High priority · Seizure and deadly force

3.110: Use of Force

Department use-of-force policy. A prior review identified de-escalation, a duty to intervene, and force standards. Exact text is not on this page.

Last reviewed: unverifiedSource verified: noPolicy version: October 2023, not confirmedLegal review: unverified

Editorial disclaimer

This website presents public-interest research and legal analysis. Identifying a potential constitutional challenge does not establish that an officer, agency, or vendor violated the law. Constitutional concerns are research questions, not findings of unlawful conduct. The legality of a practice depends on the governing law, precise policy language, and facts of implementation. Statutes and precedents can change. Review the underlying records.

This page keeps four things separate: what the policy says, the legal standard, a potential challenge, and the proof required.

What the policy says

Research summary, not a quotation.

Version identified as October 2023. That date is not confirmed against the source PDF.

A prior review identified de-escalation, a duty to intervene, and force standards. Exact citations and text require verification, so none of that language is quoted.

No verified policy language is published for this document.

Constitutional provisions implicated in this review: Fourth Amendment.

Potential challenges

Objectively unreasonable force

Application-dependent

Editorial research status. Not a court finding.

Potential challenge

A specific shooting, restraint, vehicle intervention, or other seizure may violate the Fourth Amendment if objectively unreasonable. A departmental standard more protective than the constitutional floor is not itself unconstitutional.

Legal standard

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), states objective reasonableness. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), limits deadly force against a fleeing suspect. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), addresses vehicle intervention in a dangerous pursuit. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), addresses deadly force during a dangerous chase. Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), is cited for the totality of circumstances in excessive-force analysis. No link was supplied for Barnes.

Proof required

Complete policy and revisions
Use-of-force reports
Body-camera footage
Pursuit logs
Force review decisions
Training materials
Disciplinary outcomes

Evidence status. This concern is not confirmed evidence of unlawful conduct.

Governing cases

Open a case for the relevance noted in the research file. A link appears only when one was supplied.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Objective reasonableness governs excessive-force claims during seizures.

Read the opinion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Limits deadly force against fleeing suspects.

Read the opinion

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)

Reasonableness of dangerous pursuit-ending force.

Read the opinion

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014)

Deadly force in a dangerous vehicle pursuit.

Read the opinion

Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)

Totality of circumstances in excessive-force analysis.

No source link was supplied for this citation.

Nevada statutes

No Nevada statute was cited for this policy in the research file.

Unanswered questions

Questions in the research file

Fourth Amendment. Is force objectively reasonable under the circumstances known to officers at the time?
Deadly force. Is there an immediate threat of serious harm, or another legally sufficient basis under controlling precedent?
Pursuits and vehicle tactics. Was force used to stop a fleeing person reasonable given the threat, risk to bystanders, and circumstances?
Accountability. Are incidents, interventions, complaints, and findings documented and independently reviewable?

Still unanswered

Exact citations and the policy text require verification.
The October 2023 version label is identified, not confirmed.

Source

Source PDF not attached

The source PDF is not attached. This page does not link to a file. Exact wording and page numbers were not rechecked against the original.

Last reviewed: unverified
Source verified: no
Policy version: October 2023
Legal review: unverified
Effective date: Not verified
Version identified: October 2023. Not confirmed against the source PDF.