Staff Report on the Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement Agencies

    STATE OF MICHIGAN

COMMISSION

Gilberto G. Ibarra, Chairperson
Catherine C. Blackwell, Vice Chairperson
Paul P. Harbrecht, Secretary-Treasury
Beatrice Banks
Carole L Chlamp
Berry C. Goodlett
Fr. Theodore E. LaMarre
Dr. Frederick G. Sampson

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
Senate Office Building 125 W, Allegan St. 

Lansing, Michigan 48913 
RUTH RASMUSSEN, DIRECTOR

TELEPHONE (517) 373-7634

May 18, 1981

DETROIT OFFICE 
State of Michigan Plaza Bldg. 

1200 Sixth Avenue 
Detroit. Michigan 48226 

Telephone (313) 256-2570

TO: The Commission

FROM: Ruth Rasmussen
Director

SUBJECT: DEADLY FORCE REPORT

Please find attached a copy of the staff report you requested 
on police use of deadly force. Also included is a summary of 
the report.

Staff will be prepared to answer any questions you may have 
on the content of the report.

Attach.

m iChlgwn
THE
GREAT
LAKE
STATE

.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE REPORT

The report was written as a result of continuing concern over deaths of 
minority persons in Michigan cities. It is written for two purposes:
(a) to establish a position and a rationale for the position; and (b) to 
provide staff with a document which can be used in working with local law 
enforcement officials.

Staff undertook the following steps in preparing the report: (a) survey
of literature on the subject; (b) a survey and analysis of 82 police 
department policies and (c) discussion of the issue with several local 
community and law enforcement officials.

As a result of staff activity, staff found that:

- The law governing deadly force in this state is based solely 
on court cases, and is frequently confusing.

- The fleeing felon rule, which permits officers to use deadly 
force against persons accused of any felony, has the effect
of imposing the death penalty for felonies which do not involve 
any physical force, particularly crimes against property.

- While there is no Michigan racial data available, it is estimated, 
on a national basis, about 50 percent of all persons killed by 
police action are minority persons.

- The policies reviewed indicated a varied pattern of inconsistent, 
sometimes confusing or contradictory, standards within the same 
document and great disparity among departments. Some policies 
only "follow state law."

- There is a great deal of concern within the policy community 
over the deadly force issue because of recent court cases 
creating civil liability as a result of police use of deadly 
force.

Data on citizens shot within the state is difficult to obtain. 
Data is kept only on police officers shot. There is also no 
data on citizens killed during police auto pursuits.

Few officers are ever prosecuted under criminal laws as a 
result of police use of deadly force. In some cases, this may 
be because the individual policies have only a vague requirement 
that such force was necessary or perhaps because of reluctance 
of prosecutors to prosecute.

Training of officers on deadly force may not occur after 
completion of the state-required hours for certification as an 
officer. Aids which provide training in situational discretion 
are limited. Training budgets have been cut badly in the current 
budget crunch.

Security guards receive no mandatory training in firearms, and 
have been involved in shooting situations.



-2-

- There are few, if any, support services available to officers 
wlio are involved in shootings.

Based on these conclusions, staff has recommended:

- Adoption of a model policy for local police agencies.

- Elimination of the fleeing felon rule (by statute).

- Restriction, by statute, of the deadly force use in those 
situations in which there is a "reasonable belief that there is 
an immediate threat" to the life of the officer, another officer 
or a member of the public.

- Statutory mandates which will require additional training in the 
use of deadly force, particularly in the use of discretion.

- Statutory enactment which would require reporting of shooting 
incidents to the Attorney General, who would be authorized to 
investigate situations in which there may be criminal liability 
questions.



STAFF REPORT ON 

THE 1 ^  ̂  DEADLY FORCE 

BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Submitted to the 
Civil Rights Commission 
May 18, 1981



C O N T E N T S

I. OVERVIEW

Page

1

II. HISTORICAL & CURRENT DEVELOPMENT

A. Background
B. Legal

III. SURVEY

A. Process Used
B. Definitions
C. Factors
D. General Analysis
E. Clarity of Policies
F. Grounds for Belief - the evi'
G • Felonies Involved
H. Analysis of Categories

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

A. Capital Punishment
B. Equal Protection
C. Due Process
D. Cruel & Unusual Punishment

V. TRAINING

12

34

VI. RELATED ISSUES

VII. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

VIII. DRAFT POLICY

FOOTNOTES

39

42

46

50

52

ATTACHMENTS

A. Survey Table

B. Samples of Policies

1. Battle Creek
2. Kalamazoo
3. Saginaw
4. Genessee County



I. OVERVIEW

Incidents involving the use of deadly force against citizens by law 

enforcement officers have occurred with alarming frequency in recent years.

Since these incidents very often involve minority citizens, the Civil Rights 

Commission has been faced with a repetitive pattern which also may entail an 

escalation in community-police tension.

Concern for the tension situations and tremendous human cost which these 

continuing incidents cause led the commission to request a full report on the 

issue in August, 1980. The present report is an attempt to respond to this 

request. The department has attempted to present an objective analysis of the 

issue and suggest a series of steps for future efforts in abating the causes 

of conflict on this issue.

Staff undertook a series of activities in the preparation of this report, 

including the following: (a) review and analysis of available studies, reports

and the existing Michigan law; (b) a survey of deadly force policies among 

law enforcement agencies; (c) analysis of 82 internal policies which were 

received by our district offices, and (d) discussion with community leaders 

and law enforcement officials.

Following completion of these steps, the present report was drafted.

Focus in the report centers upon several areas: (a) analysis of the adequacy

of present standards and practices, and (b) development of policy and criteria 

which can be used for a consistent, strong set of standards which are protective 

of life and workable for enforcement officials and officers. From this report, 

we hope to draw a rationale for proposing a limitation on the present law and 

a set of materials which can be used by our staff, in working with community 

groups and police organizations, as part of departmental program efforts.



-2-

We have attempted to limit our report to those issues which bear directly 

on the deadly force issue. For this reason, the report does not delve into 

gun control, police use of non-deadly force, treatment of citizens by police, 

or the entire issue of self-defense by anyone.

Staff has found the issue a complex one with deeply entrenched thinking 

on the part of both police and community. It is also an area which is subject 

to significant changes in legal standards, including the liability of officers, 

police departments and municipalities. There is a tremendous amount of research, 

discussion and development on the entire deadly force issue, which may be 

utilized by everyone who is working with deadly force problems.

Cooperation and recognition of honestly held differences is essential if 

constructive resolution to the issue is to be achieved. Civil Rights groups 

cannot assume traditionally adversarial roles if change is to be achieved.

The police community must respect the opinion of minority groups and seek to 

reverse the existing distrust of the police. Staff has been very impressed 

with the attitude which both community and law enforcement officials have shown 

in working with staff on this report. It is the intent of both the department 

and commission to play an active, constructive role in seeking solutions to 

what we regard as a major problem in this state.



-3-

II. HISTORICAL & CURRENT DEVELOPMENT

To better understand the deadly force issue, it is helpful to review its 

development to the present time and the legal issues from which have evolved 

the present standards.

A. Background. During the last decade, over 278 persons were killed by 

police fire, many of them black and Hispanic people. In addition, 49 Michigan 

police officers were killed by citizens while acting as officers. The FBI's 

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) show the following national figures for officers killed 

in the line of duty:

U.S. Michigan
1970 100

1971 129 13

1972 116 6

1973 134 5

1974 132 12

1975 129 5

1976 111 3

1977 93 2

1978 93 2

1979 106 1

1,143 49

Information on Michigan citizens killed is difficult to obtain. The staff 

survey reflected 278 citizens killed, but the survey was not a statewide survey. 

The following data for Detroit indicates a significant part of the staff survey 

totals for both officer and citizen deaths:



-4-

Police Citizens
1970 4 1970 15

1971 6 1971 41

1972 3 1972 35

1973 3 1973 27

1974 5 1974 26

1975 0 1975 25

1976 0 1976 22

1977 0 1977 19

1978 0 1978 15

1979 0 1979 15

The ratio for Detroit is roughly 12 citizens to one police officer death, 

a ratio significantly higher than the 6 to 1 ratio found in Chicago.^

Other statistics bear on the issue. Several studies support the conclusion 

that about half the citizens were black. The figures vary according to the 

study with some figures as high as 80 percent minority for several large urban
O

areas. The difficulty in obtaining data on the number of Hispanics killed is

based on the fact that racial data are frequently not reported and Hispanics

were counted as "white" prior to 1970 statistics.^ An overwhelming number of

5the officers involved in shootings were white. There are conflicting statements 

as to whether the presence of minority officers lessen the incidence of citizen 

deaths.

The absence of statistics is an area of critical need. Police agencies 

apparently do not publish racial data, and the OCR statistics do not reflect 

any racial data. Further, UCR statistics are apparently gathered only for 

police officers shot, not for citizens shot.

A Police Foundation staff person has been recently quoted as stating that
0

police account for 3.8 percent of the nation's homocides each year.

The dimensions of the problem may also be seen in the following incidents:



• 5 -

Situation A . Two officers respond to a telephone call that four black 

teen-agers are burglarizing a house. Upon arrival at the address, the officers 

search the driveway and yard surrounding the house. A 15-year-old black youth 

emerges from the house, runs and is shot dead. The subsequent police and 

prosecutorial review clears the officer. A subsequent investigation by the 

city ombudsman raises questions as to the accuracy of the officer's version of 

the events, including a question of whether the youth could have been stopped 

without the use of the weapon. A taped conversation of the officers' report 

to the dispatcher reveals that the dispatching officer congratulated the officers 

for the shooting. An extremely strong community reaction occurs and litigation 

is initiated. The police department is critical of the ombudsman's investigatic.i 

as "unprofessional," and lacking in knowledge of homicide investigations.

Situation B. An officer is sent to an apartment building in response to 

a domestic violence call. When the officer knocks on the door, an occupant 

opens the door and fires a fatal shot at the officer. The officer has no warning 

or indication that the occupants may have a gun.

Situation C. An officer stops a car on a routine traffic violation. As 

the officer approaches the car, the occupant opens fire and kills the officer.

The occupant has a police record. Again, there is no warning of difficulty.

Situation D. A young Hispanic man is involved in a barroom fight and 

flees the bar as law enforcement officers arrive. He turns around, the officer 

orders him to stop, but he turns and runs again. The officer shoots and kills 

the man on the grounds that he believed the man was reaching for a weapon. The 

young man had no weapon, and witnesses stated that there was nothing done by 

the man which would have indicated he had a weapon. The resulting litigation 

was recently settled with a substantial payment to the estate of the young man.



-6-

Situation E. An off-duty sheriff calls his office to report a suspicious 

car in a grocery store parking lot. When the sheriff's car arrives, the car 

leaves, with a 22-year-old black man at the wheel. A brief chase ensues, the 

police force the man's car to stop. The young man then jumps out and runs.

An officer shoots and kills the man. Subsequently, the department and prosecutor 

investigate, and the officer is charged with involuntary manslaughter. He is 

tried and acquitted. Several black community leaders voice their concern over 

the manner in which the situation is handled, and community tension escalates.

Several problems may be identified in the above which are perhaps broadly 

representative of many other situations:

1. Officers frequently are called upon to make decisions in a split- 

second, and failure to react may cost their lives.

2. Subsequent analysis of officers' actions involve what is essentially 

a difficult review of whether the officer used reasonable judgment.

This "second guessing" was a concern voiced by several police command 

officers during staff interviews.

3. The review of police actions may be a complex one and a difficult one 

for the prosecutor who is "on the same side" of law enforcement as 

the police officer.

4. The shooting incident may elevate existing community distrust of police, 

particularly where the individual officer's judgment appears unreasonable 

in retrospect. These problems are further discussed in the survey 

analysis in this report.

Staff found interest and activity on the deadly force are widespread.

Current projects are under way in which the National Urban League, national 

NAACP and national LaRaza Unida are working with the International Chiefs of 

Police Association, the Police Foundation and the University of California at 

Irvine. These reports are due in the next few months. These projects are 

somewhat controversial in the police community.



-7-

Two documents have provided an interesting perspective on the progress 

of this issue. (A 1926 Hamtramck Police Department policy reflects virtually 

the same policy and standards as exist in other departments today, though the 

current Hamtramck policy reflects changes from the 1926 version.)

A second document was developed by a group of Flint citizens in 1970. A 

1963 survey is referenced in the report which indicates that only 27 of 49 

police departments surveyed had no policies, a situation which is somewhat 

improved today. Other references to the report are contained in this report,
g

which staff found very relevant to today's concerns.

B. Development of the Law. There is no statute in Michigan to govern 

the use of deadly force by police officers. The law governing police use of 

deadly force is based on the common law of the state as developed by court 

decisions. The basic rule is that a law enforcement officer may, upon reasonable 

belief, defend herself or himself or another person from the use of deadly 

force and may shoot a fleeing felon. If an officer fails to meet the evidence 

standard, usually a reasonable belief, the shooting would not be considered a 

"justifiable" homicide and would be murder. The issue must be examined as both 

a self-defense issue and a fleeing felon issue. The rule is the same as that 

which originated in the common law in England. The basic Michigan rule was 

enunciated in Delude v. Raasaka, a 1974 Michigan Supreme Court case and in 

People V . Gonsler, a 1930 case.

The original policy behind the fleeing felon rule was two-fold. First, 

escape was tantamount to receipt of no punishment since there was no communication 

system and no technology to assist in capturing a felon who left the area. A 

second basis lay in the fact that all common law felonies (murder, rape, assault, 

robbery, sodomy) were capital offenses and death would result upon conviction.

The number of common law felonies was very much limited.



-8-

Current Michigan law lists several hundred crimes as felonies. Included 

in this list are a large number of offenses which involve no violence or physical 

harm to others. Some of these felonies are: Bookmaking, embezzlement, possession

of stolen property, bribery, and some forms of grand theft, i.e., shoplifting, 

if over $100 is involved.

The picture which emerges from the evolution of the fleeing felon rule is 

that its original basis is no longer relevant and that expansion of the number 

and type of offenses make the present "all felons" rule unjust and unworkable.

The courts have made some incursions on the rule, particularly at the 

federal level. The general trend during recent years has been to limit the 

rule to violent or "forcible" felonies. This trend is reflected in many of the 

policies staff examined in its survey.

Most of the thrust to modify the fleeing felon rule lies in the development 

of the liability standards for police officers, departments and municipalities.

The cases have arisen under state wrongful death and negligence statutes and 

through federal civil rights and constitutional standards.

The leading case on the extent of liability appears to be Monel 1 v.

