Police Excessive Force by State (2026)

Alabama addresses police use of force through state law and constitutional standards:

• Officers may use reasonable force to effect an arrest
• Deadly force permitted only when necessary to prevent imminent death or serious harm
• Alabama does not have a statewide duty-to-intervene law
• The Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission (APOSTC) can decertify officers
• Federal § 1983 claims are available

Alaska addresses excessive force through state statute and federal constitutional standards:

• Alaska Stat. § 11.81.370 authorizes officers to use reasonable, non-deadly force to make an arrest
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations by law enforcement
• Qualified immunity may shield officers, but Alaska courts apply the "clearly established" standard
• Alaska State Troopers cover vast remote areas — response times and oversight can be limited in rural Alaska
• The Alaska Police Standards Council can decertify officers for misconduct

Arizona addresses police use of force through state law and constitutional standards:

• Arizona law authorizes officers to use reasonable physical force to make an arrest, prevent escape, or protect themselves and others (A.R.S. § 13-409, § 13-410)
• Deadly force is permitted only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury
• Arizona does not have a statewide duty-to-intervene law requiring officers to stop excessive force by fellow officers
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Arizona's attorney general can investigate patterns of police misconduct
• The DOJ has conducted investigations of certain Arizona law enforcement agencies (notably Maricopa County)

Arkansas addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Ark. Code § 5-2-610 governs the use of force in law enforcement — officers may use force reasonably necessary to effect an arrest
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Qualified immunity applies and can be a significant barrier to civil claims in Arkansas
• Arkansas does not have statewide civilian oversight boards — complaints are handled by internal affairs

California has some of the most significant police use-of-force reforms in the country:

• AB 392 (2019): Changed the standard for when police can use deadly force from "reasonable" to "necessary." Officers may only use deadly force when necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. This is stricter than the federal Graham v. Connor standard.
• SB 230 (2019): Requires all law enforcement agencies to adopt use-of-force policies that include de-escalation, crisis intervention, and a duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force.
• SB 2 (2021): Created the process for decertifying police officers who commit serious misconduct, including excessive force. California was one of the last states to implement officer decertification.
• Tom Bane Civil Rights Act: California Civil Code § 52.1 allows civil lawsuits for interference with constitutional rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion — including excessive force.

Colorado enacted landmark police reform legislation in 2020 (SB 20-217, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act):

• SB 20-217 made Colorado the first state to eliminate qualified immunity as a defense for law enforcement officers in state civil rights lawsuits
• Officers can be held personally liable for violating civil rights (up to $25,000, or 5% of the judgment, whichever is less)
• Officers must use force that is proportional and necessary
• Officers have a duty to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force
• Chokeholds are prohibited
• Officers must report use-of-force incidents, and the data must be publicly available
• Body-worn cameras are mandatory during encounters with the public
• Citizens can bring both state civil rights claims and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Connecticut enacted significant police accountability reforms in 2020:

• Public Act 20-1 (Police Accountability Act) limits qualified immunity for officers who use excessive force — Connecticut is one of the few states to address this
• Officers have a duty to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force
• Use of force must be objectively reasonable and proportional
• Chokeholds are restricted unless deadly force is justified
• Federal § 1983 claims remain available for constitutional violations
• The Inspector General can investigate police use-of-force incidents resulting in death or serious injury

Delaware addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Delaware law authorizes officers to use force reasonably necessary to effect an arrest or prevent escape
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm
• Delaware passed the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR), which governs internal investigations — this can affect civilian complaint processes
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• The Delaware Department of Justice Division of Civil Rights and Public Trust investigates police use-of-force incidents

D.C. has enacted significant police reform legislation:

• Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act (2020): Banned chokeholds and neck restraints by MPD officers. Required officers to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force. Established a duty to de-escalate.
• Ban on neck restraints: D.C. law prohibits officers from using neck restraints, chokeholds, or any technique that restricts breathing or blood flow to the brain.
• Duty to intervene: Officers who witness excessive force must intervene to stop it and report it. Failure to intervene is grounds for discipline and potential criminal liability.
• D.C. Office of Police Complaints (OPC): Independent civilian oversight agency that investigates complaints against MPD officers, including excessive force. Has subpoena power.

