California Use of Force Assistant

Full configuration Policy linked State law only
Switch Dept Sign out

California Use of Force Assistant

PC §835a (AB 392) · "Necessary" standard · SB 230 policy framework

Switch Department

View any California law enforcement agency's policy configuration.
Full configuration Policy linked State law only
Training/articulation aid only. Does not replace your agency's policy, POST training, or legal counsel. California law (PC §835a) may impose stricter requirements than federal Graham v. Connor. Always articulate based on the totality of circumstances known to you at the moment force was applied.

The California Standard

Non-deadly force: Must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances (Graham v. Connor; PC §835a).

Deadly force (PC §835a / AB 392): Permitted only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to:

  • Defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person; or
  • Apprehend a fleeing person for a felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, where the person will cause death or SBI if not immediately apprehended.

Totality (PC §835a(e)(3)): Includes the officer's tactical conduct and decisions leading up to the use of deadly force — where relevant — as well as the suspect's actions.

De-escalation duty (PC §835a(a)(2)): Officers shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible.

Reasonable officer standard: Judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, with the same knowledge — not 20/20 hindsight.

Force Continuum

Tap a level to see subject behavior, authorized response options with illustrations, and California-specific articulation notes.

Articulation organizer — not a report writer. This tool assembles a draft from pre-written template phrases based on the inputs you select. It is not generative AI and contains no facts beyond what you provide. You — the reporting officer — remain solely responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and truthfulness of any report you submit. Review every sentence; verify compliance with your agency's policy on automated drafting tools and applicable California law before submission.

Incident Details

Subject's Actions

Check every action observed. The app determines the highest resistance level.

1 · Cooperative
2 · Passive Resistance
3 · Active Resistance
4 · Assaultive
5 · Imminent Deadly Threat

Officer's Force Options

Check every force option used by the officer.

1 · Presence / Verbal
2 · Control Holds / De-escalation
3 · Personal Weapons / Intermediate
4 · Less-Lethal / Impact
5 · Deadly Force

Articulation Factors

Narrative Details

🎓 Training Scenario

For academy recruits and new officers. Mark what the subject did, then mark what the officer did to overcome the resistance. The app evaluates the response under California PC §835a (AB 392) and Graham v. Connor.

Step 1 — Scenario (optional)

Step 2 — What did the SUBJECT do?

Check every action you observed. The app determines the subject's highest resistance level.

1 · Cooperative
2 · Passive Resistance
3 · Active Resistance
4 · Assaultive
5 · Imminent Deadly Threat

Step 3 — What did the OFFICER do?

Check every force option used.

1 · Presence / Verbal
2 · Control Holds / De-escalation
3 · Personal Weapons / Intermediate
4 · Less-Lethal / Impact
5 · Deadly Force

📝 Scenario Training

30 multiple-choice questions covering use of force scenarios from cooperative through deadly threat, plus California statutes and controlling case law. Tap an answer for immediate feedback. Score and category breakdown at the end.

Questions are organized by resistance level (cooperative · passive · active · assaultive · deadly) and case law. Each shows the correct answer and a short explanation citing the relevant statute or case.

California Statutes

Penal Code §835a (AB 392, eff. 1/1/2020)
Use of force by peace officers

Establishes California's use-of-force standard. Non-deadly force must be objectively reasonable; deadly force must be necessary to defend against imminent death/SBI or to apprehend a fleeing felon who poses such a threat. Officers shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible. "Totality of the circumstances" expressly includes the officer's tactical conduct and decisions leading up to deadly force.

Penal Code §196 (amended by AB 392)
Justifiable homicide by peace officers

A peace officer's killing of another is justifiable when in compliance with PC §835a.

Government Code §7286 (SB 230, eff. 1/1/2021)
Mandatory agency policy components

Every law enforcement agency must maintain a written use-of-force policy that includes: de-escalation, alternatives to force, requirement to render aid, warning before deadly force when feasible, duty to intercede, comprehensive reporting, and annual training.

Government Code §7286.5 (AB 26, eff. 1/1/2022)
Duty to intercede and report

Officers must immediately intercede when present and observing another officer using excessive force, and must report it.

Penal Code §13652 (AB 1196, eff. 1/1/2021)
Carotid restraint & chokehold prohibition

Prohibits law enforcement use of a carotid restraint or chokehold.

Penal Code §13519.10
POST use-of-force training

Requires POST training course on use of force, including de-escalation, implicit bias, mental health awareness, and proportional response.

Penal Code §832.7 / SB 1421 / SB 16
Disclosure of peace officer records

Records relating to officer use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury, sustained findings of dishonesty, certain sexual assault, and excessive force findings are subject to public disclosure.

California Case Law

Hayes v. County of San Diego
(2013) 57 Cal.4th 622

In a state-law negligence claim against an officer, the jury may consider the officer's pre-shooting tactical conduct and decisions as part of the totality. California's negligence standard is broader than the federal Fourth Amendment standard.

Brown v. Ransweiler
(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516

Reasonableness of force is assessed under the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene with similar training and experience.

Munoz v. City of Union City
(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077

Recognized that pre-shooting conduct can be relevant in California negligence actions arising from an officer's use of deadly force.

Edson v. City of Anaheim
(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1269

A person has no right to resist even an unlawful arrest by a peace officer who is using only the force reasonably necessary; PC §835a authorizes officers to use reasonable force to effect arrest and prevent escape.

Koussaya v. City of Stockton
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 909

Discusses the reasonableness analysis in the context of armed and dangerous fleeing suspects.

Controlling Federal Case Law

Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Fourth Amendment objectively reasonable standard. Factors: (1) severity of the crime; (2) immediate threat to officer/others; (3) active resistance or flight. Judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene.

Tennessee v. Garner
471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Deadly force on a fleeing suspect is permissible only when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

Scott v. Harris · Plumhoff v. Rickard
550 U.S. 372 (2007) · 572 U.S. 765 (2014)

Dangerous vehicle pursuits — deadly force assessed under totality and from the reasonable officer's perspective.

Kingsley v. Hendrickson · Torres v. Madrid
576 U.S. 389 (2015) · 592 U.S. 306 (2021)

Objective standard for pretrial-detainee force; physical force with intent to restrain is a seizure even without submission.

Report-Writing Framework

1. Setup: Date/time/location, dispatch info, your assignment, what you knew before contact (CAD, prior calls, suspect history if known).

2. Observations on arrival: Sight, sound, smell — specific facts that informed your threat assessment.

3. Subject actions: Observable behaviors. Avoid conclusions ("he was aggressive") — describe ("clenched fists, bladed stance, stepped toward me at ~3 feet").

4. De-escalation & alternatives (PC §835a): What de-escalation did you attempt, or why was it not feasible? What lesser options did you consider?

5. Threat assessment: Apply Graham factors + CA totality, including tactical decisions you made and why.

6. Decision & force used: Option chosen, alternatives considered, why this option was necessary/reasonable.

7. Mechanics: Specific technique, target area, applications, subject's response after each.

8. Outcome: Compliance, restraints, injuries, medical aid (duty to render), EMS, transport.

9. Post-incident: Supervisor notification, BWC, witnesses, evidence, mandatory reports.