Department of Social Services, which is cited below. The court stated that a 

municipality could be liable under 42 US 1983 when the unconstitutional action 

implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision 

officially adopted and promulgated' by municipal officers. The liability extends 

to a "custom" which does not have formal approval, including 'persistent and 

widespread discriminatory practices of state officials.' The policy or custom 

could be set by a police department as well as a city council under this standard.

There have been a number of efforts to change or clarify the fleeing felon 

and deadly force rules. In 1962, the American Law Institute adopted the following 

recommended standard, which has been incorporated into many of the police policies 

of the state. Deadly force may be used when "the arresting officer believes



-9-

(1) that the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the 

use of deadly force, or (2) there is substantial risk that the person to be
9

arrested will cause death or serious injury if his apprehension is delayed."

Eight states have adopted this form of the rule by statute. The general

rule is followed nationally. Twenty-four states have enacted statutes on the

use of deadly force, but only seven have limited the fleeing felon rule.

The Michigan Bar Association adopted what is only a small change from the

common law rule in its draft Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 631. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a peace officer
is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to 
extent that he reasonably believes it necessary under either of the 
following conditions;

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an 
arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized.

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably 
believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effec- 
ing or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or 
attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon 
another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) only when 
he reasonably believes that it is necessary under any of the follow­
ing conditions:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably 
believes to be the use of imminent use of deadly physical force.

(b) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a 
person whom he reasonably believes has committed a felony involving 
force against either person or property.

(c) To lawfully suppress a riot or insurrection.

The Legislature has also been active in the area of fleeing felon rule

reform. HB 6027 of 1980 was introduced by Representative Joseph Conroy of

Flint as a result of his work with Flint citizens. The bill died at the end

of the 1979-80 legislature. The key provision in his bill was the following:

Sec. 2. A police officer or security guard may use a firearm against 
another person under the following circumstances:

(a) When there is or reasonably appears to be danger to the life of 
the police officer, security guard, or another person.

(b) When the police officer, security guard, or another person is or 
reasonably appears to be subject to a felonious assault.



-10-

(c) To effect an arrest for the commission of a felony only when all
other efforts to effect the arrest have failed; except that a firearm
shall not be used because a person is fleeing the police officer or 
security guard and is only suspected of having committed^ felony, or 
because the person fails to stop at the command of a police officer
or security guard, or the person runs a blockade.

During the present legislative session. Senator Harry Gast from the St. 

Joseph-Benton Harbor area introduced SB 34, which is presently before the Senate 

Judiciary Committee. The bill is essentially a modification of the common law 

rule. It does not qualify "felony" in any way but permits deadly force if 

"alternate measures would be unreasonably dangerous," plus one of a list of 

additional conditions: (a) offense was a felony; (b) person is armed;

(c) person threatens or uses deadly force.

Legislation provides a significant part of the staff recommendations, 

listed later in this report. Several cases bear on related questions regarding 

the use of deadly force, as discussed by the Lawyers' Guild handbook.

1. Most felonies cannot be punished by death, Coker v. Georgia,
975 set 2861 (1977).

2. There is a fundamental due process right to life; Mattes v. Schnarr 
502 F 2d 588 (8th Cir) 1974; Contra, Jones v. Marshal 1 528 F 2d 132 
(2d Cir 1975).

3. Right to life without deprivation of due process-use deadly force 
only when:
(a) felony suspect cannot otherwise be apprehended;
(b) suspect used deadly force in commission of felony or there is 
reason to believe he will employ deadly force if not immediately 
apprehended;
Landrum v. Moats 576 F 2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1978) ____
Contra: Wiley v. Memphis Police Department 548 F 2d 1247 (6th Cir. 1977)

Qual1s V . Parrish 534 F 2d 690 (6th Cir. 1976)

4. Officer can raise good faith defense when local police manual 
misinterprets state law;
Landrum, Supra

5. Officer held to local department standard which was higher than 
that of the state law;
Peterson v. City of Long Beach 594 P 2d 477 (SCt Calif 1979)
Also, Garner v. Memphis Police Department 600 F 2d 52 (6th Cir. 1979)

6. City may be liable for actions of police officers and officials;
Monel 1 V . Department of Social Services 436 US 658 (1978)

7. Racially motivated police misconduct is subject to liability under
42 US 1981; , ^
Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F 2d 1018 (3d Cir. 1977) cert den 438 US 904 (1978)



■11

8. Use of hollow point ammunition;
Garner, Supra

9. No liability because of city policy requiring officers to carry 
weapon off-duty and outside city;
LaRocco V . City of New York, 468 F Supp 218 (E.D.N.4. 1979)

10. Inadequate training and supervision may create municipal liability; 
Owens V . Haas, 601 F 2d 1242 (2d Cir. 1979)
Turpin v. Mai let, 619 F 2d 196 (2d Cir. 1980)
Leite v. City of Providence, 463 F Supp 585 (D.R.I. 1978)
Knight v. Carlson, 478 F Supp 55 (E.D. Calif 1979)

11. Supervisor may be liable for failure to train subordinates; 
McClelland v. Facteau, 610 F 2d 693 (10th Cir. 1979)

Michigan standards are enunciated in the following cases:

1. "Necessary" force. Delude v. Raasakka, 391 Mich 296 (1974);

2. "Honestly appeared to him at the time to be reasonable and right," 
Firestone v. Rice, 71 Mich 377 (1888); People v. Gonsler, 251 Mich 
443 (1930);

3. Can't use deadly force if not needed. People v. McCord, 76 Mich 200 (1889;

4. Self-defense justification "is based on circumstances as they appe irGd 
to the victim, and not as they actually existed." Must result in 
reasonable belief that victim is in danger of death;
People V . Perez, 66 Mich App 685.

5. Police have the right to use "that force reasonable under the 
circumstances" to make the arrest; Reasonableness of the force 
used must be judged "in the light of the circumstances as they 
appeared to the officer at the time he acted;" General standard 
is that of an "ordinary prudent and intelligent person."
People V . Doss, 406 Mich 90.

6. People V . Burt, 51 Mich 199.



•12-

III. SURVEY

A. Process Used. Many of the concerns developed in this report arose 

from the survey of police department policies by Community Relations Bureau 

staff. Over 100 letters were sent by staff to police departments, all of which 

are located in areas of minority population or in areas which border areas of 

significant minority population. Departments were asked for three things:

(a) a copy of the departmental policy on the use of deadly force; (b) the 

number of citizens killed by police action in the last ten years; (c) the 

number of police officers killed by citizens in the last ten years. The latter 

two categories were discussed earlier in the report. Most of the inquiries and 

responses were made in September and October, 1980. A number of departments 

sent policies, departmental procedures manuals, command orders and training 

materials. It is possible that some departments did not send all parts of 

their policies which pertain to the use of deadly force, which may limit the 

accuracy of our evaluation. It also should be noted that a number of departments 

indicated that they are revising their policies.

As reflected in the attached table, 82 policies were received and evaluated. 

Several areas were assessed by the survey, including the following: (a) whether

a policy existed; (b) the strength of the legal standards used; (c) clarify of 

the standard as a guide to conduct; (d) consistency of the standards, both 

internally and as compared to other policies, and (e) substantive areas covered 

by the policies, as suggested by an 11-factor list. The list borrows most of 

the items from elements used by the Police Foundation Report. A large number 

of blank spaces are apparent in categories other than arrest, fleeing felon 

and defense of persons. Since staff did not specifically request information 

on these areas, it is possible that departments address these points in other 

parts of their policies and the blank space may not always accurately reflect 

actual department policy for the category.



-13-

B. Definitions. The power of arrest was divided into three categories: 

arrest, fleeing felon rule and defense of self and others. The remaining 

categories were found in the Police Foundation Report. All categories were 

found as sources of deadly force concerns in the foundation report.

For purposes of the evaluation, deadly force is force which could or is 

likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. It includes deadly weapons (guns, 

knives, explosives, blades) and the use of any instrument which is deadly 

because of the manner in which it is used, such as a blunt instrument, fists, 

or an automobile. The use also includes attempts to kill or cause serious bodily 

harm. In the remainder of this analysis section, the report will examine the 

general issues identified with the policies.

C. The factors as set forth on the table, are:

1. Arrest. Used for the act of arresting a suspect, but used on 
many policies as a generic term to include arrest, fleeing felon 
and defense of person.

2. Fleeing felon. Used to distinguish the common law rule.

3. Defense of self, others. Applies to the right of self-defense 
and the officer's duty to protect others from similar threat 
to life or person.

4. Moving vehicles. Used to examine the specific problems arising 
primarily from the use of automobiles.

5. Innocent bystanders. Indicates the concern for protection of 
persons not involved in the confrontation between citizen and 
police.

6. Warning shots. Applies to the practice of firing a shot before 
aiming further shots to kill.

' Off-duty. Involves practices authorizing the use of weapons 
while not actually in uniform or on duty.

8. Second guns. Reflects the practice of carrying second guns on 
the officer's person, both on duty and off, and includes shotguns.

9. Juveniles. Reflects the distinction drawn in the law for juveniles.

10. Drawing & displaying. Applies to when a weapon may be unholstered 
and pointed (displayed).

11. Reporting. Covers the accountability procedures used after weapons 
are fired.



-14-

D. General Analysis. The primary issue in analyzing the policies lies in 

determining what standard for use of deadly force each department uses. For 

this reason, we divided the policies into groups; (a) limitation to defense 

of person; (b) a modified fleeing felon rule; (c) open policies, which are 

simply following the common law, (d) those which are not readily categorized.

1. The first category limits the use of deadly force to self-defense or 

defense of others. Thirteen policies fall into this category. The Battle 

Creek policy is perhaps the best example of this policy. The policy follows 

closely the parameters established by the Police Foundation. The policy limits 

the use of deadly force to those situations where there is a "reasonable 

perception that there is an immediate threat" to the life of the officer or 

other person. While "perception" may be problematic as a negligence standard, 

the policy is generally a comprehensive policy which warrants study by all 

departments.

Other departments which have clearly defined policies are Wayne County, 

Redford Township, Genessee County and Grand Rapids. The "desperately attempting 

to elude capture" language of the Dearborn Heights policy may remove it from 

this category, but other language appears to be clearly within the area. Several 

others use the Model Penal Code threat of deadly force/substantial risk standard.

The Grand Rapids policy is one which is apparently unique. It requires an 

"overt threat to life, clear and present."

The Genessee County policy is significant because of the coupling of 

"virtual certainty" to the fleeing felon category.

2. The second level of policies make some modification on the common law, 

by limiting the use to defense of persons and to felonies which would be classed 

as violent, major crimes involving the use of force. Staff placed 37 policies 

in this category. There are several policies which staff feels are well- 

developed policies employing this standard. Included are Kalamazoo, Washtenaw 

County and Saginaw, all of which have well-developed statements of policy.



-15-

The Kalamazoo policy merits comment. The policy imposes a "confrontation 

situation" standard with a self-defense standard included, but also ties in a 

limited fleeing felon rule which includes murder, first and second degree sexual 

misconduct, robbery and felonious assault.

3. A third category centers in those with no policy, a statement that 

they follow the common law, or which have standards which are the same as the 

common law. Staff placed 17 policies in this category.

4. A fourth category arises because staff encountered difficulty in 

identifying what the standard was, or is. Staff placed four policies in this 

category. The language used by these policies is frequently duplicative or 

contradictory, totally lacking in a legal standard, or simply ambiguous. The 

placement of some policies in the first three categories may have been somewhat 

charitable because some of these policies have similar failings.

E. Clarity of Policies. Specific concerns on clarity center in the 

following:

1. Most policies fail to develop a standard for conduct in clear, concise 

language. For example, the phrase "and the like" fails to establish either a 

legal standard or any common sense limit on which crimes are involved. Phrasing 

is frequently stilted, ambiguous and excessively legalistic.

2. Legal standards used in the policies are frequently conflicting, even 

within the same paragraph or policy. The same problem occurred in the transition 

from policy to procedures or training manuals. The result is confusion and an 

absence of internal logic within the documents.

3. Some standards purport to establish a standard but provide no inkling 

of what the standard really is. For example, "when such action can be justified 

in accordance with the use of force granted an officer to effect an arrest." 

Another example arises in one policy where the "authority granted a police 

officer" standard is used, but later in the policy the "virtual certainty" 

standard is required even though this standard is higher than the common law.



-16-

other examples are the "socially unacceptable" and "unless it would impede 

on the nature of their activity," found under the off-duty category. The "final 

defense of life" standard is also somewhat unclear as to what point officers' 

conduct may begin.

4. Some policies are placed in manuals in totally illogical manner, or 

are mislabeled.

5. Some policies inaccurately state the law in their policies.

There are many implications for the use of poorly worded policies, particularly 

in liability. The department submits that the absence of a clear statement of 

policy is indefensible.

F. Grounds for Belief. A basic requirement in establishing a standard 

of conduct, particularly for negligence, is that there be some element of 

reasonable belief shown. Several observations may be made of the policies reviewed 

regarding this requirement, including:

1. Several policies have no standard, or limit the language to a prohibition 

against "mere suspicion."

2. The levels which are present vary greatly:

a. "reasonable perception"
b. "reasonable belief"
c. "when necessary"
d. "virtual certainty"
e. "bear in mind" (innocent bystanders category)
f. "clear and sufficient reason to believe"
g. "wanton disregard" (innocent bystanders)
h. "sound discretion"
i. "known to have committed"
j. "ordinary prudent man"
k. "wise and careful"
l. "must consider"
m. "seems necessary"
n. "honestly appeared to him"
0. "beyond reasonable doubt"
p. "actual and reasonable belief"
q. "reasonable certainty"
r. "conscientious discretion"



-17-

Many of the standards are similar. However, there is sufficient disparity 

to create confusion for officers in the state. A particular problem arises in 

the use of the "honest belief" standard, which is based on an old Michigan 

Supreme Court case. This standard may mean that an officer is never evaluated 

on any question of conduct beyond the question of whether he or she in fact 

honestly believed in the need for the use of force. "Honest belief" is relevant 

to specific criminal intent, but precludes operation of the normal civil 

negligence standard, the ordinary prudent person. It may permit examination 

of criminal purpose or knowledge, but may not permit review of other forms of 

criminal intent.

In general, the department recommends a high standard of belief for the 

actions.

G. A similar problem occurs in determining to which felonies the arrest 

and fleeing felon rules standard should be applied, including:

1. "forcible felony"
2. "extreme cases"
3. "or the like"
4. "major felony"
5. "more atrocious felonies"
6. "serious crime"
7. "any other felony involving use of physical force or violence"
8. "dangerous felony"
9. "serious or aggressive felony"
10. "felonious crime of violence"
11. "violent" felony

These are in addition to the life-threatening qualification or the ones 

which simply refer to "state law."