Florida use-of-force law follows federal standards with state-specific provisions:

• Fla. Stat. § 776.05: Authorizes law enforcement to use force when reasonably necessary to make an arrest or prevent escape. Deadly force is justified only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
• No statewide ban on chokeholds: Florida has not enacted a statewide ban on chokeholds or neck restraints. Policies vary by department.
• Stand Your Ground implications: Florida's Stand Your Ground law (Fla. Stat. § 776.012-013) has been applied in cases involving both civilians and police, complicating use-of-force analysis.
• Limited civilian oversight: Florida does not mandate civilian oversight boards. Some cities (Miami, Jacksonville) have independent review panels, but many do not.

Hawaii addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Officers may use reasonable force necessary to effect an arrest or prevent escape
• Deadly force is justified only to prevent death or serious bodily injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• The Honolulu Police Commission investigates misconduct complaints against HPD officers
• Each county (Honolulu, Maui, Hawaii, Kauai) has its own police department with internal investigation procedures
• Hawaii does not have a statewide independent police oversight body

Idaho addresses use of force through state statute and federal constitutional law:

• Idaho Code § 19-610 authorizes officers to use reasonable force to effect an arrest
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Idaho has strong protections for law enforcement — qualified immunity is broadly applied
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Idaho does not have a statewide civilian oversight board
• Internal affairs divisions handle excessive force complaints in most departments

Illinois enacted landmark police reform legislation:

• SAFE-T Act (Public Acts 101-0652, 102-0028): Comprehensive criminal justice and police reform law. Key provisions include: a statewide use-of-force database, officer certification requirements, mandatory body cameras for all police by 2025, and a ban on chokeholds and neck restraints.
• Officer decertification: The Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board can decertify officers who commit serious misconduct, including excessive force.
• Duty to intervene: Officers who witness excessive force by another officer must intervene to stop it and report it.
• Civilian oversight: The Illinois law establishes local civilian oversight mechanisms for police accountability.

Indiana law addresses police use of force through state statutes and constitutional standards:

• Indiana law permits officers to use reasonable force to effect a lawful arrest (IC § 35-41-3-3)
• Deadly force is justified only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury
• Indiana is unique in granting citizens the statutory right to resist unlawful entry by law enforcement into their homes (IC § 35-41-3-2) — though courts have narrowed this right
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Indiana State Police investigate officer-involved shootings upon request
• Officers must report use-of-force incidents to their agencies

Iowa addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Iowa Code § 804.8 governs the use of force by officers — force must be reasonable and necessary
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Iowa enacted HF 2647 in 2020, which restricts chokeholds and requires a duty to intervene
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Iowa does not have statewide civilian oversight boards

Kansas addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• K.S.A. § 21-5227 governs use of force by law enforcement — force must be reasonable
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Qualified immunity applies broadly in Kansas
• Kansas does not have statewide civilian oversight boards

Kentucky enacted police reform legislation in 2021 following the death of Breonna Taylor:

• SB 4 (2021) restricts no-knock warrants and requires officers to use de-escalation when feasible
• Duty-to-intervene requirements for officers witnessing excessive force
• The Kentucky Law Enforcement Council (KLEC) can decertify officers
• No-knock warrants are restricted under SB 4 — limited to cases with "clear and convincing evidence" of violent crime, and officers must identify as law enforcement and bring a paramedic
• Federal § 1983 claims available

Louisiana addresses police use of force through state law and constitutional standards:

