California’s progressive Legislature passed an amendment to Penal Code § 835a (AB 392), effective as of January 1, 2020, tightening up the standards for an officer’s use of deadly force. (See California Legal Update, Vol. 24, #9, dated Aug. 30, 2019, Admin. Notes.) In effect, to use deadly force in California today, an officer’s use of that force must be “necessary” under the circumstances, as opposed to merely “reasonable.” (See P.C. § 835a(a)(2) and (c)(1).) The federal standard, however, not being bound by California’s views on the issue, remain one of “objective reasonableness under the circumstances.” (See Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386; Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1.) I have an interesting article lifted from a publication by the Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (i.e., “The Informer”) which argues that federal law enforcement officers are not bound by California’s stricter standards, at least in federal court. This is because, per the author, when obliged to use deadly force, there is statutory authority (28 U.S.C. § 1442) for “removing” any attempt 4 by the state to prosecute the involved federal officer(s) into federal court where the case would presumably be dismissed (assuming the force used meets the traditional “objective reasonableness” standards). The same theory may apply to civil suits as well. I have the full article that I have received permission from the author to pass onto you should you like to see it. You need merely ask. Particularly if you are a federal officer, it’s an article with which you might want to be familiar.