H. Category Analysis

ARREST. Most of the primary problems which arise in the review of specific 

standards are discussed in the above general problems: the conflicting standards

and the confusion over the extent to which some felonies should be the subject 

of deadly force and which should not.

There are other problems, however.



-18-

Most policies join the areas of arrest and escape. There are examples 

in which differing standards are set for each category. The City of Inkster 

limits the use of force to felonies in the general arrest area to "murder, rape, 

robbery, burglary, arson or the 1ike." The underlined phrase is not included 

in the fleeing felon standard.

FLEEING FELON. Many of the most complex police-community relations in 

the last few years have sprung from this rule. The survey table reflects a 

number of problems, including: (a) the level of belief required varies widely;

(b) the scope of the rule and the specific limits to the types of felonies 

subject to the rule; (c) random standards which are inserted into individual 

department policies and, (d) whether the punishment is consistent with our 

established principles of crime punishment.

The problem of belief and evidentiary standards was discussed above. The 

standards may be summarized as inconsistent and frequently vague.

Most of the policies in the largest departments reflect an encroachment 

on the traditional common law rule in the form of limiting the types of felonies 

in which deadly force can be used. Some policies limit the felonies to four 

major groups: murder, common law rape, robbery and felonious assault. All

involve violence and the use of force. If the standard is applied on a blanket 

basis, there may be cases in which the "necessary" force standard is not met, 

particularly in certain crimes. For example, a barroom fight which is classed 

as felonious assault may arise in fact situations which are problematic. Property 

crimes may involve no violence to persons. This raises a philosophical question: 

is the taking of life by the state through its police ever valid when the crime 

involves only property? The problem of limiting the use of the rule through 

blanket designation of class of crime is thus fraught with both inconsistencies 

and serious social undercurrents.



-19-

A particular concern to the department is the fact that property crimes 

frequently place police officers in the position of defending the rights of 

those who own property. Since the white majority controls an overwhelming part 

of the property, the application of deadly force when property is involved takes 

on a class and, frequently, a racial implication. It is this tradition of 

"haves versus have nots" which may feed a widespread resentment when a shooting 

incident occurs.

A related problem lies in the degree of punishment delivered for what may 

otherwise be a minor offense. If a person would receive a relatively minor 

penalty for the offense, and the effect of the fleeing felon rule is to impose 

a death penalty for a minor offense, this overkill again places the police 

department squarely in the tradition of the heavy handed oppressor.

A further question arises regarding the excessive punishment issue: dues

such a punishment achieve its purpose/ A brief review of the purpose of 

criminal punishment may prove helpful. Punishment is intended to do several 

things, including; (a) punish; (b) deter others from similar conduct in the 

future; (c) rehabilitate, and (d) to pay a debt to society (retribution).

If deadly force results in death, the felon is clearly punished. 

Rehabilitation is precluded. The debt to society for the offense is obviously 

paid. The sole social basis on which punishment occurs, then, must be based on 

its impact as a deterrent. Society has established a set of penalties which 

are clearly less severe than death, presumably on the theory that greater 

punishment will not deter. For example, grand theft of a purse may lead to 

probation or a short prison term.

What is really being punished, then, is the act of fleeing from arrest.

The legislature has not treated this act alone as a major offense, unless there 

is an assault involved. For example, failure to stop a vehicle as directed by 

an officer is a misdemeanor. Again, the quality of excessiveness is present, 

and raises the constitutional problems discussed elsewhere in this report.



-20-

Any standard which is used should thus focus on conduct which threatens 

the safety of the officer or other person rather than a technical definition 

of a felony.

Police officers interviewed by staff raised a number of questions in 

responding to a proposal that deadly force be limited to situations where life 

is threatened, including;

-If an officer comes upon a scene where the felon has just murdered three 
persons, but drops his weapon and runs, should society permit the felon 
to escape?

-Won't criminals take advantage of the rule once they realize they won't 
be stopped?

Both questions raise legitimate issues, particularly for the minority 

community which is disproportionately victimized by crime. Staff received 

widely differing responses to these questions from both law enforcement officials 

and members of the community. These responses may be summarized as:

-Some persons agreed that the answer to each should be "no."

-Others suggested that in the first question, there may be an immediacy 
to the situation which would permit application of the rule, and that 
in some instances the person might escape, but the value of life was 
still placed as paramount even though life was taken. One person 
challenged staff to show an actual case where this situation had 
occurred. Time between offense and capture is also a recurring 
problem with the existing fleeing felon rule. For example, if the 
attempt is to arrest for a burglary committed six months before and 
the person flees, there is a significant time gap between offense and 
escape.

-In the second question, there does not appear to have been a signifi­
cant increase in murders or rapes in situations where the fleeing 
felon rule has been greatly restricted.  ̂Some data suggests that some 
types of property crimes have risen in the same jurisdictions.^^

The Kalamazoo policy attempts to deal with the above by limiting the rule 

to situations where there is no alternative and safety of bystanders will not 

be affected and a confrontation situation exists or the subject has just 

committed an offense.



•21

Most policies have a variety of standards which assist in determining when 

force is necessary, including the requirement that alternatives be examined 

and exhausted as required by the Michigan Supreme Court case of People v.

McCord. Since many of the shooting situations may require split-second decisions, 

this requirement varies with the case. The addition of "mere suspicion" 

limitations and the requirement that several factors be present, i.e., no danger 

to bystanders, "immediate" threat.

The presence of terms like "extreme cases," "or the like," "serious crimes" 

or "if he may go unpunished" do not really help the effectiveness of the standard 

and may endanger the officer's life while he or she attempts to ascertain whether 

the standard is met.

The Flint citizens group which met with staff strongly urged the use of 

the "virtual certainty" standard as an effective limitation on the fleeing felon 

situation. The same standard is present in several other policies and should 

be utilized in the absence of the life-threatening limitation.

WARNING SHOT. The theory behind the use of warning shots presumably is 

that a person who is predisposed to flee will stop at the point a warning shot 

is fired because he or she will know that the officer isn't "kidding around," 

or it will frighten the person fleeing into stopping. The standard applies to 

warning shots fired straight into the air, into the ground or over the head of 

the person fleeing.

No other category was as clearly developed as this issue. Of the 82 

policies, 35 policies contained clear prohibitions on their use. Where rationale 

was offered, it fell into two categories: (a) the shots may ricochet;

(b) there is a risk of injury to third persons. One command officer pointed to 

the primary question as one of accountability, and he voiced the feeling that 

"warning" shots were simply "missed" shots.



-22-

The Oakland County policy discusses the possibility that, contrary to 

frightening the fleeing person into stopping, warning shots will have the effect 

of making the person run faster.

Use of warning shots would be very difficult in those situations where 

officers wers heltl to the life-threatening situation.

Several policies tied other issues and restrictions into the warning shot 

standard, primarily in discussion of the general fleeing felon situation.

The policies reviewed would suggest that the only remaining questions 

relate to the remaining policies which have not completely prohibited the 

practice.

Several departments specifically permit the use of shots as a means of 

signalling an emergency, and at least one discusses the problems of firing 

straight in the air or in a direction where ricocheting may occur.

DEFENSE OF SELF, OTHERS. This category includes any situation in which 

the officer defends himself or herself from deadly force. Since the officer 

has a legal duty to protect others from threats to person, the officer may also 

act for other persons.

No distinction is made in felony and misdemeanor situations, since the 

nature of the crime committed is superseded by the threat to life.

Some departments do not reference this issue in their policies. Others 

apply a wide variety of standards, including:

-"reasonable perception of immediate threats"
-"when necessary" - repeated frequently .
-"reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to defend from immediate 

threat," no alternative available and bystanders not endangered - Kalamazoo 
-if "human life endangered"
-"loss of life threatened"
-"life in jeopardy" . . ^
-"clear and sufficient reason" to believe "there is an immediate threat
-"must be resistence"
-"extreme cases"
-"self-defense"
-"final defense of life"
-"legally justifiable reason to believe life in danger 
-"actual and reasonable belief"



-23-

Most policies state that an officer may defend himself or herself and 

that the same right extends to others. Several policies refer to the right of 

an officer to come to protect another officer from attack. The sentence "That 

which he is authorized to do in his own defense he is compelled to do for 

others" occurs repeatedly in the policies.

There can be no question that the officer should retain this right to 

defense of self and others. Failure to do so would provide a lower legal 

standard of protection for the officer than any other person in the state enjoys. 

Further, the defense of others is a necessary part of the officers role, 

although the department suggests continued use of "last resort" requirements 

before shooting.

A number of policies stress that an officer may use deadly force in self- 

defense even where the original offense was a misdemeanor, if the person being 

arrested places the officer in a self-defense situation.

MOVING VEHICLE. There are two primary problems which relate to firing at 

or from a moving vehicle: (a) the problems of shooting accurately from or at

a moving vehicle; (b) the danger to innocent persons from shots which are fired 

inaccurately.

Most department policies do not appear to deal with the question. Fifty-five 

policies did not specifically refer to this issue, while four policies referenced 

shooting "at" a moving vehicle, and nine policies have a standard for firing 

"from" moving vehicles. Only five agencies refer to both areas.

The Attorney General has issued an opinion (OAG #5086) which greatly limits 

the authority of officers to fire at a moving vehicle, but this opinion was not 

mentioned in any policy. The relevant parts of the opinion:



-24-

Mi chi gan law makes it a one year misdemeanor to refuse to stop a motor 
vehicle upon the lawful command of a police officer, MCLA 750.479A...

Michigan has long recognized that in a situation where a police officer
seeks to arrest a felon, he may use deadly force to effect such an
arrest. People v. Gonsler, 251 Mich 443, 446 (1930). However, if a
safe and speedy capture can be made without using deadly force, and such
force is used, the arresting officers may be subject to criminal 
liability if the arrestee is harmed. People v. McCord, 76 Mich 200.206 
(1889)...

In summary, it is clear that where an officer seeks to stop or arrest a 
known misdemeanant, deadly force may not be used. While the law allows 
police officers to use deadly force in attempting to arrest a felon, 
this course may only be taken when other methods have either failed or 
cannot succeed without endangering the lives of innocent citizens or 
the officers involved.

However, when an officer seeks to arrest the driver or the occupants of 
a fleeing vehicle for a felony he knows, or has probable cause, to 
believe to have committed, the situation changes.

The officer would be authorized to use deadly force:

(1) Only to control or stop the fleeing vehicle but not to intentionally 
harm the occupants therein.
(2) Only when safer alternative measures prove to be useless, or 
unreasonably dangerous to the officers or bystanders.

Your second question asks whether Michigan statutes clarify the amount 
of force a police officer may use to stop a fleeing vehicle. Presently, 
they do not.

At least three departments refer to the problems involved in stolen or 

"hot" cars, which are felonies, but do not present any threat to the safety of 

the officers unless the person was otherwise armed.

Staff received little comment concerning the use of the car as a weapon, 

an issue which is referenced in the Police Foundation Report, One police 

department official mentioned the idea that a car driven in a chase situation 

may present a threat to life if driven recklessly. This must be balanced against 

the concern for innocent members of the public mentioned in two of the policies.

Where a rationale was offered for the limitation on use, it was limited 

to the accuracy or public safety issue.

One chief discussed the problem in firing at a moving car in which persons 

not involved in the felony may be riding.



-25-

staff felt that the Washtenaw County Sheriff's policy was particularly

sound and comprehensive on this issue. Its standard states that:

Deputies are prohibited from discharging firearms at a moving vehicle 
or from a moving vehicle except under circumstances of extreme 
necessity, and unless the occupant(s) of the vehicle or a suspect(s) 
represents a direct threat to the life or safety of the Deputy or 
other innocent persons, and then only as a last resort. Extreme 
necessity exists only if the risk of serious injury or death to 
others is greater if apprehension is delayed, than it is if deadly 
force is used. It should be considered that such firing adversely 
affects accuracy and increases the ever-present possibility of 
hitting an innocent bystander or destroying property.

It is significant that no data is kept in Michigan on persons killed

during police chases if death occurs while the person who is fleeing is in an

automobile. The death is reported as a traffic death. While it is difficult

to write standards which would apply to all chase situations, it is clear that

an auto may become a form of deadly force in some situations and should be

regulated as a form of deadly force. The wisdom of when to chase is dependent

upon the judgment of the officer, but consideration should be given to the

effect a chase will have upon an innocent bystander. Like the firing of the

warning shot, the chase may increase danger to the public by virtue of the

officer's decision to act.

OFF-DUTY. While weapons are an accepted part of an officer's on-duty 

equipment, additional issues are raised as a result of widespread use of similar 

weapons while the officer is not officially on duty.

The survey showed that eight departments permitted the use of weapons 

while off-duty, while six policies required that weapons be worn while off-duty. 

Most detailed policies discussed the need for carrying the guns out of view of 

the public.



-26-

The rationale offered during discussions with police officials was:

(a) crimes may occur in the officer's presence while off duty and a state law 

requires an officer to enforce the law; (b) persons with whom officers have 

negative contact may search out off-duty officers to gain revenge in an unguarded 

moment and, (c) bargaining agreements in which officers demand and receive a 

daily payment for wearing the gun. During ^n interview with staff, a community person 

inquired as to data which supports the effectiveness of the policy rationale.

Staff suggests further analysis may be needed on this question.

The language found in most policies is very general, and the exceptions to 

the requirement are not clear. For example, two policies discuss an exception 

to the requirement when it is "socially unacceptable." Other policies apply 

an exception when the officer is out of police jurisdiction where he or she is 

employed, or is at home.

There are two major issues which arise from this practice: (a) difficulties

arising from second jobs and, (b) situations arising from social occasions,

including drinking. A study of New York City police practices showed that 25

percent of off-duty discharges were not directly related to law enforcement

purposes. Other data from this study are cited as: accidental, 12.6 percent,
14

and 3.8 percent were suicide attempts.

In the first issue, officers may be permitted in some police departments 

to have second jobs which are similar in nature to police enforcement, i.e., 

security guards. Since an officer may be authorized to wear a weapon and effect 

an arrest while off duty, a security guard agency has effectively purchased the 

services of an officer who retains police authority. A specific problem may 

arise in the situation where bonding and licensing is done by the police 

department, and litigation occurs against the security guard agency and the off- 

duty officer. Some departments prohibit outside employment, while others limit 

work to that which is unrelated to police work. One command officer stated he



■ 11 -

distinguished those situations in which the police directly regulated, i.e., 

bartender, from those which would otherwise permit employment. An Attorney 

General opinion indicates that outside employment is subject to collective 

bargaining agreements (OAG #4975).

