What is the term used to evaluate the reasonableness of an officer's use of force?

The term used to evaluate the reasonableness of an officer's use of force is "objective reasonableness." This concept stems from case law, particularly the Fourth Amendment standard, which assesses whether an officer's use of force was appropriate given the circumstances they faced at the moment. It focuses on the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than hindsight, allowing for a fair evaluation of the decision-making process in high-stress situations.

Objective reasonableness takes into account various factors, such as the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest. By applying this standard, it ensures that officers are held to a consistent legal standard when determining the appropriate level of force in different scenarios.

In contrast, other terms like "reasonable suspicion" pertain to the standards for stopping and detaining individuals; "proportional force" refers to the idea that the amount of force used should correspond to the threat faced; and "defensive tactics" generally describes the physical techniques used by officers to control a situation. While relevant in discussions of police protocols and practices, those terms do not specifically address the legal evaluation of the use of force itself.