Under Penal Code §835a(c)(1), as amended by AB 392, deadly force by a peace officer is justified only when necessary in defense of human life — specifically when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to:
Explanation
AB 392 narrowed §835a(c)(1) to require an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury (SBI) — closely paralleling the standard the U.S. Supreme Court announced in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1 for fleeing felons (limited to those who threaten death or SBI). Mere flight (a), property protection (c), and property-owner instructions (d) do not authorize deadly force. Private guards have no broader authority than peace officers in this regard and should treat deadly force as available only in defense of life.
Law Reference: Cal. Penal Code §835a(c)(1)This topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386 established that the constitutional reasonableness of force is judged from:
- Penal Code §835a, as amended by AB 392 (2019), declares that the authority to use physical force is a 'serious responsibility' to be exercised:
- Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1 held that deadly force against a fleeing felon is constitutionally permissible only when:
- Penal Code §835a(a)(2) (consistent with SB 230's training mandate) requires officers to:
- Penal Code §692 provides that lawful resistance to the commission of a public offense may be made by:
- Under Penal Code §693, resistance by the party about to be injured may be made:
Last reviewed: · editorial process