• Officers may use reasonable force to effect an arrest (La. R.S. § 14:20)
• Deadly force permitted only when necessary to prevent imminent death or serious harm
• Louisiana does not have a statewide duty-to-intervene law
• The Louisiana POST Council can decertify officers for misconduct
• Federal § 1983 claims available — the DOJ has investigated several Louisiana agencies

Maine addresses excessive force through state law, recent reforms, and federal standards:

• Officers may use only the force reasonably necessary to effect a lawful arrest (17-A M.R.S.A. § 107)
• Deadly force is authorized only when necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury
• Maine enacted significant police accountability reforms in 2023, including changes to use-of-force standards and enhanced civilian oversight
• The Maine Attorney General's office independently investigates all police use-of-deadly-force incidents
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Maine Board of Trustees (Maine Criminal Justice Academy) can revoke officer certifications for misconduct

Maryland enacted landmark police reform legislation in 2021 (the Maryland Police Accountability Act):

• The Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 created significant reforms for use of force
• Officers may only use force that is necessary and proportional — a higher standard than "reasonable"
• Officers have a duty to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force
• Officers must provide medical aid to injured persons after a use-of-force incident
• Maryland repealed the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR) and replaced it with civilian review processes
• Police Accountability Boards in each county review civilian complaints
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Massachusetts enacted significant police reform legislation in 2020 addressing excessive force:

• The 2020 Police Reform Act established the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission with power to certify and decertify officers
• Officers must use de-escalation tactics when feasible before using force
• Chokeholds and other neck restraints are banned except in life-threatening situations
• Officers have a duty to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force
• Officers must report use-of-force incidents, and the POST Commission tracks them
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims
• Qualified immunity has been limited for officers who are decertified by the POST Commission

Michigan addresses police use of force through state law and constitutional standards:

• Michigan law permits officers to use reasonable force necessary to effect an arrest or prevent escape
• Deadly force is justified only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent death or great bodily harm
• Michigan enacted police reform legislation requiring duty-to-intervene policies — officers must intervene when they witness excessive force by another officer
• Michigan law requires law enforcement agencies to report use-of-force incidents
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Michigan state law also allows civil lawsuits against officers for assault and battery

Minnesota enacted significant police accountability reforms following the murder of George Floyd in 2020:

• Minnesota banned chokeholds and neck restraints by law enforcement (Minn. Stat. § 609.066)
• Officers have a duty to intervene when witnessing another officer using excessive force
• Minnesota requires reporting of all use-of-force incidents
• The POST Board can revoke officer licenses for misconduct
• Citizens can bring federal § 1983 claims and state tort claims
• Minnesota's police accountability reforms are among the most comprehensive in the nation

Missouri law addresses police use of force, with increased attention following events in Ferguson (2014):

• Missouri law permits officers to use force that is "reasonably necessary" to effect a lawful arrest (RSMo § 563.046)
• Deadly force is justified only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury
• Missouri updated its use-of-force standards following the Ferguson events
• Some Missouri municipalities have implemented body cameras and enhanced use-of-force reporting
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• The Missouri Attorney General's office can investigate patterns of excessive force
• Missouri Highway Patrol investigates officer-involved shootings upon request

Montana addresses excessive force through state statute and federal constitutional law:

• Officers may use reasonable force to effect a lawful arrest (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-6-221)
• Deadly force is authorized only when necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Montana's strong constitutional privacy protections may provide additional grounds for excessive force claims
• The Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council can revoke certifications for misconduct
• Montana does not have a statewide civilian oversight board

Nebraska addresses excessive force through both state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Use of force by Nebraska officers is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1412 (use of force in law enforcement)
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations by law enforcement
• Qualified immunity may shield officers from civil liability unless the right was "clearly established"
• Omaha has a civilian review board that can investigate excessive force complaints
• Nebraska has limited statewide civilian oversight — most oversight is department-level

Nevada addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.1455 governs use of force by officers — force must be objectively reasonable
• Nevada enacted AB 236 (2019) and subsequent reforms addressing police use of force
• Chokeholds are restricted in many Nevada jurisdictions
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Las Vegas has a Citizen Review Board and the Office of Internal Oversight