It is apparent that officers could not literally follow some of the 

general policies requiring wearing of weapons at all times while off-duty. A 

particular problem arises in social situations or others where consumption of 

alcohol may be involved. One police official cited a state law which prohibits 

the consumption of liquor while armed. Another, perhaps more troublesome issue, 

arises when an officer over-indulges or becomes involved in a physical altercation. 

If the result is the drawing, display or use of the weapon, serious concerns 

about the propriety of the practice may arise.

In the absence of clear state law prohibiting outside employment, officials 

may have difficulty in imposing a strict standard on either area above.

JUVENILE. The Michigan Juvenile Code and the Court Rules provide that a 

juvenile in this state is not treated as a criminal for purposes of sentencing 

and trial unless waived into circuit court from probate court. Thus, a juv 

who commits a felony, particularly one not involving use of deadly force is 

usually treated as a juvenile.

If the fleeing felon rule is applied as defined by the common law, juveniles 

can be shot for offenses which would be relatively minor and which would other­

wise be considered as a juvenile court matter. Some of the theft felonies, i.e., 

purse snatching and breaking and entering, are committed by juveniles in over 

half of all cases. If the fleeing felon rule is applied, it can and has led to 

loss of life, which is difficult to square with the severity of offense. One 

example which was brought to the attention of staff was a case in another state 

in which 16-year-old twins were involved in a relatively minor theft offense.



-28-

One of the twins ran, and was killed by the pursuing police officer. The other 

was placed in the juvenile justice system and received two years of probation 

because he was a juvenile who had no previous record.

Most departments do not deal with the issue. Only 12 policies reflect any 

attention to this area, several of which caution officers that juveniles 

represent as great a danger as adults.

The juvenile area may present a strong argument for restricting the use 

of deadly force to only life-threatening situations. Since offenses short of 

life-threatening raise the question of the juvenile code application, there are 

potential legal issues in the use of deadly force against juveniles. If a 

juvenile utilizes deadly force or engages in life-threatening conduct, these 

arguments should not be used to jeopardize an officer's life simply because the 

gun wielder is juvenile.

DRAWING & DISPLAYING OF WEAPONS. The basis for regulating the drawing and 

displaying of weapons is that a weapon which is drawn is more likely to be used, 

and more likely to be used unnecessarily. Chevigny points to this question as 

a critical one:

The most widespread if not the most serious abuse of firearms is in 
drawing the weapon unnecessarily; for every time it is fired, the gun 
is probably drawn many times.

The Police Foundation survey found few formal policies.

Most departments, taking the view that there are circumstances when 
drawing or displaying (pointing) a firearm is reasonable and firing 
it is not, have omitted the subject from their firearms policies 
altogether.16

A similar pattern appears from the department's survey. Of the department 

policies reviewed, 61 contained no statements on drawing or displaying. Nine 

stated that the weapon should be drawn for inspection or use.

The difficulty in developing a standard for what is essentially a matter 

of judgment is clear. If the actual use of deadly force is limited to life- 

threatening situations, then the drawing and displaying standard presumably



-29-

must be tied to those situations which may effect an officer's safety or the 

safety of others. An additional factor to consider may be those situations in 

which the suspect may have a weapon.

One command officer with whom staff spoke pointed to the role of training 

as the key to this issue. He suggested that an officer who is well trained in 

the use and standards for the weapon will have more confidence and will not 

draw the weapon needlessly. The converse would also then apply, i.e., a poorly 

trained officer is more likely to draw and use the weapon. The official 

characterized the situation as "The biggest problem is officers are not sure of 

their ability to hit (the target) so they shoot too soon."

While actual policy statements may be limited on this issue, training 

materials are clearly needed.

SECOND GUNS. Although all departments issue standard issue revolvers, 

most departments permit the use of a weapon which is selected by the officer.

In most instances, the weapon is the officer's own weapon. We also included 

department-issued shotguns in this category, which are standard issue in many 

departments. The second weapon may be used while on duty, or in off-duty 

situations where carrying a weapon is authorized.

In general, the policies which we received did not cover this concern. 

Shotguns are a major concern in this area. Many policies have sections dealing 

with their storage, but few reflect a standard for when a shotgun instead of a 

si dearm is to be used. There is an element of "overkill" in their use, which 

does not appear to be regulated. One official offered as a rationale for their 

use the relatively lower risk which shotguns create for innocent bystanders. 

Concern here is with the unregulated nature of their use. Some departments 

provide shotguns simply by qualification in range firing. Other departments 

limit their use to officers who are specifically trained in their use. Shotguns 

also present specific problems in the deadly force issue because the ballistics 

tests are more difficult for shotguns if an investigation is ordered.



-30-

Registration is a particular problem. Most departments do not require 

that a weapon be licensed through the state's weapon's registration process. 

Further, some policies do not even require registration within the department. 

Thus, there is no record of serial number for the weapon. Shotguns are not 

required to be registered.

A few departments require that a bullet from each second weapon be kept 

in department files so that ballistics tests can later be performed even if the 

weapon is not available.

Most departments which submitted policies in this area have an established 

qualification procedure and require qualification with this weapon at the same 

time qualification occurs for the officer's regularly issued weapon.

Several policies reflect a different standard for plain clothes or under­

cover officers, and grant greater freedom in obtaining permission to use their 

own weapons.

REPORTING & INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE. Since most police agencies are organized 

along military reporting lines, reporting is emphasized. The phrase 

"through the chain of command" recurs through many policies which deal with 

deadly force usage.

A substantial number of policies have reporting requirements. Others may 

address reporting procedures through separate directives. However, specific 

requirements are necessary for accountability and should be part of the actual 

policy.

The specific procedure utilized is dependent upon the size and organizational 

structure of the individual department. Most departments require reports on 

all shots which are fired with approved weapons unless the shots were fired as 

part of training or qualification exercises.



-31-

Some smaller departments require that the chief be contacted immediately 

after a shooting incident. Others require notice to shift commanders, bureau 

chiefs or deputy chiefs. Most require written reports, both by the officer 

and supervising officer, which are eventually reviewed by the chief, sheriff 

or command officer with ultimate responsibility for department discipline.

Some policies also handle reports of shots fired differently from situations 

where shots are fired and injury or death occurs.

Staff suggest several criteria by which reporting requirements can be 

evaluated:

- Immediate notification of command officers should be required;

- The command officer with ultimate supervisory authority should 

review reports and

- Written reports should be required from the officer and his or her 

supervisor.

In most policies, there is no reference to further reporting requirements 

beyond the command level unless an investigation into the incident is conducted.

A second aspect of the reporting process is the command response which is 

required. Some policies require only a review of the reports. Others provide 

discretion at various levels of command for an investigation of the situation 

if they believe a review is warranted, while others require an investigation 

automatically. Most policies have a different procedure for situations 

involving injury or death, with investigation more likely in situations 

involving injury or death.

The larger departments may require investigation of the injury or fatal 

shooting by an internal affairs unit, and some departments have review boards.

At least two department command officers stressed the importance of "outside" 

personnel doing the review.



-32-

A number of policies describe the disciplinary process, including 

suspension of the officer for the period in which an investigation occurs.

One command officer discussed with staff the necessity for the temporary 

suspension procedure, because of the potential psychological impact which a 

shooting may have on the officer. Thus, an officer would be suspended or 

simply reassigned, pending investigation or clearance of the incident.

Several policies refer to conditions under which officers would be 

referred to the county prosecutor for possible prosecution. This process 

raises another problem. Several community persons and two command officers 

pointed to the rarity of prosecution for misuse of firearms, and suggested 

that a prosecutor who is "on the same side" as the police department cannot 

perform an impartial review and authorize prosecution, except in the most 

extreme cases.

Fyfe suggests that a similar pattern exists on a national level:

"The only version of a police shooting that some to court attention, 

therefore, is likely to be that of the police officer involved.

Further, even where alternative versions are offered, the prosecutor 

must decide to take action if a case is to go to trial. Several 

reasons have been proposed to explain the reluctance of district 

attorneys to take these cases to trial. Rhine (1968:856) suggests 

that it is very difficult to prove criminal intent in police killings. 

Harding and Fahey (1973:298, 299) point out that elected prosecutors 

may find that both constituent concern with law and order and the 

need to maintain a cooperative relationship with police militate 

against such prosecutions."^^

The above does not preclude a fair and balanced judgment by a prosecutor, 

but these points do illustrate the strong pressures which may be faced by 

prosecutors in specific cases.



Because of this apparent weakness, department staff suggest that a 

statutory procedure be developed which:

(a) mandates a review of reports in which either a citizen or officer 

is shot or killed by the Department of Attorney General;

(b) authorizes the Attorney General to investigate those cases in which 

a violation of state law may have occurred in the shooting of a 

citizen.

As an alternative to this procedure, a panel composed of the Attorney 

General's representative, prosecutor's representative and a citizen should 

review the reports involving injury or death. Staff discussed the former 

idea with several persons and received mixed reactions. Several supported the 

idea, while three officials raised a concern about the length of time the 

procedure would take.

Until these statutory changes are made, police agencies should require an 

obligatory investigation of all incidents in which a citizen or officer is 

injured or killed.

The weaknesses in the fleeing felon rule as reflected in police policies 

is apparent here. Where the standard is based on the "honest belief" of the 

officer, prosecution is unlikely to ever occur. Where the policy reflects 

state law or generally describes the authority to shoot a felon, even the most 

outrageous cases of killing for a relatively minor felony are justifiable under

-33-

this standard as long as an honest belief is established. This standard may 

totally ignore reckless or negligent conduct which may meet criminal intent 

standards.

The City of Los Angeles has inaugurated a program in which the prosecutor's

office investigates shooting incidents on a priority basis with a team of

investigators. The process of "rolling out" for a citizen shooting has been

18endorsed by community leaders.



-34-

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

While this area of concern is not the focal point of this report, some 

discussion may contribute to a full perspective of the deadly force issue. 

Following is a brief outline of the issues which may be raised concerning 

constitutional questions.

The starting point is recognition that the fleeing felon rule has existed 

in this state as part of the common law. There is, therefore, an established, 

tested body of law which must be weighed in any analysis.

Capital Punishment. Michigan has prohibited capital punishment through

its Constitutions since 1847. Lawrence Sherman of the Police Foundation argues

that the use of deadly force to kill a fleeing felon is in effect, punishment

for a crime and therefore should be subject to the constitutional limitations

which govern criminal punishment. In those situations where an officer

shoots and kills a fleeing felon, the state is imposing a penalty, either for
20

the original crime, the act of fleeing or a combination of both. Regardless 

of which act serves as the basis for firing the weapon, the result is the 

same: a life is taken by an officer of the state for a criminal act. This 

amounts to capital punishment.

There may also be serious questions about the relationship of the fleeing 

or "all" felon rule to the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia, 

the 1972 case which limited the use of capital punishment because of its 

disproportionate impact on minority people.

Significantly, several of the police policies reviewed by staff noted the 

Michigan rule on capital punishment as a basis for restricting use of deadly 

force-



-35-

Equal Protection. This issue is close to the heart of the 

minority people. Laws which result in an adverse impact on a particular 

group without some compelling state interest to justify the effect, are 

violative of equal protection standards.

While no racial data is yet available in Michigan, there is some data 

which indicates that the national ratio of minority people killed by police 

use of deadly force is disproportionately high. In a 1979 article written 

by a former director of the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the following 

data are presented:

In the most recent data (1977) of the police killings of civilians, 
white males continue to be killed at a consistent rate of 0.2 per 
100,000 males aged nine or over. The rate of black males aged nine 
and over killed by the police continues to increase, a trend first 
noted in 1962; it reached an all-time high of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1969 
and continues to rise.

The rate of blacks killed by police remained at least nine times higher 
over the last 18 years in which the statistics have been evaluated. 
Although blacks only comprise 12 to 14 percent of the nation's popula­
tion, they comprise at least 50 percent of those killed by the police.
Even that statistic can be misleading considering that nearly 90 
percent of those killed by the Philadelphia police force were black in 
the years studies between 1960-1970, when the black community accounted 
for 22 percent of that population. During the same period, a review of 
police killings in eight American cities....found that the ratio of 
black victims to white victims ranged from 6 to 1 (in Akron) to 30 to 1 
(in Milwaukee)---

A recent study of Los Angeles shootings reflects a significantly 
higher rate of death for blacks and Hispanics, and a rate greatê Ô'̂ ' 
fatal shootings against blacks than their percentage of arrests.

Those incidents which have been brought to the commission's attention

involve, of course, minority people. More studies are needed to develop the

relationship between arrest and deadly force deaths among minorities in the

state.

The state's interest in continuing this type of practice must be examined. 

Presumably, there are several arguments for the fleeing felon rule: (a) it 

provides a deterrent to persons running from the scene of a crime; (b) it



punishes a person who commits a crime, and who might otherwise go unpunished;

(c) it protects the officer and the community from felons. While each 

justification may have some validity, it is impossible for staff to give equal 

weight to a standard which inflicts an impact disproportionately and which 

takes human life so readily.

The deterrence idea may be refuted. Andrew Rodez cites Dorfman for the

position: "In considering the use of deadly force within the philosophies of

individual and general deterrence, it often occurs that the effect of such

police action fails significantly to reduce crime or contribute to citizens'

23
respect or admiration for the police."

The disparity of this type of impact may raise a conflict with Article II,

Section 5 of the Michigan Constitution if a disproportionate pattern is

developed in Michigan. This provision, which prohibits discrimination because

of race, color, national origin, may be applicable if future data reflects

national patterns.

Discriminatory impact may have an effect on the work of the commission 

and department, which are mandated by Article V, Section 29 of the Constitution 

and Section 302 of the El 1iott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to address this issue.

A police department which enforces a strict common law rule may also be 

"acting under color or custom of state law," which would exjpose a department 

or officer to federal civil rights litigation.

Due Process. This issue evolves from the right to all citizens to be 

afforded a level of fairness in the procedure by which he or she is charged, 

tried and sentenced for a crime. The rights of due process arise from the 

fifth and fourteenth amendments to the federal Constitution. Due process 

encompasses the right to confront witnesses, right to a fair and impartial 

trial by jury, and the right to be apprised of the charges being brought 

against the accused. If a person flees from the scene of the crime (or

-36-



-37-

simply runs to avoid arrest), and the person is killed by a police officer,

the result may be punishment without resorting to any of the above guarantees.

The Lawyers Guild Handbook cites two cases as supportive of the majority

position that use of deadly force is privileged: Jones v. Marshal 1 , 528 F 2d

132 (2d Cir 1975) and Wiley vs. Memphis Police Dept., 548 F 2d 1247 (6th Cir

1977).^^ Courts in general have permitted state laws to stand.

