Is mere handcuffing of a non-compliant person a 'use of force'?

Is mere handcuffing of a non-compliant person a 'use of force'?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. It depends on the situation
• D. Sometimes

Answer: (B)

Differentiating restraint from the use of force. Use of force covers actions intended to overcome resistance, cause injury, or otherwise escalate power against a person. Simply placing handcuffs on a non‑compliant individual is a custodial restraint used to gain control and ensure safety, not an act meant to injure or coerce beyond necessary restraint. When handcuffing is done properly and for legitimate safety reasons, it is considered a control technique within lawful custody rather than a use of force. However, if handcuffing is applied with excessive force, to injure, or without justification, it could be regarded as excessive force and subject to review.

Differentiating restraint from the use of force. Use of force covers actions intended to overcome resistance, cause injury, or otherwise escalate power against a person. Simply placing handcuffs on a non‑compliant individual is a custodial restraint used to gain control and ensure safety, not an act meant to injure or coerce beyond necessary restraint. When handcuffing is done properly and for legitimate safety reasons, it is considered a control technique within lawful custody rather than a use of force. However, if handcuffing is applied with excessive force, to injure, or without justification, it could be regarded as excessive force and subject to review.