Case Law & Resources: Rhode Island
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Holding
Tessier v. LaNois, 97 R.I. 414, 198 A.2d 142 (1964)
When may a police officer use force to effectuate an arrest?
​
Plaintiff commenced to shout and heckle defendant police officer in a perfectly audible manner for about fifteen or twenty seconds; and that defendant, terminating his conversation with some other person on the sidewalk, returned and without a warrant placed plaintiff under arrest.
There is no indication that the language used by plaintiff was either profane or obscene.
A police officer may use only such force as is necessary to effectuate an arrest.
Police officer acted without justification in making arrest where arrested person's conduct was neither felony nor misdemeanor under statute or common law, and was liable for assault and battery and false arrest, where there was no showing that conduct was prohibited by municipal ordinance.
​
Reference to Gen.Laws 1956, § 12-7-8.
State v. Ramsdell, 109 R.I. 320, 285 A.2d 399 (1971)
What is reasonable force?
​
Officer ‘went’ to defendant and asked his name. Ramsdell replied by asking the officer his name. The officer then asked Ramsdell where he lived. The defendant responded by asking, ‘Who wants to know?’ and embellished this remark by punching the officer in the mouth causing a laceration of the lip. The defendant was subdued and brought to police headquarters.
A police officer who uses excessive force in making an arrest has exceeded scope of his duties.
​
It is elementary that a police officer may use only such force as is necessary to effectuate an arrest. A police officer, therefore, who uses excessive force in making an arrest has exceeded the scope of his duties. If it be found that an arresting officer has used excessive force and is thereby injured by an arrestee attempting to defend himself, the officer cannot be considered to have been injured while engaged in the performance of his duties and the assault felony statute is inapplicable.
​
Reference to Gen.Laws 1956, § 12-7-8.
Flowers v. Fiore, 239 F.Supp.2d 173 (2003)
How should excessive force be judged?
​
Believing the plaintiff was armed and dangerous based on a tip from a citizen, the arresting officer stopped the plaintiffs vehicle. When plaintiffs vehicle had stopped, the arresting officer used his loudspeaker to instruct plaintiff to remain in his car and to keep his hands visible at all times. Once a few other officers arrived, they positioned themselves behind plaintiff's vehicle, drew their guns, and pointed them at plaintiffs' vehicle. The officers then directed plaintiff to step out of his vehicle with his hands in the air. Plaintiff complied and was instructed to walk backwards toward the officers. When Plaintiff reached the area where the officers were standing, the arresting officer told him to kneel and to lock his fingers behind his head. Plaintiff did so and was handcuffed while his car was searched. The search uncovered no weapons or contraband and as a result the officers removed the handcuffs from the plaintiff.
Excessive force claims are judged under an objective reasonableness standard.
Among the relevant factors to be considered in assessing “reasonableness” are the degree of force used, the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
“As for plaintiffs' excessive force claim, we similarly conclude that the officers used reasonable measures to restrain plaintiff. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395–96, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (excessive force claims are judged under an “objective reasonableness” standard; relevant factors include the degree of force used, the severity of the crime at issue, the immediacy of a threat to officers or others, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest or attempting flight).
The arresting officer unholstered his firearm and handcuffed plaintiff to ensure his safety and in order to conduct the stop and search without incident.
We also agree with the district court that the other officers were reasonable in their momentary display of firearms during the detention, as they justifiably relied on arresting officer's initial alert that the plaintiff may have been one of the armed individuals reported by a citizen and did so for the limited purpose of protecting themselves and securing the plaintiff safely.”
​
Reference to Gen.Laws 1956, § 12-7-8.
Ferreira v. City of East Providence, 568 F.Supp.2d 197 (2008)
The question is whether the acts of the Defendant officers, undertaken in the midst of a standoff with a suicidal woman, rise above the level of ordinary force necessary under the circumstances.
​
Patricia announced her intention to kill herself. She then walked to the rear of her car, retrieved two guns from the trunk, and got into the driver's seat. As the police arrived at the scene and established a perimeter around the car, Ferreira remained close to Patricia. One of the officers, Sergeant Hall, ordered Ferreira to back away, but Ferreira refused, instead instructing the officers to leave the scene. Despite continued police orders that he move away from the vehicle, Ferreira draped his body across the windshield of Patricia's car, blocking the officers' view of her. The officers testified that Ferreira resisted their attempts to remove him from the windshield, whereas Ferreira claims that he eventually got off of the car voluntarily, and followed the officers' commands. Regardless, it is undisputed that a struggle ensued, and that the officers ultimately resorted to the use of pepper spray to subdue him. Ferreira was handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser.
