Imagine two situations. In the first, a man runs away after a robbery, an officer issues a warning, the man reaches for his waistband, and the officer fires. In the second, an arrested suspect is already lying handcuffed on the ground, no longer offering any resistance, and is then struck several more times with a baton. Most people intuitively sense that something here is different. The law does more than sense it: it draws precise boundaries around it.

In public debate, police violence is often discussed as a moral or political question, about trust, authority and safety. Legally, the assessment begins somewhere else, namely with the question of whether the force stayed within the law. That is not a matter of feeling but a test against powers, principles and human rights. In this blog I walk through that entire framework: when may the police use force, when does lawful action turn into unlawful or even criminal conduct, and what avenues are open to a citizen when things go wrong. I draw on the most important statutory provisions and case law, but keep it as readable as possible.

The core in one sentence

Force used by the police is not prohibited, but strictly regulated. The State holds the monopoly on the use of force, and the police may only use that monopoly within boundaries that the law draws in advance. The thread running through everything that follows is always the same question: was this force, in this situation, with this means and this aim, truly necessary and reasonable?

The legal basis: a power is never self-evident

The main rule is set out in Article 7 of the Police Act 2012 (Politiewet 2012). A police officer appointed to carry out the police task may, in the lawful exercise of their office, use force, but only where the intended aim justifies it, taking into account the dangers attached to that force, and where that aim cannot be achieved in any other way. Moreover, the use of force must, where possible, be preceded by a warning. This same article also contains the proportionality requirement: the exercise of the power must be reasonable and moderate.

That statutory text seems short, but it contains four ingredients you will see in almost every case: a lawful aim, necessity, the absence of a lighter alternative, and moderation. Force without a power is by definition unlawful.

The detailed elaboration of that power is not set out in the Act itself, but in the Official Instruction for the police, the Royal Military Constabulary and other investigating officers (the Ambtsinstructie). The government’s authority to lay down that instruction follows from Article 9 Police Act 2012. The Official Instruction regulates, for each means of force, the conditions under which it may be deployed, and has been thoroughly revised in recent years. Important to remember: the Official Instruction states not only whether a means may be used, but also how, when, with what warning and under what limitations.

The test: legality, necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity

In almost every case about police violence the same four questions recur. I explain them and link each directly to an example.

The first is legality. Was there a statutory basis for the action? Without a power, force is unlawful, however well intended.

The second is necessity. Was force really needed to carry out the police task? If the situation could also have been brought under control without force, that necessity is lacking.

The third is proportionality. Was the force used in proportion to the aim? A minor offence does not justify a heavy means.

The fourth is subsidiarity. Was there no lighter alternative that would also have been effective? First talking, keeping distance or de-escalating, and only then a heavier means.

The example makes the difference visible. A confused man on a platform is shouting loudly and refuses to walk away, but does not physically threaten anyone. Immediate use of pepper spray or a baton is then hard to justify, because necessity and subsidiarity are lacking. If that same man advances on bystanders with a knife and does not respond to orders, then a heavier means may, depending on the acute threat, indeed fall within the limits.

Crucially, the court assesses the action from the moment of the decision, not solely from the outcome. Not what we see afterwards on calmly reviewed camera footage, but what the officer at that moment could reasonably know, see and assess, is decisive. At the same time, this is no carte blanche. The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) has drawn the line sharply: not every breach of a norm undermines lawfulness, but a serious overstepping of proportionality or subsidiarity can stand in the way of an officer still acting in the lawful exercise of their office. That bears directly on offences such as resisting arrest (Article 180 of the Criminal Code, Wetboek van Strafrecht): if the stop itself was unlawful, the resistance to it cannot be punished as resisting arrest.

The heavier the means, the stricter the test

The Official Instruction follows a build-up from light to heavy: from a physical hold and handcuffs, via pepper spray, the baton and the electroshock weapon, to the firearm. The more far-reaching the possible consequences, the stricter and more specific the conditions.

The firearm is the outermost limit. For it, exhaustively described situations apply, such as arresting someone of whom it may reasonably be assumed that they will immediately use life-threatening violence, or averting immediate danger to life or serious bodily harm. An important restriction is added: if the suspect’s identity is known and postponing the arrest does not pose an unacceptable risk, the firearm should not be used. And in principle a duty to warn applies before an aimed shot is fired, unless the circumstances reasonably do not allow it.

