California Penal Code 835a: Deadly Force and De-Escalation

California Penal Code 835a sets the rules for when a peace officer can use physical force, and it draws a sharp line between ordinary force and deadly force. Officers may use objectively reasonable force to make an arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. They may use deadly force only when it is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, or to stop a fleeing suspect who committed a violent felony and is likely to kill or seriously injure someone else if not caught immediately.¹ The statute took its current shape through Assembly Bill 392, effective January 1, 2020, and was most recently amended by SB 857, effective January 1, 2026, without substantive change to the core use-of-force rules.²

The shift from “reasonable” to “necessary” is the heart of the law. Under the previous standard, an officer could defend a shooting by pointing to a range of reasonable responses and arguing force was one of them. Under 835a, the officer has to show that no reasonably safe alternative existed.²

Force Short of Deadly Force

For force that doesn’t create a substantial risk of death or serious injury, the test is “objectively reasonable.” An officer with reasonable cause to believe someone committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to arrest the person, prevent escape, or overcome resistance.¹ That tracks the federal Fourth Amendment standard from Graham v. Connor, which judges force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with hindsight.³

The statute also declares, in its own text, that every person has the right to be free from excessive force by officers acting under color of law, and it tells courts to account for the split-second judgments officers sometimes have to make.¹

When Deadly Force Is Allowed

Deadly force sits behind a much higher bar. An officer is justified in using it only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that it is necessary for one of two reasons:¹

To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
To apprehend a fleeing suspect who committed a felony that threatened or caused death or serious bodily injury, when the officer reasonably believes the person will cause death or serious injury to someone else unless caught immediately.

The word “necessary” is doing real work. Officers have to evaluate whether other available resources and techniques could resolve the situation safely before firing. If a reasonably safe alternative exists, deadly force isn’t necessary and isn’t justified.²

What “Imminent” Means

The statute defines an imminent threat as one where a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe the person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. Fear of future harm doesn’t qualify, no matter how likely that harm may be.¹

All three elements matter. A person shouting threats from behind a locked barrier has apparent intent but no present opportunity. Someone armed but walking away from officers may have ability and opportunity but no apparent intent to immediately harm anyone. Neither situation, standing alone, meets the imminence test.

Fleeing Suspects

The fleeing-suspect provision is deliberately narrow. Deadly force is available only when the person committed a felony that involved death or serious bodily injury and the officer reasonably believes further death or serious injury will follow if the person isn’t caught right away. A nonviolent felony suspect who runs doesn’t meet this threshold, even if later apprehension would be difficult.¹ This codifies and arguably tightens the floor set by Tennessee v. Garner, which held that deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect violates the Fourth Amendment.⁴

Danger Only to Themselves

The statute flatly prohibits deadly force against someone based solely on the danger that person poses to themselves. If a reasonable officer would conclude the person doesn’t pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to anyone else, deadly force is off the table.¹ This matters especially on mental health calls, where a person in crisis may be harming themselves without threatening others.

The Totality of the Circumstances Includes What the Officer Did Beforehand

Both the reasonable force and deadly force standards are judged by the totality of the circumstances, which the statute defines as all facts known to the officer at the time, including the conduct of both the officer and the subject leading up to the use of force.¹

That last clause is one of the biggest practical changes in the law. Under the old framework, courts often looked only at the moment of the shooting. Under 835a, the officer’s choices in the minutes before the confrontation are part of the analysis. Charging into a situation without attempting to communicate, create distance, or wait for backup can affect whether the eventual force was justified.

De-Escalation, Warnings, and Retreat

The statute doesn’t label de-escalation as a standalone mandate, but it builds it directly into the deadly force test. Officers must evaluate each situation for other available resources and techniques that are reasonably safe and feasible before resorting to deadly force.¹ When feasible, officers must also identify themselves and warn that deadly force may be used before firing, unless the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person already knows those facts.²

Retreat gets its own clarification. An officer doesn’t lose the right to self-defense or become the aggressor by using objectively reasonable force, and the law doesn’t require officers to abandon a lawful arrest. But retreat in the sense of tactical repositioning and other de-escalation moves is expected when it’s safe.¹

What Happens When an Officer Violates 835a

The consequences run on two tracks: criminal and civil.

Criminal Exposure Through Penal Code 196

AB 392 rewrote Penal Code 196, which defines when a homicide by a peace officer is legally justifiable. The current version provides only two paths: carrying out a court judgment, or using force that complies with Section 835a.⁵ If a district attorney concludes the force violated 835a, the officer can be prosecuted for manslaughter or, in extreme cases, murder, without the shield of the old justifiable-homicide defense. That tight link between 196 and 835a is what gives the “necessary force” standard its criminal teeth.

Federal Civil Rights Claims

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, anyone whose constitutional rights are violated by a person acting under state authority can sue in federal court for damages.⁶ Excessive force by a police officer is analyzed as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and § 1983 is the vehicle. Officers can raise qualified immunity, arguing the specific right wasn’t clearly established, but when that defense fails the case can go to trial or settlement.

The Bane Act

California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Civil Code 52.1) allows individuals to sue anyone who interferes with their constitutional or statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion, and that includes excessive force. A successful plaintiff can recover damages and injunctive relief, and the court may impose a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation. District attorneys and city attorneys can also bring Bane Act claims on behalf of the public.⁷

Suing the City or County

Under Government Code 815.2, a public entity like a city or county is liable for injuries caused by its employees acting within the scope of their employment.⁸ Before filing suit against a government agency, you must submit a formal government tort claim within six months of the incident for personal injury or death.⁹ Missing that six-month deadline can permanently bar the claim, and it’s the single most common way otherwise strong excessive-force cases against agencies are lost.

Other Officers Have a Duty to Step In

A related statute, Government Code 7286, requires California law enforcement agencies to adopt policies that include a duty for officers to intervene when they witness another officer using clearly excessive force. Intervention can mean physically stopping the force, activating a body camera, confronting the officer, or reporting the offending officer to dispatch. Officers must also immediately report potential excessive force to a supervisor.¹⁰

An officer who has been trained on the duty to intercede and fails to act faces discipline up to and including the same consequences as the officer who used the excessive force.¹⁰ If you’re evaluating an incident, every officer on scene is potentially accountable, not just the one who pulled the trigger or threw the punch.

1
California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a
2
California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill 392
3
Library of Congress. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
4
Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
5
California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 196
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
7
California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 52.1
8
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 815.2
9
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 911.2
10
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 7286