The following excerpt is from Baker v. Ensign, Case No. 11-cv-2060-BAS(WVG) (S.D. Cal. 2015):
courts balance "the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake," looking to (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the plaintiff actively resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest by flight. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The threat posed by the suspect is the most important factor. Smith, 394 F.3d at 689. Then the court must consider the totality of the circumstances and weigh the gravity of the intrusion against the government's interest in order to determine whether the force employed was constitutionally reasonable. Miller v. Clark Cnty., 340 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2003). "'[R]easonableness' 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." Id. at 396.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.