There are, however, several cases which limit this general position. In

a 1978 U. S. Court of Appeals case, the Eighth Circuit Court reviewed a

situation in which the deceased was shot and killed fleeing from a burglary

(Landrum v. Moats, 576 F 2d 1320). The suspect had not used violence in the

commission of the crime nor did he use violence in any way as he fled.

The Handbook cites this case for the idea that deadly force may be used "only

when: (1) a felony suspect cannot otherwise be apprenhended and (2) the

suspect has used deadly force in the commission of the felony or there is

reason to believe that he will employ deadly force if not immediately

apprehended. See also Hayes v. Memphis Police Department, 571 F 2d 357 (6th 

26Cir 1978). The court upheld a Section 1983 action in the former case.

Another case is cited for the same position, and "the fundamental due

process right to life" (Mattis v. Schuarr 542 F 2d 1007 (8th Cir 1977). This

case is also cited for the position a state statute permitting the use of

deadly force to effect on arrest of nonviolent felons was unconstitutional

"because it created a presumption that all fleeing felons posed a serious

26threat of physical harm."

The analysis of police policies which is developed in this report 

indicates several agencies have standards which permit the use of deadly force 

"if the person is likely to go unpunished." This standard, although it may be 

supported by Michigan case law, raises several troubling problems. The officer



-38-

is placed in a position of dete^iining whether punishment is appropriate and 

whether the death penalty can be invoked. This is a role traditionally reserved 

for courts under the various due process guarantees. It would appear that 

the officer is thus "judge, jury and excutioner," a process which is very 

difficult to align with traditional social and political policies.

The problem can be demonstrated by examining the punishment which the 

person who was shot or killed would have received if convicted of the crime 

from which he or she is fleeing. Where the penalty would have been probation, 

or a light prison sentence, infliction of lethal force presents a very 

provocative due process issue, as well as a cruel and unusual punishment 

question. This is particularly troublesome when dealing with juveniles, who 

may never really be treated as felons under Michigan juvenile court process.

It should be noted that the constitutionality of the Ann Arbor policy is 

currently being challenged on constitutional grounds, including several of 

the above.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The act of imposing what is, in effect, a

death penalty for a felony may amount to violation of the Eighth Amendment to
27

the Constitution, although this is not the position of all courts.

This is a particularly releva^it question when assessing the punishment 

which a fleeing felon would have received if convicted of the felony which is 

the justification for application of deadly force. If a person is killed for 

a relatively minor felony, or for running from an officer, and the punishment 

would have been probation, for example, the punishment appears as unjust.



-39-

TRAINING

Adequate training is absolutely vital to the process of developing an 

effective system of law enforcement, including the use of deadly force.

While a strong policy may provide basic direction for officers, training is 

the process of implementing the policy and is as important as the policy.

During the course of the interviews with police officials, training was 

repeatedly identified as the primary concern of law enforcement. Since dis­

cretion and sound judgment are necessary for any officer to act in situations 

involving deadly force, department staff examined training practices of several 

state and local agencies.

Staff found that little training occurs in most departments after 

completion of the basic training course required to be certified in this state.

Specifically, training is limited to:

- Several hours of training in basic weapon safety and in simulated 

situations in which deadly force is used: both of which may be 

offered during state-required entry certification training;

- In-service training which is not required by state law and varies 

widely with local departments who reflect a variety of budget 

capabilities and commitment to training;

- Many departments have little or no training beyond markmanship 

training on an ongoing basis. Some departments have extensive 

training programs in care of weapons;

- Training aids for simulation practice are expensive and in short 

supply;



-40-

- Security guards have no state training requirements, carry weapons 

and occasionally they use them. Unless a security guard employer 

has a training program as a condition of employment, no training is 

given in the use of the weapons which they wear. They have limited 

arrest authority, but may arrest if a felony or misdemeanor is 

committed in the presence of a security guard. The policy of the 

State Police applies to security guards, but there is no specific 

training requirement in the policy for security guards.

Both Lansing and Flint police officials stressed the need for training 

and indicated their departments have monthly firearm training requirements, 

including marksmanship, safety and discretion training.

The training of law enforcement officers is regulated by the Michigan law 

Enforcement Officers Training Council (MLEOTC) under P.A. 330 of 1968. The 

Act establishes a council which develops the standards for 240 hours of police 

training. A small number of hours in the use of deadly force, and simulated 

situation practice is included in this training. Regional training schools 

carry out most of the training. A written state examination is a prerequisiuc 

for certification as a law enforcement officer. It should also be noted that 

the Headlee Amendment requires state funds for standards imposed on local 

communities, a factor which is relevant to increasing state-required training.

The MLEOTC has made a very small number of training aids ("Shoot-Don't 

Shoot") which are used in recruit schools as simulated training aids, but 

would not be effective if used repeatedly. Other materials are available 

through the FBI but are expensive.

The budget cuts faced by all units of government have forced severe cuts 

in training programs in most police departments. In a budget crunch, training 

programs have not been given a priority. Smaller departments may have little, 

if any, funds available for training.



-41-

Several command officers stated that training is the most effective 

response to civil liability actions.

The Governor's Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice placed training 

as the top program priority for the present budget year.

The need for an effective law enforcement officer training program is 

imperative. Officers literally hold the lives of citizens in their hands 

and the fortunes of their cities may suffer if training is inadequate to 

prepare them. This may represent a very significant answer to the entire 

deadly force issue. Training cannot be ignored, de-prioritized or abandoned 

if effective enforcement of laws is to continue as an objective of the Michigan 

criminal justice system.



-42-

VI. RELATED ISSUES

There are a number of issues which relate directly to the use of deadly 

force and which local staff may encounter in their work with police departments.

A. The Officer. Frequently, the perspective of the officer who must 

carry out the deadly force policy is ignored. Since the officer is the person 

who must ultimately make the deadly force policy work, this perspective should 

be an important part of any analysis of the issue. The need for effective 

judgment in the use of weapons must be developed through training and effective 

management.

Staff found a number of concerns in this area, including:

1. A lack of sufficient training in deadly force at the local level 

in many departments both at the entry level and as an in-service 

process.

2. A number of departments indicated that they make psychological 

counselling available for their employees. If an officer needed 

counselling after a shooting incident, the service would be made 

available to him or her. This service is not available to officers 

in all departments, however. Obtaining services from existing 

community resources may be difficult for some officers because of 

publicity given the shootings or community attention to the fact

he or she is seeking assistance.

3. The shooting situation may create tremendous pressure on the 

individual officer involved. Several command officers expressed 

concern over the welfare of the officer and indicated that a 

variety of steps may be taken after a shooting, including removal 

from regular job responsibilities.



-43-

4. One former officer who was involved in a fatal shooting suggested 

that peer counselling may be effective in serving the needs of an 

officer involved in a shooting. Officers who have been involved 

in shootings may be able to relate to officer stress which even 

professional psychologists would not be able to. Several command 

officers suggested chaplain services as another alternative in 

counselling.

5. The provision of counselling and other support services may prevent 

future behavior caused by an officer's inability to resolve the 

emotional stress induced by a shooting. If effective police officers 

can be developed through the process, it is a legitimate concern for 

community support.

6. It was suggested in one interview that there is a very high incidence 

of officer resignation after shooting incidents. Staff did not 

establish the source of the statement, but it may involve legitimate 

research questions.

It has been suggested that while data is gathered on police officer deaths,

there has been little study in how to prevent such deaths. Patrick Murphy,

of the Police Foundation, suggests that his experience as New York City shows

that limitation of the use of deadly force resulted not only in a dramatic

decrease in citizen deaths, but also a significant decrease in the number of

officer deaths.^® Data for New York City shows that one police officer was

killed every five weeks before a restrictive deadly force policy was enacted

by Murphy in 1972, and a rate of one officer lost every 20 weeks by 1975. While

the shooting policy may not be the sole factor in this decrease, the policy
29

did not lead to additional officer deaths as was feared.



B. Alternatives to Deadly Force. Disarming a person in a deadly force 

situation is, of course, a preferable alternative to taking a life. Alterna­

tives may lie in tactical techniques and in the use of physical devices which 

are non-lethal.

1. Tactical Alternatives. Several techniques were suggested by command 

officers, including surrounding a building in which a burglar is reported 

and sending in a trained dog and development of response techniques

to alarm systems in banks. The use of sound tactical alternatives is 

limited only by the imagination and wisdom of police management and 

represents an area which professional enforcement persons can utilize 

their technical background to develop.

2. Devices. A number of techniques were suggested, including a

current program in the Jackson Police Department for disarming indivi-
30

duals without deadly force, the use of nets, and taser devices.

C. Selection Criteria. Several command officers related the use of 

deadly force to the need for more effective screening methods, including 

psychological and polygraph testing, which are covered by amendments to the 

El 1iott-Larsen Act. The psychological screening need was particularly 

emphasized as a method of identifying personalities who are unable to manage 

the intense stress of a deadly force situation if they are hired.

This issue is a continuing one, and one which may merit continued 

discussion. The alternative method appears to be the in-depth background 

check, which is used by the Michigan State Police. For smaller departments, 

background checks are a costly, time consuming activity. The validity and 

cost of psychological testing were raised as negative factors. A standardized, 

validated test is a prerequisite to any use.



-45-

D. The Security Guard Issue. Earlier comments were directed to training 

requirements for security guards. There are a number of issues arising from 

the fact that security guards carry deadly weapons. Licensing requirements are 

minimal, consisting of age and education standards and a fingerprint check.

There is no further training and little ongoing regulation.

There have been situations in which security guards have been involved in 

shooting incidents. Security guards must witness a felony to effect an arrest, 

which is the same authority all citizens have. The security guard has authority 

to arrest for a misdemeanor and has the same right to use deadly force as a

citizen, i.e, the right of self-defense. Industrial security guards are a second 

group and do have a 140 hour training requirement. Legislation to more care­

fully regulate the industry has been repeatedly introduced but never passed.

This area is one which merits continuing concern.



-46-

VII. Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusion. Half of all people in the United States who are 

killed by police use of deadly force in the country are minority 

people, a share which is far greater than their percentage in the 

population. The primary source of death is application of the fleeing 

felon rule, which permits the killing of persons for all felonies in 

this state. The fleeing felon rule imposes the death penalty for 

minor felonies, even though capital punishment is constitutionally 

prohibited in this state. Even though the courts have imposed some 

limitations on the rule, police policies reflect inconsistent and unclear 

standards in implementing the rule. Application of the policies may 

mean that a person is killed when the original crime for which he 

would be stopped would receive relatively little punishment.

Recommendation #1. The Commission should support the elimination of 

the common law fleeing felon rule through legislation.

B. Conclusion. The use of deadly force for situations other than 

defense of the officer's life or the life of a citizen results in the 

death of a disproportionate number of minority people. Coupled with 

the value for human life, strong policy arguments support a limitation 

to only life-threatening situations in which there is a reasonable 

belief deadly force is needed and alternative methods will not be 

successful.



Recommendation #2. Legislation should be enacted which would limit 

the use of deadly force to those situations in which the officer 

reasonably believes her or his own life, another officer's life or the 

life of a member of the public is immediately threatened, and 

alternatives are exhausted or clearly won't work.

Recommendation #3. Police department policies should be changed to 

reflect the limitation to life-threatening situations. All departments 

which do not have written deadly force policies should be encouraged to 

adopt policies.

C. Conclusion. There is an absence of data on the number and race of 

persons killed each year by police and security guards' use of deadly 

force. Further, there is no information on the number of persons 

killed in police chases. The FBI maintains information on the number

of officers killed. No information on the number of police prosecutions 

is available. No information on how many persons are unarmed is available.

Recommendation #4. All police departments should be required to submit 

data on the number and race of persons killed by law enforcement and 

security guards, as well as that gathered on officer deaths. Prosecutors 

should also be required to submit data on the number of police officers 

they have prosecuted.

D. Conclusion. The standards applied to moving vehicles as reflected 

in 82 department policies are inconsistent and unclear. Pursuit of 

vehicles by police officers does not appear as a potential form of 

deadly force, even though persons lose their lives each year in this 

way.



-48-

Recommendation #5. Departments should be encouraged to develop specific 

standards and training materials on the use of deadly force from or 

at a vehicle and in situations where innocent bystanders may be 

endangered by police decisions to change a suspect.

E. Conclusion. Training in the controlled use of deadly force is 

not adequate, particularly after an officer completes his or her initial 

training. Training which simulates actual situations should be 

emphasized. The exercise of sound judgment should be the objective of 

training in the use of deadly force.

Recommendation #6. The Law Enforcement Officers Training Council Act 

should be amended to require additional in-service training for all 

police officers on a yearly basis. The impact of the Headlee amendment 

must be recognized in imposing this standard.

Recommendation #7. Local police agencies should undertake in-service 

training in the use of deadly force in systematic, frequent, programs 

which emphasize safety and sound judgment as well as markmanship.

F. Conclusion. Procedures identified by police agencies in their 

policies do not reflect maximum accountability for situations involving 

the firing of weapons and review of situations in which police use has 

resulted in injury or death. Few prosecutions ever occur involving use 

of deadly force by an officer.



-49-

Recommendation #8. Legislation should be enacted which would require 

police departments to report all situations in which a citizen or 

officer was wounded or killed by law enforcement use of deadly force, 

including automobiles. These reports should be reviewed by the 

Department of Attorney General and an investigation authorized by 

statute if there is reason to believe the officer's action was 

excessive. Racial data should be included.

Recommendation #9. Legislation should be enacted to require all 

situations in which a security guard kills or wounds a member of the 

public to be reviewed by the Department of Attorney General and 

investigated by the Attorney General if there is reason to believe 

the use of deadly force was excessive. Racial data should be included.

G. Conclusion. Police officers have not received sufficient assistance 

in the form of counselling or other support services which they may 

want or need after officers have been involved in shootings.

Recommendation #10. All local law enforcement agencies should be 

required to make available the assistance of counselling and other 

support services to an officer involved in a shooting.

H. Conclusion. There is a need for department staff to work with 

community groups and law enforcement agencies on the deadly force issue.

Recommendation #11. Local staff should work with law enforcement agencies 

and community groups in developing a workable, consistent deadly force 

policy which will encourage community support for the policy.



-50-

VIII. Draft Policy

It is the policy of this department to place the highest priority on 

human life in its programs. For this reason, all officers subject to this 

policy shall use deadly force only where the officer reasonably believes 

there is an immediate threat to the life of the officer, another officer or 

a member of the public and there is no alternative to the use of force.