New Jersey has implemented comprehensive use-of-force reforms:

• AG Directive 2020-13: A landmark statewide use-of-force policy that is among the most restrictive in the nation. Key provisions include: a duty to de-escalate, a ban on chokeholds and neck restraints, a prohibition on shooting at moving vehicles, and a duty for officers to intervene when they witness excessive force.
• Use-of-Force Reporting: New Jersey requires detailed reporting of every use-of-force incident to the AG's office. This data is publicly available through a statewide dashboard.
• Independent Prosecutor: Under a 2019 AG directive, the NJ AG's office independently investigates all deaths that occur during encounters with law enforcement — not the local county prosecutor.
• NJ Civil Rights Act: N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 provides a state-level cause of action for civil rights violations, including excessive force, with potential for attorney fees and damages.

New Mexico has enacted significant police accountability reforms:

• The New Mexico Civil Rights Act (2021) allows individuals to sue state and local officers for civil rights violations — without qualified immunity
• New Mexico is one of the few states to abolish qualified immunity at the state level
• Officers have a duty to intervene when witnessing excessive force
• Albuquerque Police are under a federal consent decree for excessive force
• Federal § 1983 claims are also available

New York enacted significant police reform legislation following 2020:

• Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act (2020): Makes it a criminal offense (class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail) for any police officer to use a chokehold or similar restraint that compresses the diaphragm.
• Repeal of 50-a (2020): Police disciplinary records, which were previously sealed from public view, are now subject to public disclosure. This helps identify officers with patterns of excessive force.
• Executive Order 203 (2020): Required every local government in NY to adopt a police reform plan, including use-of-force policies, by April 2021.
• NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB): Independent agency with authority to investigate excessive force complaints against NYPD officers and recommend discipline.

North Dakota addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-05-07 governs use of force in law enforcement
• Force must be reasonable and necessary to effect an arrest or prevent escape
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• North Dakota does not have statewide civilian oversight boards

Oklahoma addresses police use of force through state law and constitutional standards:

• Officers may use reasonable force to effect an arrest (21 Okl. St. § 732)
• Deadly force permitted only when necessary to prevent imminent death or serious harm
• Oklahoma does not have a statewide duty-to-intervene law
• The Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) can revoke officer certifications
• Federal § 1983 claims available

Oregon has enacted police accountability reforms:

• HB 2936 (2020) established new use-of-force reporting requirements
• Officers must use de-escalation when feasible
• Duty-to-intervene and duty-to-report requirements
• The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) can revoke officer certifications
• Federal § 1983 claims available — DOJ has investigated Portland Police Bureau

Pennsylvania follows federal use-of-force standards with recent reform efforts:

• Federal standard applies: Pennsylvania courts apply the Graham v. Connor "objectively reasonable" standard for evaluating police use of force.
• Act 57 of 2020: Landmark police reform law requiring: a statewide use-of-force database, mandatory background checks when hiring officers, mental health evaluations every five years, and a duty to intervene when witnessing another officer using excessive force.
• No ban on chokeholds: Unlike some states, Pennsylvania has not enacted a statewide ban on chokeholds or neck restraints, though some municipalities (including Philadelphia) have policies restricting their use.
• Philadelphia Civilian Review Board: Philadelphia has a Police Advisory Commission that reviews complaints about police conduct, including excessive force.

