Yesterday, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 392 into law. The media coverage of the reaction by the law’s proponents, namely the ACLU and other anti-police fringe groups, make it appear that the Supreme Court standard to evaluate the legality of fatal uses-of-force was replaced with a new standard. That is simply not true.
The newly signed law states that an officer can use deadly force: “only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons – (c)(1)”:
- “To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.” (c)(1)(A)
- “To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended" (c)(1)(B)
The law also states:
-
“Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.”
The League joined other law enforcement agencies across California to ensure that the ACLU and the author of the bill, did not succeed in changing the standard to evaluate uses-of-force from "reasonably objective" to "necessary”. The definition of “necessary” in the previous version of AB 392 that would have required officers to exhaust a mental check-list of alternatives before using deadly force and that language was stricken.
The new law is consistent with current case law, but would now be codified into California law. The new law’s language is no different than what we already are held accountable to by the Department.
To read the entire law please click here.