The officer must also consider:

1. Michigan law does not impose a death penalty for any offense. 

Therefore, it is unreasonable to take the life of a fleeing 

offender unless the person poses an immediate threat to the 

life of the officer, other officers or member of the public.

2. The officer must consider alternatives to deadly force and 

use deadly force only as a last resort.

3. Warning shots are strictly prohibited under any circumstances.

4. The officer must consider whether the safety of bystanders 

will be unreasonably jeopardized by the officer's action.

5. Discharge of a weapon at or from a vehicle is prohibited unless 

the occupants of the vehicle are using deadly force against the 

officer by means other than the vehicle.

6. Officers should draw and display weapons only where: (a) an

ordinary, prudent officer would reasonably fear for her or his 

own safety or the safety of others; (b) the offender is 

reasonably suspected of having a weapon in his or her possession.

7. All incidents in which shots are fired must be reported immediately 

to the officer’s supervisor. The supervisor shall investigate the 

situation immediately and submit a written report of the incident 

to the chief of police. If necessary, a Board of Inquiry may be 

authorized by the chief.



-51-

Weapons may be worn off-duty unless sound judgment dictates 

otherwise and officers should exercise extreme caution in situations 

where alcoholic beverages are being consumed.

The standard which governs deadly force actions will normally be 

that which an ordinary prudent officer would do under the same or 

similar circumstances. This standard does not preclude application 

of criminal law standards to a particular case.



-52-

FOOTNOTES

1. "The Police Use of Excessive and Deadly Force," by Lennox S. Hinds in
A Community Concern: Police Use of Deadly Force, National Institute of
Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice, Washington, D. C., 1979 (p.4).

2. Ibid, p. 4, See also: "Deadly Force" Police Magazine, March, 1981; "Time 
for a Truce" by Vernon Jordan, Flint Journal, May 5, 1980; "Police Shootings 
at Minorities" by Marshall W. Meyer in Annals, November, 1980, p. 102.

3. Ibid, p. 4. See Also: Milton, Walleck, Lardner & Abrect, Police Use of
Deadly Force, Police Foundation, Washington, D. C., 1977.

4. "Deadly Force as a Deterrent to Felony Crimes Against Property: An
Analysis of Michigan Police Officer Attitudes Toward Statutory Limitations 
on Their Use of Discretion," Andrew Lamare Rodez (unpublished doctoral 
thesis), Michigan State University, 1980.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Michigan Chiefs of Police, Newsletter, August 22, 1980. Also, Pol ice 
Magazine, Supra.

8. "Evaluation of Firearms Policies," by the Citizens Resources of Flint
(Interfaith Action Council).

9. American Law Institute, Model Penal Code Section 302, 1962.

10. Michigan Bar Association, 1979 Report, Draft Revised Penal Code.

11. Police Misconduct Law & Litigation, National Lawyers Guild, 1980 (p. 11).

12. "Administrative Interventions On Police Shooting Discretion: An Empirical
Examination," James J. Fyfe, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 7, 1979.

13. Ibid.

14. Milton, Walleck, Lardner & Abrect, Supra.

15. Chevigny, Paul, Police Power: Police Abuses in New York City, Pantheon
Books, New York, 1969.

16. Milton, et al, Supra.

17. Fyfe, Supra.

18. "When L.A. Police Shoot, the D.A. 'Rolls Out' Police Magazine,
March, 1971, p. 17.

19. "Excution Without Trial," Lawrence W. Sherman, Vanderbilt Law Review,
Vol. 33, January, 1980.



-53-

20. Ibid.

21. "Police Shooting At Minorities: The Case of Los Angeles," Marshall W.
Meyer, Annals, November, 1980.

22. Ibid.

23. Rodez, Supra.

24. Handbook, Supra.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Sherman, Supra.

28. Fyfe, Supra.

29. Ibid.

30. "Stop Or I'll Throw My Net At You," Police Magazine, New York, March, 
1981, p. 23.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES

DEPARTMENT ARREST

BATTLE CRE IK DISTRICT

City of
Battle
Creek

Mere suspicion 
prohibited.

Page 1

Calhoun
County

FLEEING FELON
DEFENSE OF 

SELF, OTHERS

Limited to reasonabl 
perception that then 
is an immediate 
threat.

When necessary to 
save life or prevent 
felonious assault.

MOVING VEHICLE

Prohibited at or 
from unless 
occupants are 
using against 
officer - by 
other than the 
vehicle.

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

WARN ING 
SHOT

Extreme
caution.

OFF
DUTY

frohibi- "Encour- 
ited tie aged"
Ito by- 
Istandersl

SECOND
GUNS

Shot­
guns

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAY INC PORT

Only ill If sound 
size 
bears 
on
capa­
city.

judgment 
means 
reason

RE- COM- 1 
MEI, n

Inves-j 
Liga­
tion I 
by

able fearsuper-|
for 
personal 
safety - 
includes 
burglary
& robben
situa­
tions anc 
if offen­
der is 
suspectec 
of havint 
a weapon

visor 
& not 
to
Chief

Reasonable belief 
necessary and ex­
haustion must be 
forcible felony if 
will endanger life 
unless arrested.

Escape by deadly 
weapon.

Permitted Must
be
autho
rized

City of 
Kalamazoo

Reasonable belief:
1. No apparent 
alternative;
2. Safety of by­
standers and

a. confrontation 
situation or

b. probable 
cause to believe 
subject just com­
mitted or known to 
have committed

Reasonable belief:
1. Necessary to 
defend from immediate 
threat; 2. No alter­
native; 3. Bystanders 
not endangered. 
Immediate threat: 
ability, opportunity, 
jeopardy.

From - prohibi­
ted;
At - prohibited 
unless "confron 
tation"

Part of con­
frontation.

Prohibi
ted

Hold 
ready butjl 
not
pointed 
on block 
ade.

Must 
be to 
com­
mand 
officer.

Report
sent
to
Chief



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 2

DEPARTMENT ARREST FLEEING FELON
DEFENSE OF 

SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE
■ i n nocent “ ■■
BYSTANDERS

WARN ING 
SHOT

OF'F
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

RE­
PORT

COM-
MENil

BATTLE CRE :K d i s t r i c t , cont'd
—

City of Ka lamazoo, cont'd. murder, rape, armed
robbery, felonious 
assault.

Kalamazoo
County

Necessary to effec 
an arrest and 
Person
--is committing 
forcible entry; 
--escape by deadly 
weapon.

If will endanger 
human life unless 
arrested.

■

'
1
1
!
1

1_________ 1_______
BENTON HAR BOR DISTRICT

One
citi­
zen,
one
offi­
cer
death

Benton
Township

Only to prevent 
escape of person 
charged with or 
convicted of if 
person is reason­
ably believed to 
have committed.

Same standard as for 
self-defense.

Must be con­
sidered.

Prohi­
bited

Only for 
use.

Must
report
in
writ­
ing tc 
com- 
nand- 
ing 
offi­
cer.

VanBuren
County
Sheriff

Only if escape 
would endanger 
1 ife of others.

Limited to situations 
in which loss of life 
threatened.

!
1

i
1
1

Dowaqiac HAS NO POLICY IND FEELS NO NEED F( R ONE 1
Eau
Clai re

Authorized if 
during the commis­
sion of felony.

Authorized If officers life in 
jeopardy or citizen 
may suffer death or 
bodily harm.

Berrien
County
Sheriff

Must exhaust; 
justified if con­
sistent with 
authority granted 
a police officer.

Must be more than 
mere suspicion.

When necessary to 
save life, or defend 
against great bodily 
harm.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Rage

1EPARTMENT

BENTON HARBOR DISTRICT. cont'U.
Limited to situa­
tion where felon 
known to have com- 

;mitted an offense

Benton
Harbor

Cass. Co. 
Sheriff
Berrien
Springs
Oronoko
Township

Niles

St.
Joseph

ARREST

Must be virtual 
certainty that 
offender committed 
crime involving 
deadly force, 
except burglary.

FLFEIHCi FELON

NO POLICY

Use in escape 
situation if 
likely to go 
unpunished.

involving deadly 
force - if delay 
may result in 
further injury - 
if no likelihood o 
later apprehension

"OUR POLICY ON 
CAN USE DEADLli
w i t h o u t the u ;

Can't be mere sus­
picion or when 
fails to stop, or 
at blockade - must 
use to prevent 
escape in arrest 
situation.
Only if would have 
authority to arres 
for the felony;
Not mere suspicion
- failure to halt
- running blockade 
Must use to pre­
vent escape from 
arrest if would go 
unpunished.
THE USE OF DEADLY 
FORCE IN THE APPR 

lE OF FORCE." Lettt

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

Authorized

When necessary to 
protect self, others

When necessary.
If others, must be 

in presence.

MOVING VEHICLE

From - 
Prohibited

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

FORCE IS THE SAME AS
;h e n s i o n of a per s o n
r - no policy submit

DESCRIBED IN MICI 
NVOLVED IN A FELC)! 
,ed.

Prohibited if 
danger to by­
standers.

WARNING
SHOT

Prohi­
bited

OFF
DUTY

Higan s t a t u t e ,
NY ACT ONLY WHERE

ERE A 
APPRE

PJ

SECOND
GUNS

LICE OFF
Nens i o n i:;

Limitec 
to sell 
defense 
-injury 
to
others 
-later 
appre- 
hensior 
Last

CER BY
q u e s t :

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/ 
DISPLAY INC

Resort

LAW
ONABLE

Inspec­
tion & 
use

RE­
PORT

Reporl 
in
writitjg 
to
commatjd- 
ing 
officer.

COM­
MENT



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 4

DEPARTMENT

BENTON HAR30R DISTRICT, cont' I
Three
Rivers
Hartford
DETROIT DISTRICT
Detroit

Wayne
County
Sheriff

Ecorse

ARREST

NO POLICY

NO WRITTEN POLICY

FLEEING FELON

Not on mere suspicfon, must be virtua 
certainty or witnessed may use to 
arrest or prevent ijscape if murder, 
rape, robbery, felonious breaking & 
entering, arson.

Limited to situa- Only where clear 
tions where office' and present dange ■ 
is defending him­
self or herself 
from death or 
serious injury.

Only in extreme 
cases - must 
actually see crime 
such as murder, 
rape, burglary, 
arson or the like; 
he should shoot hiip 
rather than permit 
him to escape - 
especially if he 
doesn't know person

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

Permitted

When necessary

MOVING VEHICLE

From - only in 
extreme neces­
sity.

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

Must consider 
"substantial 
danger" to.

WARNING
SHOT

OFF
DUTY

Prohibi
ted

Prohibi
ted

Must "bear in 
mind"

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/ 
DISPLAY INC

RE­
PORT

Written
report
by super-
visorJ
Homoctde
section
if death.

COM­
MENT

i Tie t( 
'death 
pen- 

' a 1 ty.

Must I 
notify 
officer 
in chi.



■SUMWRY OF i)EW)LT- FORCE PCL1CIC5 ■' i  - Pa^e

:XPARTMENT

DETROIT DISTRICT, conf d.
Ecorsc, ctirt^.

Redford 
Township

ARREST

C U y  of 
Livonia

City of 
Riverview

Extreme cases.

Only amount 
necessary.

FLEEING FELON

of if he may go 
unpunished. Not on 
mere suspicion - nit 
person who offers io 
resistance but run:. 
only to avoid arrest.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

Only if threat to 
life - same stan­
dard as in defense 
category.

Limited to crimes 
"such as murder, 
rape, burglary, 
arson or the like;
"he should shoot 
him rather than per­
mit him to escape, 
especially if he 
doesn't know crimital 
and may go unpunished; 
should not fire on 
mere suspicion - i 
call to halt and rilns 
only to avoid arre:t, 
doesn't offer 
resistance.

Only where: -clear S 
sufficient reason to 
believe person about 
to be killed or 
greviously injured; 
-clear S sufficient 
reason to believe 
person poses an 
immediate threat to 
the safety of others
When necessary.

MOVING VCH igE

At - only if 
life threaten­
ing standard is 
met.

ŴNdCENt
BYSTAIgERS

Poor judgment 
involving 
"wanton dis­
regard for 
public safety" 
is subject to 
discipline.

SHOT

Pro­
hibited

Must bear in 
mind.

TRJTYr
^ c t s u t

Required

V-S,"

Autho­
rized, 
must bd 
approved 
shotgur s

JSVE-
jilLE

POLICY RECEIVED DEALS PRIMARILY WITH TREATMENT OF PRISONERS

RE- t?iSM' 
PORT HiEilT!

Writt^ 
report- 
mjst also 
notify 
chief 
Official 
investiga­
tion ^f 
someone 
shot, 'j____

IBeing
|re-
Ivised



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 6

lEPARTMENT ARREST

DETROIT DI

_j___FLET lUG FELON

Allen Park
[STRICT, cont'd.

"DEPARTMENT POLlCY IS GOVERNED BY
City of General - limited
Inkster to murder, rape,

I robbery, burglary,! only way to pre 
I  arson or the like.j vent escape of 

j person known to 
I have committed 
.murder, rape,
I robbery, burglary 
& arson." Not when 
known to officer 
or witnesses & 
subsequent arrest 
can be made.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

STATE LAW.

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
OISPLAYINC

RE­
PORT

COM­
MENT

!Use "when in sound 
j discretion," is

Must be resistence 
threat of serious 
bodily injury.

Must be involvec 
in a serious 
felony.

May be 
"extremely 
dangerous" - 
Better to let 
go than risk 
injury to by­
stander.

Pro­
hibited

Reject'
'[reasor
able
dause"
dule;
ties tc
iapital
punish-
itient.

River
Rouge

Last resort - woul 
officer shoot? Mus 
burglary, arson or 
Not on mere suspi 
resistance.

ordinary prudent 
: see murder, rape, 
a major felony, 
on - use only if

Extreme cases - 
Protection of life.

Subject 
to Stan 
dards of 
arrest.

Report

[Death

i'nn
com­
mand 
officer.

City of 
Flat Rock

Extreme cases only 
Not on mere sus­
picion.

Last resport - mus 
be serious crime & 
who may go unpun­
ished if allowed td 
flee because no 
description or 
identification.

When necessary. "Must bear in 
mind"

City of
Grosse
Pointe

Exhaustion; if nec 
resistance must be} 
must be strong and} 
not on mere suspic|i 
virtual certainty b 
rape, robbery, felp 
entering resulting 

i harm or death.

ssary to overcome 
wise and careful, 
compelling need; 
on; must know with 
r witness murder, 
nious breaking & 
in serious bodily

From - only in
extreme
necessity.

Can't fire if 
substantial 
risk to inno­
cent by­
standers.