Applying this test, Ferreira has presented no evidence that he suffered injury, let alone that the injury was significant. While Ferreira did receive some minor medical attention following his arrest, this falls far short of meeting his burden. Moreover, even if Ferreira's injury was significant, his claim also fails because he cannot show that the force used was “clearly excessive” and “objectively unreasonable.”
​
The Court must evaluate the situation from the standpoint of what officers were facing at the scene and not with the arm-chair confidence of 20/20 hindsight. Ferreira presents no evidence suggesting that Defendants' actions were unreasonable under the circumstances. The use of pepper spray by the officers as they tried to subdue and handcuff Ferreira, particularly given the situation unfolding nearby, does not amount to excessive force.
Likewise, Ferreira's allegation of kicks and punches inflicted during the struggle with police is not enough for this Court, in hindsight, to conclude that these actions, assuming they occurred, were unreasonable under the circumstances.
Based on the undisputed facts, it cannot be said that Defendants were unjustified in using force to subdue and remove Ferreira from the critical area, or that the force used was excessive and unreasonable.
​
The standard for establishing excessive force is a rigorous one, requiring that a plaintiff show “(1) significant injury, which (2) resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need; and the excessiveness of which was (3) objectively unreasonable.”
​
It is well understood that “the nature of a police officer's work may require the use of ‘some force’ from time to time when dealing with recalcitrant arrestees and others who attempt to interfere physically with the police while they are doing their job.
​
The reasonableness inquiry boils down to whether Defendants' actions “are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” The inquiry focuses on the facts and circumstances of each case, “including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
​
Reference to Gen.Laws 1956, § 12-7-8.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
Relevant Excerpt
The class reinforces positive communication skills by teaching everything from emotional intelligence to verbal de-escalation, by showing officers how to prevent tense situations from ending in use of force.
The lessons go beyond diffusing potentially dangerous situations, officers are also taught how to recognize biases they may not even realize they have.
Reviewed and approved by the United States Department of Justice. Presently Instructed in the states of FL, CT, RI, MA, ND, MN, MO, MI, SD, CO, AK, CA, AZ, WY and NM.
Rhode Island State Police Policies related to use of de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to higher levels of force.
When feasible, Division members will identify themselves and state their intent to use lethal force.
N/A
Interesting law review article on police departments that place clear restrictions on when and how officers use force see significantly fewer police killings than departments without such restrictions, and officers in these departments are less likely to be assaulted or killed in the line of duty.
N/A
On June 25, 2020, the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association (RIPCA) announced the Twenty for 2020 Campaign, a list of 20 promises to all Rhode Islanders from their police departments to redouble a statewide focus on training, transparency, communication and human rights. Some of these promises include (1) publicly posting use of force and other policies (2) uniform use of force & civil rights violation reporting (3) law enforcement bill of rights update and (4) re-emphasizing training standards.
N/A
In response to recent police officer involved killings across the United States, the AG office updated its use of force protocols to promote greater uniformity, accountability and impartiality in the investigation of police use-of-force incidents where deadly force was employed, where there has been an allegation of excessive use of force by police, and where a custodial death occurs.
N/A
The Rhode Island Police Chiefs’ Association, representing all of the police chiefs in Rhode Island, announces its full support and endorsement of Attorney General Peter Neronha’s proposal to pass new legislation allowing the AG’s office to conduct civil rights pattern and practice investigations of all government and law enforcement agencies in Rhode Island and his efforts to revise and expand protocols in the review of use of deadly force and alleged excessive force by police officers in the state.
N/A
This important piece of legislation created a legislative task force to thoroughly review the law enforcement officer’s bill of rights.
N/A
During the last three years, Rhode Island police on average used force during 5.2% of arrests, according to a Target 12 analysis of arrest data compared to use of force reports.
N/A
Discusses Providence police use of force.
USE OF FORCE
a. A police officer will never employ unnecessary force or violence and will use only such force in the discharge of duty as is reasonable in all circumstances.
b. The use of force should be used only with the greatest restraint and only after discussion, negotiation, and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. Although the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every police officer will refrain from unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment of any person.
Discussion of states that have enacted Law Enforcement Officers Bills of Rights and how these policies prevent holding police officers accountable for misconduct.
​
As of the time of the article, there were 14 states that had Law Enforcement Officers Bills of Rights: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Nine of these fourteen also address due process rights during hearings; they are Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia.
N/A