Also known as: moderately forceful · reasonable force
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Force that is neither intended nor likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Such force may be used to defend against unprivileged contact or to protect land or chattels when the actor reasonably believes it necessary and the intrusion is unprivileged.
Fiona returned to retrieve her sofa after Ridge Properties removed her belongings without court process. Xavier blocked the basement stairs and asserted the company's claim of right. Fiona pushed past him with moderate force to reach the storage cage and carry out her sofa. The moderate force did not cause serious harm and was directed only at gaining access to her chattels.
Luis climbed the fence at the freight yard to retrieve his trailer after TransCo refused release over disputed fees. A security guard stepped between Luis and the trailer. Luis shoved the guard aside with moderate force to reach the trailer. The shove was moderate and responded to the guard's negligent interference with Luis's claimed property interest.
Karen cut through a side gate at Republic Cyber's server farm after hours to retrieve her laptop. Guard dogs attacked her on the fenced property. Karen kicked one dog away with moderate force to create distance and avoid further bites. The moderate force prevented the intrusion onto her possessory interest in the chattel without intending serious harm.
Annie observed Randy unloading boxes in an area of the warehouse not covered by his employer's lease. Randy had formed a mistaken belief about the space due to a mislabeled map. Annie used moderate force by shoving Randy back from the leased space. The force was moderate and neither intended nor likely to cause serious bodily harm.
A public school official administered moderate corporal punishment to a student for repeated classroom disruption. The punishment consisted of several strikes with a wooden paddle that caused only minor bruising. The student later sued claiming excessive force. The moderate force was applied without intent or likelihood of serious bodily harm.
In January 1971, former students James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Dade County School Board, principal James T. Ingraham, assistant principal Willie J. Wright, and other school officials. The action sought damages for individual paddling incidents and injunctive relief on behalf of all students in the Dade County schools under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 1970, Ingraham was subjected to more than 20 licks with a wooden paddle while held over a table in the principal's office after being slow to respond to a teacher's instructions. The paddling caused a hematoma requiring medical attention and keeping him out of school for several days. On December 1, 1970, Andrews was paddled several times for minor infractions in the school auditorium, with strikes to his arms, back, and neck that caused him to lose the full use of his arm for a week. In the 1970-1971 school year many of the 237 schools in Dade County used corporal punishment as a means of maintaining discipline pursuant to Florida legislation and a local School Board regulation. The authorized punishment consisted of paddling the recalcitrant student on the buttocks with a flat wooden paddle measuring less than two feet long, three to four inches wide, and about one-half inch thick. The normal punishment was limited to one to five licks or blows with the paddle and resulted in no apparent physical injury to the student. Teachers often administered the punishment without first consulting the principal, contrary to the procedural requirements of the statute and regulation. The evidence, consisting mainly of the testimony of 16 students, suggests that the regime at Drew was exceptionally harsh. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss after the close of the plaintiffs' case, finding no constitutional violation. A panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, but upon rehearing the en banc court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the questions of cruel and unusual punishment and procedural due process.
View caseFederal agents entered an apartment to execute an arrest warrant and encountered resistance from the occupant. The agents applied moderate force by pinning the occupant's arms without weapons or strikes likely to cause serious injury. The occupant later brought a civil rights action alleging excessive force. The moderate force remained within the bounds of nondeadly measures during the arrest.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseModerate force is neither intended nor likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, whereas deadly force creates a substantial risk of fatal consequences or permanent loss of an important bodily function.
Supporting sources
A person may use moderate force to prevent or terminate an unprivileged intrusion onto land or chattels when the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary and the intrusion is not privileged.
Supporting sources
Yes, moderate force may be used to defend against harmful or offensive contact that the actor reasonably believes is threatened by another's negligent conduct, provided the actor cannot safely retreat.
Supporting sources
Yes, self-defense with moderate force is privileged even if the actor could avoid the necessity by retreating or giving up a right, unless a specific statute imposes a duty to retreat.
Supporting sources
…The Law of Torts § 1.11 (1956). : Although no State has undertaken to limit the common-law doctrine that one may use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest by a private person, at least two States have outlawed resistance to an unlawful arrest sought to be made by a person known to be an officer of the law. R. I.…