Traditionally, the hallmarks of policing involve officers responding to criminal and noncriminal calls for police service, detecting and preventing criminal activity, investigating past crimes, and enforcing laws. To carry out these activities, the police have institutional authority to use force. Such authority, power, or legal right comes from rules of law, which recognize that the police must sometimes use coercive action against law‐violating citizens to accomplish legal objectives. Whenever the police invoke their legal right to use force against citizens, courts in the United States generally apply three major legal decisions that clarify standards surrounding the appropriateness of police use of force:
West v. Atkins, Graham v. Connor
, and
Tennessee v. Garner
. Under the umbrella of
West v. Atkins
, the police must act under color of law to be liable for use‐of‐force actions against citizens that amount to violations of police authority. Police must make objectively reasonable use‐of‐force choices under the
Graham
rules, which include a balancing test, subjective, objective, hindsight, and totality of circumstances tests. If the police decide to use deadly force against law‐violators, then the
Garner
rules highlight three conditions in which deadly force may be reasonable: deadly force is necessary, suspects are dangerous, and police are able to warn suspects. Expert testimony by other experienced law enforcement officials is often required to determine and express an opinion on whether the officers acted reasonably in a particular case.
In other accusatory system jurisdictions as in civil law jurisdictions, the use of force by the police is regulated primarily by legislative acts, rules, and custom. The use of expert witnesses has somewhat less importance in those jurisdictions.