New Court Decision: Must De-Escalation Be Tried First Before Force?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

After a half-naked man in the throes of excited delirium died following a struggle with sheriff’s deputies, his widow alleged in a federal civil rights legal action that:

  • the officers should not have used any force against him until they first attempted de-escalation techniques;
  • their “excessive” force-first actions violated legal protections for the disabled and unnecessarily spiked the confrontation to spin bad; and
  • their agency was liable for inadequate training on mental health challenges and further at fault for a shoddy investigation.

Initially, a District Court judge ruled against her claims, granting the defendant officers summary judgment because of qualified immunity.

Now the US Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit has weighed in on the plaintiff’s appeal.

In a split decision earlier this month, a three-judge appellate panel addressed issues of growing concern to street officers and their departments as the law enforcement community works to fully understand what’s required and reasonable amid the current demands for de-escalation of force in complex encounters.


The case arose from a middle-of-the-night explosion of destructive violence set loose in the summer of 2013 at a condominium building in Hamilton County, OH, by a 59-year-old man chronically ill with “schizoaffective disorder and paranoid delusions” who’d been off his meds for weeks.

Nude except for a skimpy T-shirt and “muttering unintelligibly,” he first trashed the unit where he and his wife lived, then threw a flower pot through a neighbor’s window. When the frightened occupant tried to calm him, he ripped off a window screen and threw that at her, “screaming something about ‘water.’ ” He was “acting crazy,” she later testified, “his face red and his eyes bulging.”

When three deputies responded to a 911 “neighbor trouble” call, they encountered him pacing in a patio area, “holding a garden hose with a metal nozzle in one hand” and a hanging plant basket in the other. He “immediately turned and approached [us] in an aggressive manner,” one of the deputies later testified.

He ignored commands to drop what was in his hands and “repeatedly shouted that he did not have a weapon.” However, he advanced toward the deputies at a pace “between a walk and a sprint,” swinging the hose “as if he was trying to hit somebody,” according to eye witnesses from the building.


Two discharges of TASER CEW probes failed to incapacitate him, as did drive-stun efforts after the deputies swarmed him to the ground. Slippery from sweat or water, he continued to be “combative and thrashing around” as they fought to control his flailing limbs. He punched one deputy in the face, kicked another in the groin. It took all-out exertion to finally get him handcuffed and shackled. Even then he continued with spurts of struggling.

Soon after he was restrained, a deputy noticed the subject had stopped breathing and had no pulse. Efforts by officers and EMTs to revive him proved futile. He was pronounced dead at a hospital ER.

A deputy coroner ruled that excited delirium was the cause of his “natural” death. He had sustained various abrasions and contusions and four broken ribs during the fight with deputies, but neither those injuries nor the multiple CEW applications contributed to his demise, she determined.

Nevertheless, the subject’s widow, as executrix of his estate, wanted the deputies and their employer held responsible. Her lawsuit put forth allegations of excessive force and of “failure to accommodate” her husband’s mental illness under the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

After she failed to persuade a district judge, who dismissed her suit last year, she reasserted her arguments in her appeal to the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati, which hears cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

In rendering a decision, the appellate panel divided two to one. Here are the plaintiff’s salient assertions and how the majority addresses them in the opinion written by Sr. Judge Ronald Gilman:


A plaintiff’s expert, a CJ professor from Columbia College in Missouri, testified in District Court that these days “de-escalation [is] the ‘standard technique’ recommended for crime-related encounters with excited-delirium subjects.” Had the deputies employed “verbal de-escalation,” he opined, the subject in this case “would have likely been talked into surrendering without an altercation.”

Many excited delirium researchers would no doubt take exception to that opinion. But, the appellate majority notes, the dead man’s widow “based on this evidence…argue[d] that the deputies had a ‘clearly established duty’ to use de-escalation techniques prior to using force against” her husband (italics added).

Under the ADA, she insisted, officers are obligated to “adjust the application of force downward” when confronting individuals who are “conspicuously mentally unstable.” To “accommodate” the subject’s disability, she argued, the deputies should have used “verbal de-escalation techniques” (including conversing “in a non-threatening manner”), paused to gather information from witnesses, and called “ EMS services before engaging” with force.

Instead, by moving to control him physically and mechanically, the officers “foreseeably caused” his resistance and “escalated the encounter by failing to use verbal and tactical de-escalation.” The force applied was excessive, she charged, and resulted from a “lack of adequate policies and training.”

Moreover, she added, the investigation of the encounter was “inadequate.” It “merely rubber-stamped the deputies’ unconstitutional conduct…and failed to review whether the deputies’ actions violated…policies and procedures.”


The appellate majority agreed that officers are “required to take into account [a subject’s] diminished capacity before using force to restrain him.”

But, the decision emphasizes, no judicial precedent required the deputies “to use only verbal de-escalation techniques” and “no caselaw supports [the] assertion that [they] were prohibited from using any physical force…before first attempting alternative de-escalation techniques.” Despite the subject’s evident mental condition, they were permitted to use “a reasonable amount of force to bring him under control.”

The man “had committed a series of property crimes that a reasonable officer could infer might escalate,” the majority explains. “The fact that [he] had not yet committed a more serious felony did not preclude the deputies from using force to restrain him.”

The force they used—“physically restraining his limbs, wrestling with him, attempting to tase him, and shackling his arms and legs—was likely not excessive,” the decision states. The deputies “grappled” with him but did not “repeatedly beat” him or “apply compressive body pressure to his back.” And “our cases firmly establish that it is not excessive force for the police to tase someone (even multiple times) when the person is actively resisting arrest.”

Indeed, among the range of force options, the majority states, a “growing national judicial consensus” regards the use of a CEW in dart mode as constituting “only an intermediate use of force.”

Although the subject yelled repeatedly that he was unarmed,” he was holding objects that could have been used as weapons amid a scene of property destruction,” giving the deputies “a reasonable basis to believe that [he] presented an immediate threat,” the majority states. The decision takes note of one deputy’s testimony that “the hose and metal nozzle could have been used as a weapon to hit or to choke him.”

Further, the decision characterizes as “dubious” the plaintiff’s claim that the deputies themselves caused the confrontation to escalate. But even if true, the majority says, LEOs “cannot be held liable solely because they created the circumstances requiring the application of force.”

As to the allegation of inadequate training, the majority observes that the “record shows that the deputies received training on topics that included the use of force and tasers, crisis intervention techniques, interacting with the special-needs population and mentally ill suspects, and recognizing the symptoms of excited delirium.” No problems there.

Likewise, the majority endorses the investigation into the subject’s death. Even the plaintiff’s own expert, the decision notes, “testified that he could not think of any additional interviews that should have been conducted during the investigation, could not point to any physical evidence that was not preserved or test results that were not considered, and could not identify any specific inadequacies in the collection of testimonial or tangible evidence.”

All said, the majority concludes, after more than 20 pages of written analysis and explanation, that its decision was inevitable: the District Court judge, Sandra Beckwith, had been right. Given the totality of circumstances, her granting of summary judgment for the deputies and their employer should stand.

The full decision in this case, Roell v Hamilton County, Ohio, can be accessed free of charge by clicking here. The decision includes a seven-page dissent by Judge Karen Moore, who argues that the case should have been sent to a jury.

Our thanks to Atty. Michael Brave, Director, CEW Legal for Axon Enterprise Inc., for alerting us to this case.

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.