Policy Text
TRAINING BULLETIN
Effective Date:
26 Jul 06 Index Number: III-X
Alpha Index: Lethal Force and Vehicles
“Department Training Bulletins shall be used to advise members of current police techniques and
procedures and shall constitute official policy.”
LETHAL FORCE AND VEHICLES
Recent high-profile confrontations between officers and suspects inside moving vehicles make evident the
need for officers to fully understand Department policy and legal standards of reasonableness regarding this
issue.
General Order K–3, Use of Force, is the document cont rolling officers’ use of lethal force and vehicles and
enumerates discharging a firearm at the operator of a moving vehicle as follows:
1 The use of lethal force against the occupant of a motor vehicle is only authorized when it is
reasonably necessary to:
o Defend the member or another person against the vehicle occupant’s imminent threat of death
or serious bodily injury by means other than the vehicle; OR
o Defend the member or another person against the vehicle operator’s use of the vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury and the member or other person has no reasonable avenue of
protection or escape.
• Members shall be prohibited from positioning themselves in a location vulnerable to
vehicular attack;
• Whenever possible, a member shall move out of the way of the vehicle instead of
discharging his or her firearm at the operator;
• Members shall not discharge a firearm at the op erator of the vehicle when the vehicle has
passed and is attempting to escape.
o Members must consider whether the threat to the member or other persons is increased by
incapacitating the operator with lethal force, consid ering that, if the operator is incapacitated,
the vehicle may still be a threat to anyone in the vehicle’s path. This threat must be weighed
against the threat posed by the suspect continuing in control of the vehicle.
2 Firearms shall not be discharged under the following circumstances:
o As a warning;
o At a moving vehicle except as defined in Part 1 above; or
o From a moving vehicle.
2
Lethal Force and Vehicles, Index Number III-X
Legal Standard
The Department’s Use of Force policy is based in part on Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1 and
Graham v. Conner (1989) 490 U.S. 386.
Tennessee v. Garner states that the lawfulness of police conduct in seizing a suspect by the use of lethal force
is governed by the “reasonableness st andard” of the Fourth Amendment.
Graham v. Conner explains the reasonableness standard by pointin g out that the “reasonableness” test is an
objective one. The ques tion is whether an officer’s actions are “o bjectively reasonable” in light of the facts
and circumstances confronting him or her, without regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation.
The courts—and the public—are questioning the reasonableness of officers shooting at vehicles in a number
of situations. Here are two examples:
In 1996, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a $259,000 judgment against a Bay Area police
officer who shot and killed a suspect wanted for purse snatching driving a slow moving car.
The officer said he fired because the car was about to run him over, but the cour t found that “a reasonable
officer could not have reasonably believed that shooting a slowly moving vehicle was lawful.”
In a second example, an officer positioned himself in front of the vehicle of a petty theft suspect attempting to flee. When the suspect drove at the office r in order to escape, the officer shot him.
The question of “reasonableness” aris es in this instance because the core transaction is a minor offense. A
court questions whether it is reasonable for the officer to place him/herself inappropriately in harm’s way,
escalating the incident from a misdem eanor to a felonious vehicular attack in which the officer discharges a
firearm at the driver.
In incidents such as these, courts as k, “Is the officer putting himself or herself in harm’s way as a justification
for using lethal force?” and “Why didn’t the officer just get out of the way?” A court might also ask, “What
did the officer hope to accomplish?” Bullets are unlikel y to stop a vehicle, and even if the driver is
incapacitated, the vehicle’s momentum continues to be an imminent threat to the officer if the officer is
positioned in the vehicle’s path.
In these cases, courts examine the relationship of the force used to the core transaction. The proportionality
of the force used in response to a threat must be reasonable. The use of lethal force in response to a core transaction that is a misdemeanor, for example, is lik ely to be deemed unreasonab le. Police officers are never
justified in using force to punish.
Officers on Foot
Officers approaching a vehicl e on foot should consider the followi ng factors that can compromise their
safety:
1 An officer shall not intentionally position himself or herself in a location vulnerable to vehicular
attack.
2 When a vehicle is used as the instrument of lethal force, the officer shall move out of the way of the
vehicle instead of using lethal force whenever possibl e. If the driver is inca pacitated, the vehicle in
motion will continue in motion until it collides with something. Bullets do not stop vehicles.
3
26 Jul 06 ● Oakland Police Department
3 When a vehicle is used as the instrument of lethal force, officers shall not discharge their firearms at
the driver unless the officer or a thir d party has no