Navigating the shift toward ‘generally accepted police practices’ in litigation

By John Donchig

Consider a common tactical scenario: Dispatch receives a report of a violent assault that has just occurred. Responding officers are advised the suspect may be armed with a knife. Moments later, officers locate a person matching the suspect’s description retreating into a detached garage. Initial verbal commands receive no response.

Field supervisors and responding officers have several reasonable options:

• Request a SWAT response
• Deploy a K9 unit
• Initiate crisis communication or negotiations
• Maintain containment and hold the perimeter

In the field, any of these decisions may be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. In litigation, however, plaintiffs’ attorneys and expert witnesses increasingly evaluate those decisions against a more nebulous standard: “generally accepted police practices.”

While the U.S. Supreme Court has established “objective reasonableness” as the legal standard governing use of force, the phrase “generally accepted police practices” has increasingly appeared in civil litigation and expert testimony. Rather than simply reacting to this trend in court, police executives, trainers and supervisors should proactively prepare their organizations to address it.

Understanding the distinction: Law, policy and best practices

To protect both officers and agencies, leaders must ensure personnel understand three distinct operational standards:

1. The constitutional standard: The Fourth Amendment floor established by Graham v. Connor (1989), Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Scott v. Henrich (1994). This framework evaluates an officer’s actions based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the moment force was used — not with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight. Recent precedent in Barnes v. Felix (2025) reaffirmed that courts cannot evaluate these circumstances through chronological blinders.
2. Agency policy: Administrative mandates that govern procedures within a jurisdiction. Policy violations may warrant internal administrative review, but they do not automatically constitute a constitutional violation.
3. Evolving expectations and best practices: Industry concepts, tactical preferences and professional recommendations. These represent evolving guidance, not binding constitutional mandates.

When agencies blur the distinction between aspirational best practices and constitutional requirements, they may inadvertently invite plaintiff counsel to argue that any departure from a non-binding guideline constitutes unlawful conduct.

Preparing officers: Teaching operational articulation

The best defense against evolving external standards is clear, thorough report writing and verbal articulation grounded in human performance factors and threat assessment.

Officers are routinely trained on what tactics to employ, but less emphasis is often placed on explaining why one reasonable option was selected over another.

Agency training should reinforce three core habits:

• Document the “why not": Train officers to briefly explain why alternative tactics were not feasible because of environmental factors, suspect behavior, time constraints or available resources.
• Document suspect actions: Reports should clearly show that the suspect’s conduct and level of compliance drove the tactical timeline. The suspect’s decisions directly constrained — or expanded — the officers’ available options.
• Explain human factors: Teach officers to describe reaction time, spatial limitations, lighting, sound attenuation and cognitive load in plain language.

The supervisory role: Documenting tactical decision-making

Supervisors on the scene serve as the first line of defense in creating an accurate record of a dynamic incident. When managing a barricade, perimeter or other high-risk event, tactical decision-making should be documented in real time or immediately afterward.

Supervisors should ensure call logs and supervisory reviews capture:

• Resource availability: Available equipment, specialized units and realistic response times.
• Environmental constraints: Terrain, bystander exposure, structural limitations and communication challenges.
• Reasoning for tactical changes: Why command shifted from containment to physical entry or force deployment, such as threat escalation, movement within a structure or a medical emergency.

A detailed supervisory record helps ground the incident in the realities faced by command personnel, reducing the opportunity for hindsight-based criticism.

What police chiefs and executives should understand before litigation

Police executives must balance public expectations with operational realities. Preparing an agency for today’s legal environment requires attention to four strategic priorities.

1. Audit training curricula for legal precision: Ensure lesson plans, scenario evaluations and policy manuals clearly reference the constitutional standards established in Graham, Garner, Scott and Barnes. Avoid incorporating emerging terminology into policy or training as though it carries constitutional or statutory authority.
2. Educate prosecutors and city attorneys: Ensure agency legal counsel and local prosecutors understand the role of human performance factors and the distinction between administrative policy and constitutional law. Regular briefings can better prepare civil defense attorneys to challenge unsupported expert assertions.
3. Separate policy guidance from mandatory requirements: Structure policy language to preserve officer discretion in dynamic situations. Where flexibility is necessary for officer safety, use permissive language such as “officers should consider” rather than mandatory language such as “officers shall,” unless required by law or policy.
4. Invest in continuous, context-based scenario training: Regular scenario-based training focused on Fourth Amendment principles, tactical decision-making and de-escalation provides officers with the practical foundation needed to make sound decisions and clearly articulate them under scrutiny.

Professional organizations can help agencies stay current on evolving legal and tactical issues. The California Force Instructors Association (CALFIA), for example, provides instructor development through monthly educational meetings, regional training events, scholarly resources and an annual conference focused on constitutional law, tactics and officer performance. Learn more at CALFIA.org and CALFIAConference.org.

The legal standard governing law enforcement remains objective reasonableness, not universal consensus. By aligning policy, supervisory documentation and officer training with established legal principles and operational realities, agencies can better navigate evolving litigation trends while protecting both their officers and the communities they serve.

Better training means better policing.

About the author

John Donchig has been a police officer for over 20 years, and now works as an administrator at a police department in California. He is an arrest and control instructor, firearms instructor, former SWAT operator, and former MMA competitor. He currently sits on the California Force Instructors Association Board of Directors.