Pro­
hibited
ricoche
ing
bullet

Idea
of
capi­
tal
punish
ment.



SUWARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page j__

JEPARTMENT

DETROIT DIITRICT, cont'd.
Garden
City

Dearborn
Heights

Woodhaven

ARREST

Exhaustion.

FLEEING FELON

"When such action 
accordance with th? 
granted an officer 
Must consider subs 
person will cause 
delayed; can't if 
apprehended reason.i 
use of deadly force 
picion, must either 
as virtual certain 
mitted an offense 
force can be used.

Not on mere sus­
picion; not failure 
to halt; not 
running blockade.

can be justified in 
use of force 

to effect an arres^; 
antial risk that 

death, harm if 
.uspect can be 
bly soon without 

not mere sus- 
witness or know 

;y that person com- 
or which deadly

Limited to clear & 
to believe officer 
about to be grevioi 
killed or is an im 
the safety of othej' 
armed person despe 
to elude capture.

Exhaustion.
Limited to necessa 
death or serious i 
prevent escape wheh 
use or threat or 
-there is a substa?ti 
will cause death 
harm if delayed.

sufficient reason 
or someone else is 
sly injured or 
lediate threat to 
s, such as an 
•ately attempting

■y defense from 
iijury; effect arres 

-crime involved 
adly force and 
tial risk person 
serious bodily

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE

When necessary to From - only in 
save life or prevent^ extreme emer- 

serious injury. i gency.

May act in self- 
defense but can't 

retaliate - should be 
aware when murder, 
assault, rape, bur­
glary because apt to 
be armed.

Only if immediatje 
threat of death 
or grevious injutry.

Discussion of 
"hot car"

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

Must consider
substantial
danger.

WARNING
SHOT

Pro­
hibited

OFF
DUTY

Pro­
hibited

Pro­
hibited
Ricochel

SECOND
GUNS

Must 
registe 
& be 
checkec 
with 
MDSP

Must be 
approved.

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
OISPLAYINC

Should
not
fire.

Writ­
ten
repor
to
super
visor
investji
gates
writte
Div Cni
or Chi

ûst 
iotif> 
chief 
offi­
cial 
invesH 
tigatlon 
if I 
someorte 
shot.

COM­
MENT

Capi­
tal

t Punish 
ment

n
dr 
ef.

List
of
dis­
cip­
line r>

Never Writ- Alarm 
point ten Shot 
unless report 
there is Command 
a right officer 
to shoot;investi- 
never gates & 
shoot reports to 
unless Chief Bd. ot 
there is Review for



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 8

DEPARTMENT

DETROIT DISTRICT, cont'd.
Woodhaven,

ARREST

cont'd.
Separate section 
states can take a 
person's life if a 
felony is involved

FLEEING FELON

Separate section 
states can kill 
while arresting; | 
for "more atrocioui

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

felonies"; states
that limit is to
"like murder or
rape, but not thef . <1 • >
later section -
shooting at a flee ng
felon may be justi ied.

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC PORT

a right 
to kill.

RE-

each c is- 
chargt.

"Get everly adve 
you can dver a 
who is about tc 
at you. Ete fir
draw, fir 
do not gi 
necessary

St to 
ve any 
warn

COM­
MENT

ntage 
persor 
fire 
to 

fire; 
un-

i ng.."

St

North- 
vi 1 le

Grosse
Pointe
Farms

Limited to clear & 
believe that he or 
to be greviously i 
poses an immediate 
others, such as an 
tely attempting to

sufficient reason to 
someone else is abiut 
ijured or killed or| 
threat to safety o 

lied person despera- 
elude capture.

At - must be 
threat to life, 
injury standard

Pro­
hibited

Required 
while in 
township 
unless 
"imprac­
tical"

If
approvdd

Inspec­
tion or 
use.

Offi­
cial
inves
tiga-

■tion ^ 
report 
required.

Dis­
cip­
linary 

st

Amount officer rea 
necessary to arres 
of a reasonably suj 
Exhaustion - limit 
to murder, rape, 
robbery, felonious 
breaking & entering 
arson, felonious 
assaults which migjit 
lead to serious 
bodily harm or dea

lonably believes 
or prevent "escap^ 
pected felon"

Must be directly 
endangering human 
life.

Must consider Pro­
hibited

Inspec- Only 
ted, if 
regis- self' 
tered I  defen:
 ̂ iapproved.

Inspect! 
or use

on

se



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 9

DEPARTMENT

DETROIT DISTRICT, cont'd.
Hamtramck

Dearborn

ARREST

Exhaustion - "last 
compelling need, a 
escape if persons 
to have committed 
-lesser force poss 
apprehend reasonab 
bystanders; must 
sufficient informa 
believe based on p 
committed; traini 
murder, rape, robb^ 
arson.

w

ng

Exhaustion 
To effect arrest o 
committed a violen 
deadly force - mus 
sufficient informa; 
virtual certainty

FLEEING FELON

resort", strong & 
■rest or prevent 
-easonably believed 
‘elony unless: 
ble; -belief can 
y soon; -danger to 
tness or have 
ion to reasonably 
-obable cause persoi 
bulletin limits to 

ry, burglary or 
Escape - not if 
known to officer 
can later be 
effected.

- person who 
felony involving 
witness or have 
ion to know as 
inspect committed.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

Must use threat, must 
be immediate.

When the officer must 
defend himself or 
another person from 
death or serious 
injury.

MOVING VEHICLE

From - extreme 
necessity - 
training bulleti 
applies to "movi ng"

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

At - only if Not un-
defense of per- less
son or violent must de-
felony involved. fend or 

violent 
felony 
situa­
tions.

WARNING
SHOT

Pro­
hibited

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
d i s p l a y i n g

Never poi nt 
"unless you 
intend to 
shoot"

RE­
PORT

COM-
MENi:

Capi­
tal
pun­
ish­
ment.

flrit-iSeries 
ten lof 
det- jOrders 
ailed' 
immed­
iate !i 
■)pt ti>
Div.
Com, I 
Det­
ective 
3ur. I 
if death or 
injury 
TevieU Bd.

Grosse
Pointe
Shores

"STATE LAW PREVAILS"



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Rage 10

DEPARTMENT

DETROIT DHTRICT. cont'd.
City of 
Westland

City of 
Wyandotte

Highland
Park

City of 
Wayne
City of 
Grosse 
Pte. Park
Grosse lie
Township

ARREST

- use or threat of

FLEEING FELON

Exhaustion - use when crime included:
deadly force;

- substantial riskjperson will cause 
death or injury ifI apprehension 
delayed.

Only in extreme sijiuations. 
Based on amount of Must see committitg 
resistance; if nonfe"murder, rape, arm^d 
then can't stop if robbery or other 
only trying to major felony,"

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE

When necessary to 
defend from death or 
serious injury.

Only where self- 
defense.

When necessary to 
save life.

flee.

Exhaustion

especially "if 
doesn't know 
identity and crime 
may go unpunished. 
Last Resort.
Must know person 
committed "murder, 
rape, robbery, 
arson or the like"

I not on mere 
1 suspicion._____ _

COMPLIES "WITH STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES"
Only for felon 
"involved in a ser 
crime"

Extreme cases.

Authorized

ous

Must actually see 
crime of "murder, 
rape, burglary, 
arson, or the like' 
especially if don’t 
know identity and may 
go unpunished -

When necessary - 
life or serious injurl

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

WARNING
SHOT

Pro­
hibited

OFF
DUTY

'SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

Should bear 
in mind the 
danger.

Should bear in 
mind.

Must bear in 
mind.

Must 
meet 
extreme 
situa­
tions 
standards.

Pro- 
hibi ted

Prohibited 
unless 
self- j 
[defense! 
"known lor 
suspecte 
to be 
juveni It

Must be 
registeji 
with chi

red
ief

ed

Only if 
in imme|- 
jdiate 
[danger 
|include|s 
women. '

RE­
PORT

kj .**.,alarm Written
jreporl 
jcopy 1o 
[inspec 
[tor; 
investii-

COM-
MENT

gati ve 
bureai 
to "fqllow 
up"
*1ust 
report 
imme 
diate 
to CO.

Revis­
ing 

ORM

'lust 
notify 
officer 
in charge 
immedfately.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page II

DEPARTMENT

DETROIT DI STRICT, cont'd.
Grosse lie

FLINT DISTUCT
FI int

ARREST FLEEING FELON

Township, cont'd.jCan't shoot if:
!-irere suspicion &
I-runs away without 
'resistance to avoic 
I arrest.

DEFENSE OE 
SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

WARNING

SHOT

Reasonably necessary. Exhaustion or 
if other means cleirly ineffective. 
Only in extreme |0nly where officer 
situations where [has probable cause 
protecting officerito believe person 
or citizens. iperpetuated a life

[threatening assaull 
lor homocide.

I

Genessee
County
Sheriff

Grand Rapi

Reasonable & necesiary.
[Virtual certainty 
I that person per- 
Ipetuated or is 
Icharged with a 1ife 
1 threatening assauli 
'or homocide.

DON'T USE IF CAN ACCOMPLISH BY OTHER MEANS.

Reasonable & 
necessary.

At - only when 1 "Precautions 
fired upon - [ must be taken
driver can't to protect" 
fire unless he 
or she is alone.

Not compelled if 
defense can be 
accomplished by othe 
means.

From - not under 
any circumstances

GRAND RAPI )S DISTRICT
is Must be an "overt threat to life, 

clear 8 present"[Mere suspicion 
does not justify.'

Authorized

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE DISPLAY INC PORT

Should 
not be 
fired.

Must consider

lAutho- I 
rized, [ 
Iregis- i 
ter witjh 
depart 
ment.

Pro- 
h i b i ted

DRAWING/ RE-

Wri t- 
ten tc 
super-

who
nust
inves

COM-:
m e n , I

Only
in
ex­

visor ,treme 
cases' 
Facts 
1 imi- 

tigatdted tc 
.those 
:known
I'tO
,offi- 
;cers .

Vrit- Aim at 
ten !lar- 
'•eportgest
:o
lom-
nand
affi-
:er,
then
to
Sher­
iff.

'ex­
posed
por­
tion
of
;per- 
'son's 
body

Limit
to
facts
known
to
offi­
cer.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 12

lEPARTMENT

GRAND RAPnS DISTRICT, cont'd
Kent
County
Sheriff

Walker
(draft)

ARRFST FLEEING FELON

Reasonable belief hecessary to pre­
vent escape and - person committed 
forcible felony ori- person has indi­
cated he will endahger human life.
Forcible felony in 
voluntary manslaug 
kidnapping, feloni 
other felony invol 
force or violence.

;ludes murder, 
iter, robbery, arsoifi, 
ius assault, and any 
/ing use of physica

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

When necessary

Limited to defense oT 
self, others.

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

Pro­
hibited

OFF
DUTY

rrr
SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC PORT

RE-

To
Chief

COM-
MENi

Dis­
cus­
sion
of
hos­
tage
situa­
tion.

Wyoming Amount reasonable 
to effect arrest.

Only where would 
constitute an 
immediate danger 
to society.______

Authorized Writtdn 
report 
to Chief.

JACKSON DISTRICT
City of 
Jackson

Not for property 
crime unless 
threat to life. 
Exhaustion.

Not because of 
failure to halt or 
running blockade.

City of 
Adrian

W1STATES THAT 
USE OF DEADLY 
WHERE LIFE IS

When necessary to 
protect life against 
felonious assault. 
Also from dangerous 
felony in his pre­
sence, likely to 
result in serious 
injury.

Not when pur­
suing.

Not when 
danger exists.

Pro­
hibited II

Required 
except i 
own home 
when soc 
unaccept^ 
Registra 
required

Use only.

or
ally
ble.
ion

ITTEN POLICY LIMIT! 
FORCE TO SITUATIONS 
IN JEOPARDY.

Pro­
hibited

Can draw i 
arrest or 
investigal 
when neces 
for his ov 
safety, Cc 
cock it.

Must tie 
reported to 
Commapder S 
Chief^ writ­
ten report 
superyiser 
to investi­
gate,pubmit 
written 
chief) then 
assigns 
investigator
n

ion
sary
n
n't

‘Letter 
' only



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE PCLICIiS Page 13

DEPARTMENT

JACKSON DI
City of 
Ypsilanti

ARREST

STRICT, cont'd.
Exhaustion-If 
reasonable cause 
to believe person 
committing or com­
mitted felony 
involving threat 
or use of deadly 
force or if be!ief 
substantial risk 
if delay

FLEEING FELON

Exhaustion- 
Suspicion or fligh ; 
alone are not 
enough. Must be 
firmly based know­
ledge that suspect 
committed felony 
involving serious 
or aggressive.

■ DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

Exhaustion - When 
necessary to protect 
life - amount to 
overcome resistance.

INNOCENT 
MOVING VEHICLE i BYSTANDERS

Not auto theft- 
exhaustion - 
From - only in j 
self-defense. i

"Must exercise 
caution"

I

WARNING
SHOT

Never 
over 
person' 
head or 
into gr 
to frig 
- ricoc 
shot.

)und
iten
let

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

"Applids 
equal1j 
to, but 
1imitec 
to 1 i f£ 
protect i

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

RE­
PORT

mg.

COM­
MENT

Alarm
shot
per­
mittee

Monroe
County
Sheriff

When such action 
can be justified 
in accordance with 
the use of force 
granted an officer 
to effect an 
arrest.

Not on mere sus­
picion - Not 
failure to halt or 
running blockade.

When necessary to 
protect life.

Report
requited.

Lenawee
County
Sheriff

Exhaustion - "When 
such action can be 
justified in 
accordance with 
the use of force 
granted an officer 
to effect an arrest

Not on mere sus­
picion - Not 
failure to halt or 
running blockade.

When necessary to 
save own life, other; 
or protect from 
felonious assault.

Washtenaw
County
Sheriff

Must be strong and: 
May use to effect 
escape of person kh 
-murder, kidnapping 
armed robbery, ars 
must see or know a^ 
-must be in plain

compelling need, 
rrest or prevent 
own to have: 

forcible rape, 
an. Exhaustion - 
virtual certainty 
iew.

Need
Exhaustion 
Last Resort

At or From - 
prohibited 
unless extreme 
necessity and 
direct threat tc 
life - last 
resort. Extremt 
necessity means j 
risk of death, | 
injury greater j 
if delay.

Can't fire if 
substantial 
danger to - 
ties to other 
categories.

Being
re­
vised

Pro­
hibited

Permitted 
must qua ify.

Must
evalu­
ate
age.

Must be
reason­
able 
belief, 
substan 
tial risk 
will
escalate 
to use of 
deadly 
force.

to
commar-must
der.