Rhode Island addresses excessive force through state law and federal standards:

• Rhode Island law requires force to be objectively reasonable and necessary
• Officers have a duty to intervene when witnessing excessive force (enacted in recent reforms)
• Rhode Island passed the Comprehensive Police Reform Act addressing use of force, duty to intervene, and decertification
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• The Rhode Island Commission on Police Standards can decertify officers for misconduct

South Carolina addresses police use of force through state law and constitutional standards:

• Officers may use reasonable force to effect an arrest
• Deadly force is permitted only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm
• SC does not have a statewide duty-to-intervene law
• SC Criminal Justice Academy can decertify officers for misconduct
• Citizens can bring federal § 1983 claims and state tort claims

South Dakota addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• SDCL § 22-18-2 governs justifiable use of force by officers
• Force must be reasonable and necessary to effect an arrest or prevent escape
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• South Dakota does not have statewide civilian oversight

Tennessee law addresses police use of force through state statutes and constitutional standards:

• TN law permits officers to use force that is "reasonably necessary" to effect a lawful arrest (TCA § 40-7-108)
• Deadly force is permitted only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury
• Tennessee was the state involved in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner (1985), which prohibited deadly force against unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspects
• Officers have a duty to use de-escalation tactics when feasible
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) investigates officer-involved shootings

Utah addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Utah Code § 76-2-404 governs use of force by officers — force must be reasonable and proportional
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Utah enacted HB 5003 (2020) with use-of-force reforms including de-escalation requirements
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Salt Lake City has a Civilian Review Board; statewide oversight is through POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training)

Vermont has enacted significant police accountability reforms:

• Vermont law requires force to be objectively reasonable and proportional
• Officers have a duty to intervene when witnessing another officer using excessive force
• The Vermont Criminal Justice Council can investigate officer misconduct and decertify officers
• Vermont has enacted comprehensive policing reforms including data collection on use of force
• Federal § 1983 claims are also available

Virginia has enacted significant police accountability reforms addressing excessive force:

• Virginia's 2020-2021 police reform legislation established new use-of-force standards
• Officers must use de-escalation techniques when feasible before resorting to force
• A duty-to-intervene requirement obligates officers to stop another officer from using excessive force
• Virginia mandates reporting of all use-of-force incidents to the Virginia State Police
• Virginia law decertifies officers who commit serious misconduct, including excessive force
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims
• Qualified immunity remains in effect in Virginia — legislative efforts to abolish it have not passed. Federal § 1983 claims are subject to qualified immunity defenses

Washington has enacted some of the nation's strongest police accountability laws:

• Washington's 2021 police reform laws (HB 1310) establish a new standard: officers may use force only when necessary and proportional, and must use de-escalation when feasible
• The law restricts use of chokeholds, neck restraints, and no-knock warrants
• Officers have a duty to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force
• The Office of Independent Investigations (established 2021) investigates deadly force incidents by law enforcement
• Washington created a statewide database of officer decertification actions
• Citizens can bring federal § 1983 claims and state tort claims for excessive force

West Virginia addresses excessive force through state law and federal civil rights standards:

• Officers may use reasonable force to effect an arrest under W. Va. Code § 62-1-6
• Deadly force is authorized only to prevent death or serious bodily harm
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for Fourth Amendment excessive force violations
• Qualified immunity applies in West Virginia, consistent with federal standards
• West Virginia does not have a statewide civilian oversight body
• WV State Police and municipal departments each handle complaints through internal affairs

Wisconsin law addresses police use of force through state statutes and constitutional standards:

• Wisconsin law permits officers to use force that is reasonably necessary to effect a lawful arrest or prevent escape (Wis. Stat. § 939.45)
• Deadly force is justified only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
• Wisconsin enacted Act 348 (2014) requiring independent investigations of officer-involved deaths — the first state to do so
• An independent agency (not the officer's own department) must investigate all officer-involved deaths
• Citizens can bring federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• The Wisconsin DOJ Division of Criminal Investigation conducts independent investigations when requested

Wyoming addresses excessive force through state law and federal constitutional standards:

• Wyoming law authorizes officers to use reasonable force to effect an arrest
• Deadly force is authorized only when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury
• Federal § 1983 claims are available for constitutional violations
• Qualified immunity applies and can be a significant barrier to claims
• Wyoming does not have statewide civilian oversight — Wyoming POST handles officer certification/decertification