The eyes of the nation are once again on Minnesota as we work to navigate the fallout of the death of a citizen at the hands of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. We noticed that Google searches for Minnesota statute 609.066 increased sharply in the last week, which is the law that defines when a peace officer is legally allowed to use deadly force during a confrontation. In today’s blog, we take a closer look at that law and explain when an officer can use deadly force in Minnesota.
Minnesota Statute 609.066
Minnesota statute 609.066, which covers “authorized use of deadly force by peace officers,” is as follows:
The use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
(i) can be articulated with specificity;
(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and
(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.
(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
So was the shooting of Renee Good legally justified? Because the law states that “an objectively reasonable officer” must believe these facts to be true, you’re unlikely to get total agreement on the issue. There are some that feel that the shooting was justified given the law, while others believe no reasonable officer could ever believe the events they saw in the video would justify the use of lethal force.
At this point, hopefully we can let the justice system and legal experts sort it out. Many felt that the use of force on George Floyd was completely justified, while others felt that it was murder, and we saw a jury return a verdict of guilty on charges of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. If prosecutors feel like there is enough evidence to bring charges, hopefully the case will be heard by an impartial judge and jury in a fair trial.
In the meantime, if you or someone you know is in need of legal help in the Twin Cities, connect with Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm. Whether you need assistance contesting a speeding ticket, fighting a DWI charge or you’re facing more serious allegations, we’re here to assist. Give our team a call today at (952) 224-2277.