Immed
reportwea-

A11

pons

be
regis­
tered
with
DSP.
Double
action
in
stan­
dard.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 14

DEPARTMENT ARREST

JACKSON DI STRICT, cont'd.
Ann Arbor

Jackson
County
Sheriff

LANSING DI5TRICT

Ingham
County
Sheriff

When necessary to 
protect self from

FLEEING FELON

save life or 
'elonious assault.

Only when lawful 
authority to arrest, 
only if exhaustion 
or felon likely to 
go unpunished.

Permitted for 
felony.

Not on mere sus­
picion - may use to 
prevent escape 
"particularly when 
such a person has 
committed a 
felonious crime of 
violence.
Must be a 
"dangerous" felon 
(violent) Must 
exhaust.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

Permitted - but may 
not do so 
arbitrarily.

Only in the "final 
defense of the life"

WARNING
SHOT

ieqired Only 
unless when 
would un- orderec 
•easonablyMust b( 
mpede nafregistgred 
ure of 

activity 
of where 
10 safe place 
or stora 'e

"Not expected to 
fire..at unless 
positive of 
identity of all 
occupants and 
dangerous felon 
or final defense!,

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

Pro­
hibited

Requi red 
unless or 
vacation 
Must be 
for pro­
tection 
of life, 
interrup 
tion or 
iserious 
felony.

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

Never un­
less nec- 
iessary- 
;inspection(, 
|range, use| 
cleaning

RE­
PORT

COM-. 
MEN. I

Being
re­
vised

.No
istan-
Idard
Ifor
jreasor
lor
belief

Written 
Report,

I
nvest i- 
atior by 
uperior 
fficer to 
hief; offi- 
ial inves- 
igation; if 
someone in­
jured or



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page J5_

DEPARTMEUT

LANSING DI STRICT, cont'd.
Ingham Couity Sheriff, cont'di

ARREST FLEEING FELON
DEFENSE OF 

SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC PORT

RE- COM­
MENT

killed. 
Internal 
Affai ijs 
Unit inves- 
tiqatilon

East
Lansing

When the officer has lawful authority 
to arrest for felohy involving vio­
lence & felon is attempting to 
escape S re-apprehpnsions would be 
impossible or very]difficult.

"When necessary" "Wien 
the officer discover; a 
person committing or about 
to cornnit a felony dargerous 
to human life & all ether 
means of prevention vould 
be too slow, ineffective or 
hazardous to the vicilim or 
nffir.er."____________

Special sec­
tion on shot­
guns relates 
to bystanders.

Pro­
hibited

Being
re­
vised

Vrit 
ten 
de­
tail ec 
rpt. 'uper- 
visor shall 
initic te. 
Notify Chf. 
f injury

Eaton
County FOLLOWS STATEjLAW

tjn
MUSKEGON DISTRICT
Muskegon
Heights

Limited to situati 
tor threatened use 
if substantial ris 
harm if delayed; 
cion - must witnes$ 
certainty" - not i 
reasonably soon af

N)

)ns where perpetra- 
of deadly force or 
of death, serious 
t on mere suspi- 
or have "virtual 
can be apprehende| 

er.

"Necessary force" From - pro­
hibited - 
"never"

Can't use if 
"substantial 
danger"

Pro­
hibited

Vri tte 
detailed 
report 
by super-

Muskegon
Township

"Such force as 
seems to him" to bb 
necessary; Supreme 
Ct. opinion cited, 
honestly appeared 
to him at time to 
be reasonable & 
right.

Must exercise 
reasonable care 
to prevent with­

out force; only 
where "killing is 
necessary to pre­
vent escape."

Amount "necessary"



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 16

JEPARTMENT

MUSKEGON DISTRICT, cont'd.
Lake
County
Sheriff

Muskegon
County

City of 
Muskegon

ARREST

Natl Assn, of 
Chiefs of Police 
form "last resort; 
person must be 
1- "known to be a 
danger;" 2-"armed;
3- committed vio­
lent crime;
4- threat to life.

_L

seems necessary 
Not on suspicion 
only; quotes State 
Supreme Ct. "what 
honestly appeared 
to him at time to 
be reasonable and 
right"

FLEEING FELON

Not on mere suspi­
cion or because of 
failure to halt or 
running blockade.

Must be necessary 
required to reason 
able care to pre­
vent.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

"When necessary"

MOVING VEHICLE

At - only when 
necessary to 
defend life and 
other means have 
failed.

INNOCENT
BYSTANDERS

Yes - have to 
allow escape 
rather than 
endanger.

If "seems" 
"necessary"

Norton i Policy submitted d6es not discuss - 
Shores I required to exercise "utmost care & 

precaution in presirvation and use.

WARNING
SHOT

Pro­
hibited

Pro­
hibited

OFF
DUTY

Permitted 
but not 
required

SECOND
GUNS

Required Author 
unless i1 ized 
would im­
pede on 
the natuije 
of their 
activity.

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

Inspectlor 
or use. I

RE­
PORT

Only for 
official 
use.

COM­
MENT

'Same
!as
|Muske- 
gon 
.Town­
ship
I
I

Rdquirec 
td re- 
c6rd 
serial 
#'jof 2nc 
weapon.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 17

DEPARTMENT ARREST FLEEING FELON
DEFENSE OF 

SELF, OTHERS MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARN ING 
SHOT

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

RE­
PORT

COM- ■ 
MEi.il

PONTIAC DI 
Macomb 
County 
Sheriff

STRICT
Gillespie's Mich, 
as seen reasonably 
for arrest & preve 
reasonable care to 
suspicion only.

llrim. Law - amount 
necessary to him 
iting escape - 
prevent - not on 
Exhaustion flee 
ing felon must be 
known dangerous 
felon.

When reasonable S 
necessary - may use 
to prevent a felony 
in which human life 
■is in jeopardy.

Generally, pro­
hibited except 
"emergency condi­
tions" which incl 
robbery, homocide 
serious assault; 
would not include 
auto theft.

udes
9

Pro­
hibited

Reviev 
Bd. m< 
appoir 
Bd. SI 
repori 
Sherii

y be 
ted; 
bmits 
to 

f

St. Clair
County
Sheriff

BEING DEVELOP ;d

Port Huron Can fire if fleein 
from murder, rape, 
robbery, burglary 
& arson if it 
appears as only 
way to prevent 
escape.

That which he may dc 
for himself, he may 
do for others.

1
Bloomfield
Hills LIMITED TO Cl Y COMMISSION POLIC ON BRUTALITY - PROHl BITS "UNNECESSARY FORCE"

1
1

Pontiac Last resort - Offi 
cer must know per­
son committed the 
felony or legally 
acceptable probabl 
cause to believe 
person committed.

Must have legally 
justifiable reason 
to believe life in 
danger.

i

Must give 
maximum con­
sideration to 
safety.

Only
where
they
would be 
legally 
justifie 
in shoot 
ing.

Required 
in City 
of
Pontiac.

1

Require 
shotgur 
authori 
if appr

d
s
zed
oved.

Must
sub­
mit
writ-.
ten
rept.
to
Bureai
Com­
mander

One
offi­
cer,
8 cit­
izens 
killec 
2nd
weapor
must
be
regis­
tered.

lis-
ges.

Warren Gillespie Force whi 
seems necessary for 
arrest or preventin 
escape - Must exhau 
not on suspicion

:h

3
S t

^hen reasonable and ' 
lecessary.

Generally prohi­
bited" - May per­
mit deviation if 
"emergency 
conditions."

Pro­
hibited iot whe 

reasona 
grounds 
believe 
suspect

1
Die
to

is

All
char

juvenile.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page J8_

DEPARTMENT

Oakland
County
Sheriff

ARREST

PONTIAC DISTRICT, cont'd.

Birmingham

Royal Oak

SAGINAW DISTRICT
City of 
Saginaw

Must exhaust all 
reasonable means 
of apprehension; 
not on suspicion; 
minimal amount of 
force sufficient 
to accomplish 
mission; depends 
on size, weapon.

Would the ordinary 
prudent officer do 
under similar cir­
cumstances; can't 
shoot on mere sus­
picion.

FLEEING FELON

Arrest - after 
exhaust.
-murder, -robbery,
-burglary,
-kidnapping.
Limits non-violent 
felony use.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

If al1 other means 
have failed, use "in 
necessary defense"

If officer sees:
-murder
-rape
-burglary
-arson
-major felony; 
must appear to be 
only way to escape

When necessary.

To effect arrest ô - prevent escape of 
felon who commits offense in 
presence of office'
Must exhaust.

Forcible felony; - 
armed robbery & fe 
not mere suspicion 
committed a forcib 
reason to believe

murder, rape, 
onious assault;
Last Resort; has 

e felony & must corlsider 
;till armed; continued 

pursuit would endanger officer; serious 
ness requires apprehension; whether felon 

i known; must know biyond reasonable doubt 
person fleeing committed offense or witnessed.

May use when 
necessary.

Actual & 
belief.

reasonable

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING] OFF 
SHOT I DUTY

Can't discharge 
if sole offense 
is auto theft. 
From - limit to 
situations where
a) no danger to 
others and
b) occupants 
firing at 
officer.

From - only wherje 
"extraordinary 
circumstances or 
self-defense;
At - must considler 
innocent occupanjts 
of other car.

Must exercise 
precaution - 
shouldn't be 
used if will 
endanger.

Must "bear in 
mind"

danb(
Hold fire "if 
there is a 
of a ricochet. 
Great caution 
area crowded.

Never over 
someonejs 
head or 
into ground 
just to 
frighten.

Pro­
hibited

er

tif

SECOND
GUNS

Applies May draw Writ- Permit 
if nec- ten dis- 
essary rpt. icharge 
for |to !for

to 
juve­
niles.

Pro­
hibited

Must be
register d. if
Autho­
rized; 
same rul^s 
apply.

Authorized

appreved.

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING,.
DISPLAYIl

RE­
PORT

COM-
MEN1

I safety; |superJalarm:
shall nobvisor. 
be cocked.

Must be 
for use.

"If ir 
doubt, 
don' t 
fire"

T ies 
to
death
pen­
alty

Com- I MuSt 
Hand- regis- 
ing I ter; 
offi-Imay 
cer fire 
T!ust ifor 
com- jalarm
plete
form

Display onjly 
when use 
immediatelly 
called for 
or nature 
incident ray 
necessi tate.

I

of

Must
say
"Poltc
Halt"
Train­
ing
once c 
quar­
ter.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 19

DEPARTMENT

SAGINAW PI STRICT, cont'd.
City of Sajinaw, cont'd.

Bay City

Bay County
Sheriff

ARREST FLEEING FELON

Must exhaust - when Can't be on mere 
can be'Sustified ih suspicion or
accordance with 
use of force 
granted an officer 
to effect an 
arrest in a felony

NO WRITTEN POIICY - "OUR PEOPLE ARE INSTRUCTED ALONG THE PERIMETERS OF

failure to halt 
or runs blockade.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF, OTHERS

When necessary to sa\je 
life or protect from 
felonious assault.

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

THE LAW IN THE WSE OF F

OFF
DUTY

REARMS"

SECOND
GUNS

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

RE­
PORT

Immed 
supen 
must < 
mit wr 
rpt., 
to Ch  ̂
staff 
inspe 
to in\ 
gate 
neces

41Initia 
rpt.
station com- 
mandei ; 
immedi a 
to ch'

COM-.
MErr;

■ ate 
isor 
ub- 
itten 
sent 
ef;

dticons 
esti- 
f

jary.

to

ately 
■ ef.

Saginaw
County
Sheriff

Minimum degree 
necessary to effec

Must exhaust - mus 
be more than mere

an arrest or escapesuspicion - must
-must be murder, 
forcible rape, 
armed robbery, 
felonious breaking 
and/or entering, arson 
or felonious assau t which 
might lead to serious 
injury or death.

witness or know 
with reasonable 
certainty.

From - only
extreme
emergency.

Not where 
there is a 
substantial 
risk of 
injury.

Pro­
hibited

Must be 
carried 
incon­
spic­
uously.

Must 
qua 1 if) 
must 
registe 
with ddi

r
pt.

Must 'Ties 
noti- Ito
fy
com­
mand­
ing 
offi­
cer 
writ­
ten 
rpt. to 
Div. (om- 
mandei.

capi­
tal
punist
ment.
Must
use
good
judg-



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 2^



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page

DEPARTMENT

REPORT
(Folley)

U.S. JUSTIjCE I
department] Necessary to effect Must be virtually 

arrest or prevent i certain has com 
escapes; "justified mitted a forcible 
in extreme cases | felony & freedom 
when the apprehen-j threatens life. 
Sion is paramount to 
public safety;" mubt be restraint S 
conscientious discretion."

Chicago
Police
Dept.

ARREST FLEEING FELON
DEFENSE OF 
>ELF, OTHERS

"That force which ht 
reasonably believes 
necessary; must 
exhaust or be 
clearly ineffective

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

Pro­
hibited

ncouragef 
?xcept 
social 
iffront; 
nust be a 
)ualified 
weapon.

OFF
DUTY

SECOND
GUNS

Must 
qual i

te
lied.

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYING

Limits 
unnecessc

RE­
PORT

COM­
MENT

ry.

"Reasonable belief 
to prevent death o 
1) necessary to pr 
E) person has commn 
felony" or will end 
(Illinois Statute)

force is necessary

;vent escape and 
tted a "forcible 
anger human life.

Pro­
hibited 
unless 
likeli 
of seri 
injury 
other

h)od
)US
;o
jrsons.



SUMMARY OF DEADLY FORCE POLICIES Page 22

DEPARTMENT

Mich. Dept
of State 
Pol ice

Mich. Dept 
of
Natural
Resources

ARREST

Reasonably
necessary.

FLEEING FELON

Can't fire on mere 
suspicion or for 
running blockade.

Can't if misde- 
meanor.

DEFENSE OF 
SELF. OTHERS

When necessary to sai 
life or protect agair|st 
a felonious assault.

Must be an honest 
belief in immediate 
danger to self, otheij-s; 
no way to retreat if 
long arm.

MOVING VEHICLE
INNOCENT

BYSTANDERS
WARNING
SHOT

OFF
DUTY

Requi red 
except 
while 
off-duty 
(DSP onT

SECOND
GUNS

Must b« 
author ■ zed.

JUVE­
NILE

DRAWING/
DISPLAYINC

RE­
PORT

COM­
MENT

la icy 
gov­
erns 
all 
secu­
rity 
offi­
cers.
Ap- 
pl ies 
mis- 
de- 
meanoi 
stan­
dards 
only