Case Law & Resources: Pennsylvania
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Holding
Wargo v. Municipality Of Monroeville, PA, 646 F. Supp. 2d 777 (W.D. Pa. 2009)
Whether a police officer was justified in its use of a taser where an arrestee refused to obey commands to lie down and to drop his weapon.
​
Police were called to Wargo's home after he took his loaded gun into the woods behind his home and sent his wife a suicidal text. A police officer encountered Wargo in the woods, saw Wargo's gun, and instructed Wargo to lie on the ground and drop his weapon. Wargo refused to lie down and instead continued to move toward the officer. Once Wargo was about 15 feet from the officer, the officer discharged his taser and struck Wargo. Despite being hit by the taster, Wargo remained standing and did not comply with the officer's instructions. In response, the officer discharged his taser again, however Wargo still did not lie down. Another officer then arrived at the scene and struck Wargo twice more with a taser, which resulted in Wargo dropping his gun and falling to the ground. This 2nd officer instructed Wargo to lie on his stomach, but Wargo did not comply and instead responded "f--k you". In response, the 2nd officer struck Wargo again with his taser.
The police officer's use of the taser was justified under the 4th amendment. The arrestee refused to drop his firearm, so it was objectively reasonable for the officer to attempt to subdue the arrestee with a taser. Also, because the arrestee was never compliant with the officer's repeated requests and continued to be combative, the officer's continued use of non-deadly force with the taser was reasonable, even if the arrestee had already dropped the gun.
Further, the court found that the officer would have been justified to use deadly force under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 508. Because Wargo was armed, continued to advance on the officer and ignored instructions, deadly force would be viewed as a reasonable response to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Therefore, no reasonable jury could conclude that the use of non lethal force was excesssive where deadly force would have been justified.
​
Reference to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 508; 4th Amd.
Forbes v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 76 Fed. Appx. 475 (2003)
Whether a police officer was entitled to use deadly force when the officer shot a suspect that was carrying a wooden staff that did not look like a weapon and was running away from the officer.
​
Forbes robbed a convenience store and police were called. An automobile chase between the police and Forbes ensued, and the police eventually caught up to Forbes. Police ordered Forbes out of his car, but Forbes bolted from the car and brandished a wood staff. As Forbes ran, a police officer shot Forbes and ultimately killed him. The record showed that the wooden staff did not resemble a weapon, Forbes was moving away from the officer when he was shot, and Forbes was "some distance" away from the officer when shot.
A reasonable jury could find that Forbes was not threatening the officer with a weapon and was moving away at some distance from the officer. Under these conditions, Forbes did not present an immediate threat to the officer and no reasonable officer could have believed that the use of deadly force was justified to prevent serious harm to himself.
Moreover, the officer did not meet the two requirements of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 508 (a)(1)(ii) because he did not possess a deadly weapon and the robbery committed did not meet the level of a "forcible felony" The court held that the Pennsylvania legislature did not mean to sweep all robberies as a "focible felony", but rather "forcible felony" is meant to capture felonies involving infliction or threated infliction of serious physical harm.
​
Reference to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 508; 4th Amd.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Issued and effective Sep. 18, 2015
Updated Jan. 30, 2017
Summary and Notes
When feasible under the circumstances, police officers will give the suspect a verbal warning before using deadly force.
Relevant Excerpt
N/A
Carbon County Use of Force Policy No. 083MI95
Effective Dec. 18, 1996
Whenever possible, the officer must exercise persuasion, advice and warning before using force. If such verbal control would be (or is found to be) ineffective, the officer may use physical force to accomplish a lawful purpose.
N/A
Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") cadets receive specific instruction on de-escalation techniques. An exmple of such a training course is "Identifying Signs and Symptoms of Mental Illness in the Community/Using Listening and De-escalation Techniques" (taught by independent subject matter expert). De-escalation techniques are also incorporated into cadet curricuculum, with a focus on self-awareness, emotional intelligence, decision-making skills, ways to display empathy, improving active and reflective listening skills, multi-cultural awareness, and implicit bias issues.
Training continues throughout a trooper’s career with mandatory in-service training each year. In 2018, all troopers received a block of instruction on practical de-escalation. Earlier this year, 30 bureau instructors received training in the Law Enforcement Active Diffusion Strategies (LEADS) program, which is approved by the U.S. Department of Justice.
N/A
In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed two police reform bills into law calling for police reform and an end to systemic racism in law enforcement.
N/A