Case Law & Resources: Louisiana
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Stroik v. Ponseti, 683 So. 2d 1342, 1351 (La. Ct. App. 1996) (overturned on other grounds by Stroik v. Ponseti, 699 So. 2d 1072 (La. 1997))
Was defendant officer's conduct (which included a violation of the training guideline to take cover and a failure to warn of escalation to shooting) reasonable under the circumstances? Was it the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries?
​
Suspect took plaintiff hostage in van during course of robberies; stopped by police barricade, suspect pushed plaintiff out of the door. Defendant officer opened fire without seeking cover or giving warning, injuring plaintiff and killing suspect.
Holding
The officer's conduct, including his failure to warn, was unreasonable and was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Manis v. Zemlik, 96 So. 3d 509 (La. Ct. App. 2012)
Did genuine issue of material fact exist with regard to whether officer's shooting of driver met "reasonable force" standard (or constituted excessive force rendering officer liable for battery)?
​
Officers responded to car parked on railroad tracks. Driver was allegedly belligerent upon being awoken and flailed his arms at officers and then reached his hands under his seat before suddenly pulling them up. At that point, allegedly fearing driver had retrieved a weapon, one officer repeatedly shot the driver, killing him.
Genuine issue of material fact existed where officer did not see a weapon in the vehicle, it was undetermined whether the driver had retrieved a weapon, and it was disputable whether officer was reasonable in repeatedly firing his weapon under the circumstances.
​
Reference to La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 220.
Kyle v. City of New Orleans, 353 So. 2d 969 (La. 1977)
Did deadly force meet reasonableness standard where there was little chance of escape and no attack was made on officers?
​
Officers surrounded apartment building of falsely identified suspects. When apartment occupants refused to open door, officers used shotgun and pistol to force it open, wounding occupants.
No, deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances.
​
"A court must evaluate the officers' actions against those of ordinary, prudent, and reasonable men placed in the same position as the officers and with the same knowledge as the officers." Id. at 973.
​
Reference to La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 220.
Estate of Francis v. City of Rayne, 966 So. 2d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 2007)
Was it "reasonable force" when officers fired upon and killed driver who had engaged in low speed chase?
​
Driver engaged police in low-speed chase after crashing several times. Eventually, officers were able to sandwich his car between theirs. As driver attempted to extricate his car by moving it forward and backward, officers fired upon him, killing him.
No, such force was excessive where driver's vehicle was trapped, rendering escape impossible, and where driver's hands were raised.
Reference to La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 220.
Evangelist v. Dep't of Police, 32 So. 3d 815 (La. Ct. App. 2009)
Were officer's strikes to the torso of arrestee reasonable uses of force in effecting the arrest?
​
Arrestee engaged in an argument with officers, who attempted arrest. Arrestee resisted; defendant officer struck arrestee several times to force compliance with arrest and handcuffing.
Yes, such force fell within the "force continuum" officers are trained and authorized to use.
​
Describes with a little specificity the training of police officers in the use of force.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
New Orleans Police Dep't Operations Manual, Chapter 1.3
​
First enacted Dec. 6, 2015
Effective date Apr. 1, 2018
Summary and Notes
Requires de-escalation when feasible and consistent with protecting safety, and requires warnings before ascending to higher levels of force.
Relevant Excerpt
3. When feasible based on the circumstances, officers will use de-escalation techniques . . . .
17. When it is consistent with protecting the safety of the officer, the subject, or the public, officers shall use de-escalation techniques to avoid or reduce the need for the use of force. . . . In their interaction with subjects, officers should use advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics and alternatives to higher levels of force.
Argues that federal law should require training police in de-escalation (see pp. 62 - 63).
N/A
Argues that legal standards for judging police use of deadly force should include whether the officer attempted to de-escalate.
N/A
Holds, among other things, that (1) immediate resort to force without attempt to de-escalate is unreasonable and a Fourth Amendment violation (at *8 - 9) and (2) by 2017, 5th Circuit law was clear that police must attempt to de-escalate (at *12).
​
Refers to NOLA police operations manual (see above).
N/A