Comment by Harvey S. Bartlett III
Determinations of unreasonable use of deadly force and availability of the qualified immunity defense each rely on an objective reasonableness standard. The standard for these determinations has evolved from distinct balances of separate sets of interests. Because courts are often confronted with both determinations in the same case, however, the differences in the pedigrees of the two objective reasonableness standards are frequently ignored in favor of a conflated, singular objective reasonableness determination. This Comment explores the difference between the two objective reasonableness standards and reveals the dangers created when courts have conflated the two standards into one. This Comment concludes by proposing the proper treatment courts should employ when confronted with a case requiring both a determination of reasonableness of deadly force and a determination of the availability of the qualified immunity defense.
About the Author
Harvey S. Bartlett III. J.D. candidate 2000, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 1994, Spring Hill College.
Citation
74 Tul. L. Rev. 301 (1999)