California AB 392 is the 2019 law that rewrote Penal Code Section 835a to tighten when police officers may use deadly force. Signed on August 19, 2019, it replaced a single word in the governing standard, swapping “reasonable” for “necessary,” and that one change moved California from the federal baseline to one of the strictest deadly force standards in the country.1California Legislative Information. California Assembly Bill 392 – Peace Officers Deadly Force
What Changed: “Necessary” Instead of “Reasonable”
Under the old law, an officer could use deadly force whenever a reasonable officer in the same situation would have believed it was appropriate. That mirrored the federal constitutional floor set by Graham v. Connor, which still governs excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment nationwide.2Library of Congress. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
AB 392 raised the bar. Deadly force in California is now justified only when a reasonable officer would believe it is required to prevent death or serious injury. The practical consequence is that a shooting could satisfy the federal “objective reasonableness” test and still be unlawful under California law, because an objectively reasonable officer could have resolved the situation without lethal force.
The statute also makes the Legislature’s intent explicit: peace officers are to use deadly force “only when necessary in defense of human life.”3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
When Deadly Force Is Allowed Under AB 392
Penal Code Section 835a, as rewritten, allows deadly force in only two situations:
- To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, when the officer reasonably believes, based on everything known at the time, that deadly force is needed.
- To apprehend a fleeing person who committed a felony that threatened or caused death or serious bodily injury, when the officer reasonably believes the person will cause further death or serious injury unless apprehended immediately.
Before resorting to lethal force, officers must use other available tactics if doing so is reasonably safe and feasible. De-escalation, verbal commands, and lesser force options are no longer best practices sitting alongside the law; the duty to try them when feasible is built into the statute itself.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
The Disability Finding Written Into the Statute
One provision that often gets overlooked sits inside the statute’s legislative findings. The Legislature noted that people with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are disproportionately affected by police use of force, and are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement. That finding is law, not commentary. It signals to courts that an officer’s failure to recognize and adapt to a person’s disability can undermine the claim that deadly force was necessary.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
How an Officer’s Decision Gets Evaluated
AB 392 does not judge officers with the benefit of hindsight. The decision to use deadly force is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on everything known or perceived at the time. The law acknowledges that officers sometimes face fast-moving, uncertain situations that demand split-second choices.
That said, the review is supposed to be “careful and thorough, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority.” Reviewers also consider whether the officer’s conduct was consistent with the department’s policies and training. A shooting that technically fits a split-second account can still fail the standard if the officer’s lead-up to that moment ignored training, skipped feasible de-escalation, or escalated the encounter unnecessarily.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code PEN 835a
What Happens When Force Isn’t “Necessary”
AB 392 did not create new criminal penalties for officers. What it did was narrow the definition of justifiable homicide. Penal Code Section 196 says a homicide by a peace officer is justified in only two scenarios: carrying out a lawful court judgment, or using force that complies with Section 835a. If the deadly force falls outside the “necessary” standard, the justifiable-homicide defense goes with it.4California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 196 – Homicide
At that point, the ordinary homicide statutes apply. Prosecutors can bring murder or voluntary manslaughter charges under the same laws that reach any other defendant. The decision rests with the district attorney, who weighs whether the officer’s actions were “necessary” under the circumstances. The bar for a successful prosecution is still high, but it is meaningfully lower than it was under the old “reasonable” test, and that is the practical effect the authors of AB 392 were after.
How Shootings Get Investigated
Every officer-involved shooting in California triggers an investigation, and the path depends on the facts. Under Assembly Bill 1506, the California Department of Justice is required to investigate any officer-involved shooting that results in the death of an unarmed civilian, meaning a person not in possession of a deadly weapon at the time. The Attorney General’s office reviews these cases for criminal liability. When charges are not filed, the office publishes a written report explaining the facts, the legal analysis, and the reasoning, and may recommend policy changes to the agency involved.5California Attorney General. AB 1506 Officer-Involved Shooting Investigations and Reviews
When the person shot was armed or survived, the local district attorney typically handles the investigation and the charging decision, applying the Section 835a standard to the facts developed by investigators.
How AB 392 Fits With California’s Broader Framework
AB 392 is the centerpiece, but it does not stand alone. Government Code Section 7286 requires every California law enforcement agency to maintain a written use-of-force policy built around the same principles: de-escalation when feasible, proportional force, firearm-pointing restrictions, bystander safety, prompt medical aid, mandatory reporting, and a duty to intercede when another officer uses excessive force. Every agency’s policy must be publicly available.6California Legislative Information. California Government Code 7286 The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) issued statewide guidelines to help departments translate the statute into training and practice.7California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Use of Force Standards and Guidelines
Separately, Senate Bill 1421 opened records of officer shootings and serious uses of force to public records requests, including investigative reports, audio and video, interview transcripts, autopsy reports, and materials provided to the district attorney for charging decisions.8California Legislative Information. California Senate Bill 1421 – Peace Officers Release of Records
The pieces reinforce each other. AB 392 defines when deadly force is lawful. Section 196 ties justifiable homicide to that definition. Section 7286 pushes de-escalation and intercession into every department’s written policy. SB 1421 makes the record public, and AB 1506 pulls the most sensitive investigations out of local hands. An officer who uses deadly force in California now faces scrutiny from their own department, from a local prosecutor or the state Attorney General, and from any member of the public who files a records request. That is the accountability architecture AB 392 anchors.