Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 5.1-1

The plaintiff claims that the defendant violated (his/her) constitutional right not to be subjected

to the use of excessive force by a police officer. (He/She) brings this claim under a federal law,

42 U.S. Code § 1983, that provides that a person acting under color of state law who violates a

person’s rights under the United States Constitution can be held liable for money damages to the

person whose rights (he/she) has violated.

In order to prove this claim, the plaintiff must prove:

1. that the defendant was acting under color of state law,

2. that the defendant engaged in actions that deprived the plaintiff of

(his/her) constitutional right not to be subjected to use of excessive

force, and

3. that the defendant’s acts were a proximate cause of the injuries or losses

claimed by the plaintiff.

The first element, acting under color of state law, is not in dispute. Police officers get their

authority under state law, so they are acting under color of state law when they act in their

capacity as police officers.

The second element requires more explanation. The fourth amendment to the United States

Constitution guarantees people the right not to be unreasonably seized by government officials,

including police officers. This right is violated if a police officer subjects a person to excessive

force. The right of a police officer to stop and arrest a person necessarily carries with it the right

to use some degree of physical coercion or contact to effect the arrest. This does not mean,

however, that the officer may use excessive amounts of force.

Force is excessive, and use of such force constitutes a violation of a person’s rights under the

fourth amendment, if the amount of force used would not be considered reasonable by a

reasonably competent police officer in the circumstances presented at the exact time that the

police officer used such force. The test is not whether the defendant thought (his/her) use of

force was reasonable, but rather it is an objective standard: would a reasonably competent police

officer consider the use of such amount of force under the circumstances at the time the force

was used?

Applying this standard requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of the case,

including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the

safety of the officer or others, and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting arrest or attempting

to evade arrest by flight.

The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a

reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20-20 vision of hindsight. Not every push

or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of the courtroom, violates the fourth

amendment. Your assessment of reasonableness must allow for the fact that the police officer

may have had to make a split-second judgment concerning the amount of force that was

necessary in circumstances that were tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.

The issue is whether the force used was reasonable, not the officer’s intent or frame of mind. An

officer’s bad intentions or hostile frame of mind toward the plaintiff will not make a fourth

amendment violation out of the use of force that is a reasonable amount of force under the

circumstances. An officer’s good intentions will not make constitutional what is, in fact, an

unreasonable use of force.

[<If the claim is use of deadly force:> In this case, the plaintiff claims that the officer used deadly

force, that is, that (he/she) fired (his/her) gun at the plaintiff. The standard is that a police officer

may use deadly force in two circumstances. The first is if (he/she) reasonably believes that such

force is necessary to defend (himself/herself/others) from the actual use or imminent use of

deadly physical force. The second is to prevent the escape of a felony suspect if the officer has

probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the

officer or to others.]

It is these constitutional standards, rather than the text of any state statute or any departmental

regulation, that should govern your consideration of this claim.

The facts are in dispute as to what the circumstances were when the defendant acted.

<Explain the dispute>.

You must determine what the circumstances were, as they presented themselves to the defendant,

at the precise time that (he/she) acted. If you find that the defendant was in danger because of

some conduct of (his/her) own, the fact that the police officer’s own actions contributed to

(his/her) being in danger has no bearing on the issue of whether the force used was excessive.

You are simply to determine what the situation was at the time the defendant used force, and

whether a reasonably competent police officer would not have used such force under the

circumstances at the time.

The third element that the plaintiff must establish is that the defendant’s use of force was a

proximate cause of the injuries or losses that the plaintiff sustained. An injury or loss is

proximately caused by an action if that action was a substantial factor in bringing about the

injury or the loss. The injury or loss must also be either a direct result or a reasonably probable

consequence of the act of the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff must satisfy you that

(his/her) injuries or losses were the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s acts, and

that the defendant ought to have foreseen that injury or loss was likely to result from such acts.