will include them since they are responsible for their actions because they pulled the trigger.

  1. Sheriff or Police Chief

As the highest-ranking officials overseeing the entire department, these individuals shape policies, procedures, and the organizational culture.

Including the sheriff or police chief as a defendant is rooted in their supervisory role. They are tasked with ensuring officers adhere to protocols, receive proper training, and uphold high standards of conduct. If a lawsuit alleges deficiencies in supervision, training, or departmental policies, the sheriff or police chief could be held responsible for their leadership decisions.

Additionally, the sheriff or police chief influences the department's culture and approach to law enforcement. If a legal case claims a systemic issue or a culture of excessive force, these leaders could be implicated for not establishing and enforcing a culture prioritizing civil rights and appropriate force use.

The legal concept of command responsibility holds leaders accountable for subordinates' actions. Allegations that the sheriff or police chief neglected their duty to prevent misconduct or address systemic problems make them potential defendants.

  1. The Sheriff’s Office or Police Department

You can name the police department or sheriff's office as defendants, given their overarching responsibility for officer conduct and the overall operation of the law enforcement agency.

A primary reason for this inclusion is to address potential systemic issues within the organization. If your lawsuit claims that departmental policies, procedures, or training programs contributed to an incident involving the use of force, the department could be held accountable for these institutional factors.

Additionally, the culture within the police department or sheriff's office plays a crucial role. If the legal case argues for a pervasive culture of misconduct, excessive force, or inadequate training within the organization, naming the department or office as a defendant can tackle these broader concerns.

  1. The City or County

Naming the city or county as defendants arises from the municipality's duty to oversee and manage the law enforcement agency within its jurisdiction.

An essential reason for naming the city or county as a defendant is to address potential concerns related to municipal policies and practices. Should a lawsuit assert that city or county-level policies, oversight, or training programs contributed to an incident involving the use of force, the municipality bears accountability for these systemic factors.

Furthermore, legal claims against the city or county could include:

  • Allegations of negligence in policy implementation.
  • Failure to provide sufficient training or
  • A lack of oversight contributes to constitutional violations.

By incorporating the city or county as a defendant, the legal process seeks accountability for individual actions, municipal structures, and practices that may have influenced the alleged misconduct.

Note: Including other entities in the lawsuit is also a strategy to maximize the lawsuit awards. The entities have more significant financial resources than individual officers.

Statute of Limitations

In Nevada, for personal injury claims, specifically those arising from the use of deadly force, you are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. This implies that you have a window of two years from the date of the incident to initiate a lawsuit.

Some exceptions or variations could affect this timeline based on specific circumstances. That is why contacting a personal injury attorney is best to help you pursue the case within the right timeline.

Find a Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

When officers act beyond their expected use of deadly force, and it results in the killing of another, the unfortunate events cause the surviving family members great suffering. It is an incredibly tough situation. While legal actions against the responsible parties cannot bring back your loved one, the awards from the cases offer a form of reprieve. These financial compensations address practical aspects like funeral expenses and loss of financial support. They provide a degree of relief during this challenging time.

The emotional toll remains immeasurable. The legal process seeks justice and support after the tragic event. At the Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney Law Firm, we will help you pursue justice. Call us today at 702-996-1224 to schedule your free case assessment. The evaluation will help us determine the course of action that will result in fair compensation.