I85PREP
⌘ K
NM POST study materials
NM POST study resources

NM POST: Use of Force and Officer Safety

NM POST · Work through your exam, one topic at a time.

All guide sections

Use of Force and Officer Safety

This domain tests constitutional and New Mexico standards for force, de-escalation, duty to intervene, and tactical officer safety.

Core rules

  • Graham v. Connor requires objective reasonableness under the totality of circumstances. Courts consider the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to escape. The officer's subjective intent does not control.
  • Tennessee v. Garner limits deadly force against a fleeing felon to situations where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Scott v. Harris applies similar reasoning to vehicle pursuits.
  • New Mexico law authorizes reasonable force to make an arrest and limits deadly force (NMSA 1978, § 30-2-6); agency policy may be stricter. Officers have a duty to intervene to stop excessive force and a duty to render aid.
  • De-escalation uses time, distance, cover, and communication. It is not required when it would increase the risk to officers or others.
  • Officer safety includes reactionary gap, contact/cover roles, threat cues, proper handcuffing and searching, and monitoring for positional asphyxia or medical distress.

Worked example

A subject armed with a knife stands 20 feet from an officer, refuses commands, and moves toward the officer. The officer has cover and a backup officer. The subject is an immediate threat, so deadly force may be reasonable. If the subject instead drops the knife and runs away, Garner limits deadly force unless the officer can articulate a significant threat. Each moment is evaluated separately; the earlier threat does not justify a later shot at a fleeing, unarmed subject.

Traps that cost marks

  • Using hindsight rather than the facts known at the moment.
  • Treating de-escalation as a requirement to wait until an officer is injured.
  • Failing to separate the justification for force from the duty to render aid.
  • Ignoring the possibility of positional asphyxia after restraint.