Should Failure To Record Equate With Excessive Force? A Court Speaks

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The problem of officers failing to activate recording equipment before or during a force encounter can be a thorny one with multiple potentially negative consequences. But a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit has tried to push the issue to a new and radical extreme.

The incident in question began in the snowy, predawn hours of Christmas Day, 2013, in Cedar Falls, a college town of 41,000 in central Iowa when a municipal officer cruising the deserted streets noticed a vehicle with its engine running stopped at an intersection half a block from an Iowa State Patrol post.

In rousing the large, 20-something man dozing behind the wheel, the officer “detected odors of alcohol and burnt marijuana,” according to a published decision earlier this month by the 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals.

The officer took the car keys, frisked the driver, and finding no weapons began to escort him to his patrol car, intending to drive to the police station for sobriety testing in a controlled, snow-free environment.


Suddenly, says the Court decision, quoting the officer’s version of events, the suspect “hit him with a roundhouse punch to the left side of his head, knocking him to his knees. [The suspect] continued to hit [the officer], who radioed for backup.”

As the assailant’s hammering continued, the officer “felt a tug on his duty belt” where he kept his sidearm. Exhausted, lightheaded, feeling he was nearly losing consciousness, and “fearing for his life, [the officer] warned [the suspect] that he would shoot him if he didn’t stop.”

As the suspect relentlessly continued the assault, the officer “fired a shot, hitting [the suspect] in the lower left abdomen. The shot backed [the attacker] up, but he started moving toward [the officer] again. [The officer] fired two more shots, hitting [the suspect] in the front left shoulder and in the back right shoulder area.”

The assailant, who had a history of minor drug offenses, survived the shooting and was captured by officers arriving at the scene. He was charged with assault on a peace officer with intent to inflict serious injury and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, felonies punishable by up to five years each in prison. A jury convicted him of a lesser offense: assault on a peace officer.

In turn, he filed a federal civil rights suit against the officer, the police chief, and the city, alleging use of excessive force and a failure to train, the first such suit against Cedar Falls police in at least 30 years.
Last year a federal district judge made short shrift of that by promptly declaring summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing the suit. The suspect appealed.


In court proceedings, the suspect claimed to have no recollection of the incident. The officer’s patrol car was equipped with an audio-video recording system, which could be activated via the officer’s body microphone. But much of the encounter took place outside the range of the camera, and the officer did not activate the audio. Thus, his version of events was the only detailed account of what happened available.

This opened the door to a creative contention by the plaintiff’s lawyer.
On appeal, the attorney argued that the Court “should create an evidentiary presumption at the summary judgment stage against an officer who fails to use audio or video recording equipment that he has been issued.”

Namely, this “proposed presumption would permit the court to infer from the lack of audio evidence that [the officer’s] use of force was [ipso facto] excessive,” allowing the plaintiff’s claims to proceed to trial.

The lawyer admitted that he “knows of no court anywhere that has recognized such a presumption,” but he argued that because the officer didn’t activate an available source of independent evidence he “should not benefit” from the suspect’s inability to remember the incident.


Apart from the recording issue, there were other reasons the summary judgment should be set aside and this case sent to trial, the plaintiff’s attorney argued. The officer’s use of deadly force was excessive, he claimed, because:

  • he knew the suspect was unarmed;
  • he failed to use less violent means to subdue the suspect;
  • he failed to renew his warning after the first shot; and
  • he shot the suspect in the back.


A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals responded with a terse written decision that covers fewer than three full pages.

First the Court dismisses the “unique” plea for an evidentiary presumption regarding unactivated recording equipment. The panel terms this a “radical solution” that it isn’t about to adopt.

As for the various alleged “failures” associated with the officer’s attempt to counteract the attack, the panel finds his actions “objectively reasonable” under the standards set down by the US Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor.

The suspect “posed an immediate threat to [the officer’s] safety and was actively resisting arrest,” the appellate panel writes. “Weighting approximately 268 pounds, [the suspect] was far larger than [the officer], who weighed approximately 190 pounds.” It was reasonable for the officer to use deadly force to defend himself, fearing “that he might lose consciousness and that [the suspect] could potentially access his service weapon and kill him.”

Regarding less-lethal force, the officer “could not reach his Taser or pepper spray—which were on the opposite side of his duty belt from his service weapon—” because of the suspect’s repeated punches. Even if he’d been able to, the panel points out, an officer need not “pursue the most prudent course of conduct as judged by 20/20 hindsight vision.”

Because deadly force was justified, the officer “was not required to warn [the suspect] before each shot and was permitted to use force until the threat had ended.”

Moreover, the fact that one shot entered the suspect’s shoulder from the rear “bears little similarity” to cases in which “an unarmed man was shot in the back of the head…or four of six shots entered the suspect from behind…. The mere possibility that a shot hit [the suspect] as he withdrew is not enough” for the shooting to be considered unreasonable.

In sum, the Court writes, the officer’s “unrefuted version of events establishes that his use of force was constitutionally reasonable.” The panel’s decision in the case, Church v. Anderson, can be accessed in full by clicking here.

Most official investigations of officer-involved shootings in Iowa are handled by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation. SAC Mike Krapfl, a certified Force Science Analyst, shared these comments with Force Science News:

“From the time the critical action in this case went off camera until the suspect appears back on camera was 37 seconds. Thirty-seven seconds of ground fighting in which the worst blow was the sucker punch to the head that clearly disoriented the officer. This really hits home, as Force Science research has shown, that 30 to 60 seconds of ground fighting can be a life-threatening eternity.

“This case involved a clearly objectively reasonable use of force by the officer. Thankfully, the 8th Circuit recognized the assailant’s illogical arguments for what they were and ruled in favor of the officer and his agency.”

Editor’s Note: The involved officer, a 20-year law enforcement veteran, has taken a medical retirement because of post-traumatic stress from this violent encounter.

Police practices expert Ken Wallentine, an Advanced Force Science Specialist, served as a defense expert in the litigation.

Our thanks to Atty. Michael Brave, Director, CEW Legal for Axon Enterprise Inc., for helping to facilitate this report.

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.