An illustrative contrast: in case law, force was considered proportionate in one case, for example deploying a service dog or shooting at a car driving away under concrete, threatening circumstances, while in another case drawing and aiming a service weapon during a traffic check, where the identity was known and no arrest was intended, was deemed so contrary to the Official Instruction and to proportionality and subsidiarity that the action was no longer lawful. The same standard, opposite outcomes, depending on the facts.

When police violence becomes a criminal offence

Unlawful is not the same as criminally punishable. Yet police violence can certainly lead to criminal liability. Here the legislator has recently built a dedicated system.

Until 1 July 2022, an officer who used force in the course of duty with serious consequences was in principle assessed under criminal law like any other citizen, against the yardstick of assault or manslaughter, after which the question arose whether a justification ground applied. The classic justification ground is acting in execution of a statutory rule, Article 42 of the Criminal Code, which only holds if action was taken in accordance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

With the Act on the use of force by investigating officers (Wet geweldsaanwending opsporingsambtenaar), this changed. Since 1 July 2022 there is a separate criminal-law framework. Its core is Article 372 of the Criminal Code: punishable is the officer through whose fault it is that they breach the force instruction, with injury or death as a result. The force instruction is defined for this purpose in Article 90novies of the Criminal Code. The distinctive feature lies not in a lighter burden of proof, but in what must be proven: not so much intent to cause injury, but a culpable, significant carelessness in breaching the instruction. The idea is that professional use of force in the course of duty deserves a different framing than arbitrary violence by a citizen. That does not mean police violence is taken more lightly, but that it is legally characterised differently.

The procedure has been adjusted too. After an incident involving force, the public prosecutor may first launch a fact-finding investigation (Article 511a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Wetboek van Strafvordering), aimed at the question of whether action was taken in accordance with the force instruction. Only afterwards does the question arise whether prosecution is warranted. The officer is therefore not automatically treated as a suspect.

This Act is controversial. Supporters consider it fair that the special context of police work is recognised and that officers do not become gun-shy. Critics fear that the norm-setting and deterrent effect of criminal law is weakened and that victims receive less protection.

Investigation and independence

In cases of fatal violence or violence causing serious injury, the National Police Internal Investigation Department (Rijksrecherche) usually carries out the investigation, under the authority of the Public Prosecution Service. The underlying principle is that the police should not investigate their own use of force, so as to avoid any appearance of partiality.

Legally, that is no detail. The independence of the investigation is an autonomous requirement, and not only a national one. The European Court of Human Rights has attached strict standards to it. At the same time, it remains a sensitive point that the Rijksrecherche falls under the Public Prosecution Service, which in its daily work cooperates closely with the police. The Court has recognised that precisely a close working relationship between a prosecutor and a particular police force can be problematic for the required independence. Whether the investigation is sound is therefore just as much a legal question as whether the force itself was permissible.

The human-rights framework: life and human dignity

Above national law sits the European Convention on Human Rights. Two provisions are load-bearing here.

Article 2 protects the right to life. Lethal force by the state is only permitted in so far as it is absolutely necessary, for example in defence against immediate danger to life. That is the classic line since the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom of 1995, in which the Court also tightened the procedural side: lethal force by the state must be followed by an effective, independent and prompt investigation. The state must not only refrain from killing people unnecessarily, but also seriously investigate what happened.

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. For non-lethal force, a sharp norm lies here, which the Court formulated among others in the case of Bouyid v. Belgium: any use of physical force against a person which has not been made strictly necessary by that person’s own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle amounts to a violation of Article 3. That explains why force against someone who is already under control is legally so vulnerable. As with Article 2, a duty to investigate also applies here: an arguable complaint of ill-treatment by the police must be followed by an effective official investigation.

This framework therefore operates on two levels: substantive, was the force permissible, and procedural, was it subsequently investigated effectively and independently. In cases about police violence those two questions are often equally important.

Not only criminal law: the civil route and compensation for non-material loss

Criminal law is not the only route, and for victims often not the most effective. Anyone who believes they are a victim of unlawful police violence can also hold the State liable under civil law on the basis of tort, Article 6:162 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). The question then is not whether an individual officer is criminally liable, but whether the government acted unlawfully and must compensate the loss.

That difference is essential, because the outcomes can diverge. A criminal case has a high evidentiary threshold and turns on individual criminal culpability. A civil case applies a different standard. It is therefore quite possible that an officer is acquitted under criminal law, while the civil court nevertheless considers the action unlawful.

