As the legal framework surrounding the First and Fourth Amendments continues to evolve, a landmark ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has set a new precedent for the deployment of less-lethal force during civil unrest. The court's decision emphasizes that the mere presence of a crowd or a declaration of an unlawful assembly does not grant blanket immunity for the use of kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs). Instead, the judiciary is moving toward a standard that requires individual justification for every round fired, fundamentally challenging traditional mass-dispersal tactics that rely on volume over precision.
Key Details
The ruling specifically addresses the use of bean bag rounds and foam batons in scenarios where demonstrators are non-compliant but not actively violent. The court held that 'indiscriminate' firing into a crowd to force movement constitutes an unreasonable seizure. To remain constitutionally compliant, agencies must now demonstrate that the recipient of a less-lethal round posed a specific threat to officers or the public. This effectively bans 'skip firing' or indirect fire techniques intended to create a general zone of discomfort, mandating instead that officers utilize high-precision 40mm systems with clear target acquisition before engagement.
Broader Context
This judicial trend is part of a decade-long refinement of the 'Graham v. Connor' reasonableness standard applied to less-lethal tools. In previous eras, the use of tear gas or rubber bullets was often viewed by the courts as a necessary evil for maintaining public order. However, the 2026 legal climate is increasingly skeptical of any force that affects bystanders or peaceful protesters. This has led to a surge in civil litigation against agencies that utilize older 37mm 'smoothbore' systems, which lack the accuracy of modern rifled platforms, as these older tools are seen as inherently prone to collateral injury.
Implications for Law Enforcement
Operationally, this means the 'wall of smoke' or 'barrage' approach to crowd control is no longer legally defensible in many jurisdictions. Agencies must pivot toward a precision-based engagement model. This requires significant updates to use-of-force policies, specifically defining the threshold for deploying KIPs against individuals versus the crowd as a whole. Training must emphasize 'target discrimination' under stress, and field commanders must be prepared to justify the deployment of each specific munition type based on the immediate actions of the subject, rather than the general mood of the demonstration.
Conclusion
Strategic leadership must recognize that the legal safety net for mass-dispersal munitions is shrinking. The move toward individual accountability in use-of-force incidents requires a parallel move toward precision in equipment and training. By adopting a policy framework that prioritizes the 'target-specific' application of less-lethal tools, agencies can mitigate litigation risk while maintaining the capability to effectively manage volatile public gatherings. The future of crowd control is not in the volume of force, but in its surgical application.
