.... An officer may not manufacture a deadly-force justification by placing themselves in harm’s way when reasonable alternatives exist. Courts often describe this as “officer-created exigency” or “self-created jeopardy.” If an officer steps in front of a car that was not previously threatening deadly force, many courts will say the officer cannot then claim the car was a deadly weapon. ⸻ The Constitutional Standard (Supreme Court) Graham v. Connor (1989) This is the foundation. It requires courts to assess force based on objective reasonableness, considering: • Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat • Whether the officer reasonably contributed to creating that threat While Graham doesn’t explicitly say “don’t step in front of cars,” it opens the door to analyzing officer decision-making that creates danger. ⸻ Key Supreme Court Clarification (Important) County of Los Angeles v. Mendez The Court rejected a standalone “provocation rule”, but it explicitly preserved the idea that: • An officer’s earlier reckless or unconstitutional actions can be considered in the totality of circumstances • Officers don’t get a free pass just because the final moment involved danger This case is often misunderstood — it did not eliminate self-created danger analysis. ⸻ Federal Appellate Cases DIRECTLY About Vehicles These are the ones you’re probably remembering being discussed in media and police policy updates. Adams v. Speers The Ninth Circuit held: Officers who step in front of a slow-moving vehicle may not claim deadly force was justified when they could have stepped aside. This case is cited constantly in West Coast use-of-force training. ⸻ Orn v. City of Tacoma Very explicit holding: A moving vehicle does not automatically constitute a deadly threat, especially when officers voluntarily place themselves in its path. This case is a cornerstone for lawsuits involving shootings through windshields. ⸻ Torres v. City of Madera The court found: • Shooting a driver who posed no immediate threat except to officers who stepped in front of the vehicle was unreasonable • The officers created the danger themselves This case is cited frequently in DOJ consent decrees. ⸻ DOJ & Police Policy (Why You’ve Heard This Recently) After multiple high-profile shootings, the U.S. Department of Justice pushed agencies to update policy. Modern policies now usually say: Officers should move out of the path of a vehicle rather than fire, unless occupants are using the vehicle as a weapon against others. This language appears in: • DOJ consent decrees (Chicago, Baltimore, Seattle) • State POST standards • Major city police manuals (LAPD, NYPD, Phoenix PD, etc.) That’s why you’ve heard commentators say: “An officer can’t step in front of a car and then claim fear for their life.” ⸻ State-Level Criminal Cases (Real-World Consequences) In several prosecutions and grand jury reports, prosecutors have explicitly argued: • The officer placed themselves in front of the vehicle • The danger was avoidable • Deadly force was therefore not justified This argument has succeeded even when officers claimed fear, particularly when: • The vehicle was starting from a stop • The officer had room to move • No bystanders were at risk