For the compensation, the ordinary rules of damages law apply. Article 6:95 of the Civil Code distinguishes financial loss and other disadvantage. Non-material loss, the compensation for pain and suffering, is only recoverable in the cases of Article 6:106 of the Civil Code, in particular in the event of bodily injury or harm to the person in another way. The assessment is made on an equitable basis (Article 6:97 of the Civil Code), and only loss that is in sufficient connection with the force can be attributed (Article 6:98 of the Civil Code).

Here a key practical point arises. For compensation for harm to the person, a mere reference to equity is not enough, and neither is the bare assertion that someone was badly frightened or sleeps poorly. The Supreme Court in principle requires concrete, objectifiable data, for example medical or psychological information, from which mental injury appears. Only where the nature and seriousness of the breach make the adverse consequences so evident can further substantiation be dispensed with. A victim who goes to the civil court bears, under Article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering), the burden of pleading and proving both the existence of the loss and the causal connection with the force.

An example of how a court determines the amount: in awarding compensation for pain and suffering due to police violence, factors weighed include the nature and seriousness of the breach, the impairment of physical integrity, the impact on daily life and the amounts typically awarded in comparable cases. In practice, amounts awarded for not overly serious injury often range in the order of a few hundred to a few thousand euros, strongly depending on the injury and consequences.

Contributory negligence: the State’s defence

A citizen claiming compensation often faces the defence of contributory negligence, Article 6:101 of the Civil Code. The duty to compensate is reduced if the loss is also a consequence of a circumstance attributable to the injured party. This works in two steps: first a pure causation assessment between the conduct of the citizen and that of the police, and then possibly an equity correction on account of the differing seriousness of the faults.

Two things are legally important. First, the burden of pleading and proving contributory negligence rests on the State, not on the citizen. The State must therefore concretely state which conduct of the citizen, for example active physical resistance, an attack or an attempt to flee, actually contributed to the loss. A general assertion that the citizen did not cooperate or sought the confrontation is insufficient for this. Second, the equity correction can, precisely in cases of seriously disproportionate police violence, strongly limit any reduction or even set it at nil, because the fault on the police side weighs more heavily and the norm breached is specifically intended to protect against excessive state violence.

Complaint, ombudsman and the disciplinary track

Alongside criminal and civil law, there is the right to complain. A citizen can complain about the way the police behaved. That does not lead to punishment or compensation, but can result in a finding that the conduct was improper. If the complainant cannot resolve the matter with the police, the National Ombudsman can ultimately give a judgment. In addition, an internal disciplinary or official track may follow against the officer concerned, focused on their functioning. The term professional disciplinary law fits less well here, because the police have no formal disciplinary-tribunal system such as exists for doctors or lawyers.

Importantly, a single incident can run along four tracks at once, criminal, civil, via a complaint and disciplinary, and those tracks can turn out differently. An acquittal in criminal law does not automatically mean that the action also passed muster civilly or in terms of propriety.

The tension that remains

The legal framework tries to protect two interests at once that are constantly in conflict. On the one hand, the citizen must be protected against arbitrary and excessive state violence. On the other hand, the police must retain the room to act effectively in dangerous and chaotic circumstances, sometimes in a fraction of a second. That tension never disappears entirely, and every rule is in fact an attempt to draw the line between them.

Not every serious injury means the police were in the wrong. But the reverse holds just as much: a uniform does not make force lawful of its own accord, and the mere observation that an officer was under pressure does not yet justify the force. The decisive question always remains the same. Was this force, in this situation, with this aim and this means, truly necessary and legally justifiable? Having no ready-made answer to that is not a weakness of the law, but an honest acknowledgement that safety and freedom must here be weighed against each other continually. And precisely for that reason careful regulation, independent oversight and transparent accountability are indispensable: the broader the monopoly on force, the heavier the duty to be able to justify that force.

Frequently asked questions about police violence

May the police simply use force?

No, the police may not simply use force. Force is only allowed on the basis of a statutory power, in the lawful exercise of the police task, and only where it is necessary and the aim cannot be achieved in a lighter way (Article 7 Police Act 2012). The force must moreover remain reasonable and moderate, and a warning must, where possible, be given first.

What is the difference between unlawful and criminally punishable police violence?

Unlawful police violence fell outside the statutory limits, for example because it was disproportionate, and can lead to civil liability of the State. Criminally punishable force goes further: an individual officer is then personally criminally responsible, for example for breaching the force instruction (Article 372 of the Criminal Code). Not all unlawful force is criminally punishable, but it can be.

