I asked Grok to review all the laws and court cases about the use of pepper spray and this is the shorter summary it gave.
- Severity of the Crime (S): Pepper spray is more likely permissible for serious or violent offenses (e.g., felonies involving harm) than minor misdemeanors like trespassing or traffic violations. For low-severity crimes, courts often find its use disproportionate if alternatives exist.
- Threat to Safety (T): The most critical factor is whether the suspect poses an immediate danger to officers, bystanders, or themselves. If no threat exists (e.g., the person is restrained or non-aggressive), pepper spray is typically unreasonable.
- Active Behavior (A): This examines the suspect's ongoing actions. Aggressive or combative behavior may justify use, but passive or verbal non-compliance alone does not.
- Resistance to Instructions (R): Active physical resistance (e.g., struggling against arrest) can warrant pepper spray, but passive resistance (e.g., refusing to move without force) generally does not, especially if safer options like negotiation are available.
- Evasion of Arrest (E): Attempts to flee or evade capture heighten the need for force, making pepper spray more defensible.
Officers must also consider the totality of circumstances, including the suspect's size, mental state, and environmental factors, and provide warnings when feasible.
When Pepper Spray is Permissible: Examples from Case Law
Pepper spray is generally permissible when it aligns with the Graham factors, such as in situations involving active resistance, immediate threats, or evasion during serious crimes. However, courts rarely outline explicit "permissible" scenarios in rulings, as most litigation focuses on excessiveness claims. Inferred from analyses:
- If a suspect is actively resisting arrest (e.g., physically struggling) and poses a safety risk, pepper spray can be a reasonable escalation from verbal commands or hands-on control, especially for more serious offenses. For instance, in cases where suspects are unrestrained and aggressive, courts have upheld its use as proportionate.
