This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
4th Amendment Excessive Force In Queens
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Queens
Control #:
US-000280
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops, searches incident to a valid arrest, and seizures of items in plain view.
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Any unjustified escalation of force violates the civil rights of the individuals involved. Excessive force can take many forms, ranging from unnecessary physical violence to the misuse of tasers, batons, or firearms.
Excessive force claims are civil suits, so the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If you are pursuing a civil rights case against law enforcement, it falls on you to provide enough evidence for the court to determine that your civil rights were violated.
In order to establish that defendant used excessive force, plaintiff must prove both of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: First: Defendant intentionally committed certain acts. Second: Those acts violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to excessive force.
The legal standard requires that force be objectively reasonable, considering the totality of the circumstances. Courts often analyze excessive force cases by looking at the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and if they were attempting to evade arrest.
The Standard Whether the force used is excessive depends on “whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S. Ct.
The outcome of the case was the creation of an "objective reasonableness test" in examining an officer's actions. That test, over time via case law, would evolve to something that could be summed up as "given the facts known at the time, would a similarly trained and experienced officer respond in a similar fashion."