Does a police officer immediately become a suspect after an incident involving force?

Since 1 July 2022, not automatically. The public prosecutor can first launch a fact-finding investigation into what happened (Article 511a of the Code of Criminal Procedure), aimed at the question of whether action was taken in accordance with the force instruction. Only if it appears that the instruction may have been breached can a criminal case follow.

What is the Act on the use of force by investigating officers?

The Act on the use of force by investigating officers has applied since 1 July 2022 and gave the police and other investigating officers their own criminal-law framework. Its core is Article 372 of the Criminal Code, which makes the culpable breach of the force instruction punishable as a separate offence. The Act is controversial: critics fear less protection for victims, supporters see the special context of police work recognised.

Can I obtain compensation after police violence?

Yes, this is possible via civil proceedings against the State for tort (Article 6:162 of the Civil Code). In addition to financial loss, you can claim compensation for pain and suffering in the event of bodily injury or harm to the person (Article 6:106 of the Civil Code). You must, however, concretely substantiate what loss you suffered and that it was caused by the force. For psychological injury the court in principle requires objectifiable data, such as medical information.

Does it count that an officer had to make a quick decision?

Yes. The court assesses the action from the moment of the decision, not solely from the outcome afterwards. What the officer could reasonably know, see and assess at that moment is taken into account. That is no carte blanche: even under pressure, proportionality and subsidiarity remain the standard.

Who investigates police violence in the Netherlands?

In cases of fatal violence or serious injury, the Rijksrecherche (National Police Internal Investigation Department) usually carries out the investigation, under the authority of the Public Prosecution Service. The principle is that the police do not investigate their own use of force. The European Convention on Human Rights requires such an investigation to be effective, independent and prompt.

What can I do if I believe the police went too far?

You have several avenues, which exist alongside one another. You can file a report, so that the Public Prosecution Service can assess whether to prosecute. You can hold the State liable under civil law for the loss. And you can lodge a complaint, with ultimately the possibility of a judgment from the National Ombudsman. Those routes can turn out differently: a criminal acquittal does not rule out civil unlawfulness.

Do the same rules apply to pepper spray and the baton as to the firearm?

The general principles apply to every means of force, but the conditions become stricter the more far-reaching the means. The firearm has the heaviest, exhaustively described conditions, including a duty to warn. Pepper spray and the baton have lighter, but still clear, conditions in the Official Instruction.

May the police use force during a demonstration?

Only under strict conditions. The right to demonstrate weighs heavily, and force to maintain order must, as always, be necessary, proportionate and subsidiary. The threshold here lies higher rather than lower, because a fundamental right is at stake. Action against isolated criminal offences within a demonstration is possible, but must not unnecessarily stifle the demonstration as a whole.

What may the police do during an arrest?

During a lawful arrest the police may use proportionate force to break resistance, for example a control hold or applying handcuffs. The limit lies at the moment the suspect is under control: additional force against someone who is already handcuffed or no longer offering resistance is legally hard to justify.

May the police deploy a police dog during an arrest?

Yes, but under conditions set out in the Official Instruction. A biting police dog can cause serious injury, so its deployment is tested against necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity. Whether it was lawful depends strongly on the concrete threat and whether a lighter means would have sufficed. Serious injury therefore does not automatically mean the deployment was unlawful.

May the police use a taser or electroshock weapon?

Yes, but the electroshock weapon has its own conditions in the Official Instruction, including in principle a warning beforehand. It may not be used against someone who is already under control, and its use must be in proportion to the threat. The exact conditions are best checked in the current text of the Official Instruction.

May I film the police during an arrest?

In public spaces you may in principle film the police, and the police may as a rule not force you to delete footage. You may not actually obstruct police work, however, and privacy rules may apply on publication. The precise limits depend on the situation, so be cautious about distributing recognisable footage.

Do stricter rules apply to force against a child or a vulnerable person?

The statutory principles are the same, but in practice force against a child, a confused person or someone visibly vulnerable calls for extra restraint and de-escalation. Necessity and proportionality are then assessed more critically, precisely because the person concerned is less resilient and the impact may be greater.

How much time do I have to hold the State liable for police violence?

A civil damages claim in principle becomes time-barred five years after you have become aware of both the loss and the liable party, with an absolute limit of twenty years after the event (Article 3:310 of the Civil Code). Do not wait too long and seek legal advice in good time, because evidence such as footage and witness statements disappears quickly.