When is the Use of Deadly Force Lawful? And Does “Legal” Equate to Right? 

• Use of deadly force and qualified immunity 
• Interference with familial relationships and “shocking the conscious” 
• Vicarious civil liability of municipalities under Monell 
• California’s Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act 

An officer’s use of deadly force must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances to be lawful. 

Where a suspect no longer poses an immediate threat, is not showing signs of danger or fight, an officer must cease the use deadly force. The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability — as long as their conduct does not violate the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. 

Parents and children have a Fourteenth Amendment due process interest in the companionship and society of their children and parents, respectively. However, to challenge the denial of this due process right in a civil court, an officer’s actions must be shown to be so extreme as to have “shocked the conscious” of the court.  

Municipalities may be vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of their employees under the theory of “respondeat superior.” However, this theory of civil liability applies only when it is shown that the municipality had a deliberate policy, custom ....