Once an arrestee is fully restrained (e.g., handcuffed and seated, no longer resisting), further use of force by the guard is:
Explanation
The reasonableness analysis under §835 and Graham v. Connor terminates at the point necessary force ends. Once a person is fully restrained and not resisting, additional force is not 'necessary' and therefore unreasonable, exposing the guard to criminal charges (PC §§240, 242) and civil liability. 'Pain compliance' (b), deterrence (c), and discretionary force (d) all describe punitive uses that the law treats as battery. Maintain reasonable hold, monitor for safety, and await police.
Law Reference: Cal. Penal Code §835; objective reasonableness; Graham v. ConnorThis 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
- May a private security guard use deadly force solely to protect property (e.g., merchandise or a vehicle)?
- On the 'force continuum,' a security guard should escalate force based on:
- Verbal de-escalation should generally be attempted:
- If a security guard uses excessive force on a person, which California criminal statutes most directly apply?
- When may a guard lawfully deploy pepper spray (OC) against a non-compliant subject?
- A baton-permitted guard strikes a non-resisting handcuffed subject with the baton 'to make sure they cooperate later.' Legally, this is:
Last reviewed: · editorial process