LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
The truth about
" necessary " and what it means for California law enforcement
By Corey Sianez
A lot of attention has been paid to the distinction between the terms “ necessary ” and “ reasonable ” in the context of California ’ s new use of force standard . The media and criminal justice reform advocates used the comparison between the two to frame the debate around Assembly Bill 392 , the legislation which ultimately updated California ’ s obsolete use of force standard last year . However , both “ necessary ” and “ reasonable ” have long been used in use of force case laws and statutes across the country .
Necessary has been part of California law enforcements ’ use of force decisions since our state ’ s statute was written in 1872 . Our original statute allowed for use of deadly force “ when necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance ” or “ when necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or escaped .” Although this is a variant of the term , even this original statute contained the meaning denoted by the common definition of necessary , which the courts have used since .
To be clear , this is not to say our standard from 1872 was perfect – far from that , since it didn ’ t consider the imminent or immediate threat – but nevertheless the term necessary was used . It was not until almost a hundred years after our statute was first established that the US Supreme Court added to the conditions that qualify what is “ necessary .”
In the seminal case the established the foundation for our modern use of force statutes , Graham v . Connor , the US Supreme Court outlined parameters for deadly force , which included “ the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation .” This phrase followed the development of use of force statutes in states across the country .
The term necessary can be found in state statutes regarding use of force across the nation . New York , Florida , Washington , Texas , Illinois , Oregon , and dozens of other states used the term “ necessary ” in their statutes outlining the limits for the use of deadly force . However , in each statute , just like in California ’ s new standard developed in AB 392 , the term is tied to an officer ’ s objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was required against an imminent or immediate threat .
10 California Police Chief | www . californiapolicechiefs . org