Skip to main content
Restraint Death Attorney
Excessive Force

Chokeholds & Dangerous Restraints

"I can't breathe." When officers ignore these words—or use restraints that make breathing impossible—people die. We hold them accountable.

Free Case Evaluation(405) 698-3125

Key Takeaways

  • Prone restraint kills: Face-down with weight on back restricts breathing
  • "I can't breathe" demands action: Officers must reposition immediately
  • Continued restraint becomes excessive: Force must end when suspect is subdued
  • Timing is claim-specific: Section 1983 claims in Oklahoma generally use a two-year period

On This Page

Deadly Restraint Techniques

These restraint methods are known to be dangerous. Officers are trained on the risks—yet they continue to use them, often with fatal results:

Chokehold / Neck Restraint

Compression of the neck cutting off blood or air. Includes lateral vascular neck restraint (LVNR), carotid restraint, and arm-bar chokes.

Knee on Neck / Back

Placing body weight on a prone subject's neck or upper back, restricting breathing. The technique that killed George Floyd.

Prone Restraint

Holding someone face-down while applying pressure to the back. Causes positional asphyxia as the diaphragm cannot expand.

Hobble / Hogtie Restraint

Binding ankles and wrists together behind the back. Severely restricts chest expansion and is especially dangerous face-down.

Positional Asphyxia: How Restraints Kill

Positional asphyxia occurs when body position prevents adequate breathing. Officers are trained on these risks—continuing dangerous restraints despite this training demonstrates deliberate indifference.

The Mechanics of Positional Asphyxia

  • 1.Prone position (face-down) compresses the chest against the ground
  • 2.Weight on the back further restricts diaphragm movement
  • 3.Handcuffs behind the back add additional restriction
  • 4.Exertion from struggle depletes oxygen reserves quickly
  • 5.Death can occur within minutes—often silently after the person "calms down"

Warning: "Calming Down" May Mean Dying

Officers often interpret a restrained person "calming down" or going limp as compliance. In reality, it may be loss of consciousness from oxygen deprivation. Training teaches officers to immediately check responsiveness and reposition to recovery position—failure to do so is deadly negligence.

When Restraint Becomes Unconstitutional

These patterns indicate the restraint crossed from lawful control to excessive force:

Restraint After Subdual

Continuing prone restraint, chokeholds, or pressure after the suspect is handcuffed, not resisting, or unconscious.

Ignoring 'I Can't Breathe'

Failing to reposition when the suspect says they cannot breathe, shows labored breathing, or turns blue.

Excessive Duration

Maintaining dangerous positions for extended periods—positional asphyxia can kill within 2-3 minutes of restraint.

Multiple Officers' Weight

Several officers piling on a prone individual, multiplying the compression on the chest and back.

Failure to Monitor

Not checking pulse, breathing, or responsiveness after the suspect stops moving or 'calms down.'

Delay in Medical Care

Failing to call for medical assistance or render aid once distress becomes apparent.

10th Circuit Restraint Case Law

Oklahoma is in the 10th Circuit. These binding precedents establish when restraint techniques violate the Constitution:

CaseHolding
Weigel v. BroadContinuing to restrain a prone, handcuffed individual who is no longer resisting may violate the Fourth Amendment.
Schwartz v. BookerOfficers cannot use chokeholds or severe breathing restrictions on non-violent, compliant individuals.
Perea v. BacaForce used after a suspect is secured and no longer resisting is objectively unreasonable.
Estate of Booker v. GomezFailing to provide medical care after using force that caused obvious injury can constitute deliberate indifference.

Evidence We Gather in Restraint Cases

Body camera footage is crucial—it shows exactly how long restraint was maintained, what warnings the victim gave, and how officers responded.

Video Evidence

  • • Body camera footage
  • • Duration of restraint
  • • Victim's statements
  • • Officer positioning

Medical Records

  • • Autopsy findings
  • • Asphyxiation evidence
  • • Neck/chest injuries
  • • Toxicology reports

Training Records

  • • Positional asphyxia training
  • • Restraint technique policies
  • • Prior complaints
  • • Department policies

Damages in Restraint Cases

Potential Proven Losses

  • Medical expenses
  • Brain injury damages (if oxygen deprived)
  • Pain and suffering
  • Psychological trauma / PTSD
  • Punitive damages against an individual if the governing standard is met

Potential Death-Case Recovery

  • Loss of companionship
  • Loss of financial support
  • Funeral expenses
  • Conscious pain and suffering
  • Reasonable fees may be sought by a prevailing plaintiff

Recovery depends on the proper plaintiff, causation, and proof. Compensatory damages require proof of actual injury; nominal damages may be available without proven loss under Carey v. Piphus. Punitive damages require the Smith v. Wade standard for an individual defendant and are unavailable against a municipality under City of Newport. A municipal claim requires a policy or custom that caused the violation under Monell, and Section 1988 leaves a fee award to the court.

Oklahoma generally applies a two-year personal-injury period under 12 O.S. Section 95(A)(3), but federal law controls accrual. See Schell v. Chief Justice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Chokeholds (lateral vascular neck restraint), carotid restraints, prone restraint with weight on back ('knee on neck'), hobble restraints leaving someone face-down, extended hogtying, and any restraint that restricts breathing can constitute excessive force—especially when applied to individuals already subdued or posing no threat.
Positional asphyxia occurs when body position restricts breathing. Prone restraint (face-down with weight on back) is the most common cause. The diaphragm cannot expand properly, especially when combined with pressure on the torso. This risk is heightened during excited delirium, drug intoxication, or obesity. Officers are trained to recognize and prevent this.
Floyd's death brought national attention, and many departments banned knee-on-neck restraints. But even before 2020, case law established that applying sustained pressure to a prone, restrained person's neck or back violated the Constitution. We use pre-Floyd precedents to establish the conduct was clearly established as unconstitutional.
Yes. The key question is whether force remained reasonable throughout the encounter. Even if initial restraint was justified, continuing to apply dangerous pressure after the suspect is subdued becomes excessive. Courts analyze each moment separately—force reasonable at minute one may be excessive at minute three.
Officers are trained to recognize: statements like 'I can't breathe,' labored breathing, turning blue (cyanosis), loss of consciousness, going limp, and struggling to breathe. Once any of these appear, officers must reposition and render aid. Ignoring these signs demonstrates deliberate indifference.
Excited delirium is a controversial condition officers cite to explain in-custody deaths. Many medical organizations don't recognize it. We challenge this by showing officers caused or contributed to death through dangerous restraints, then blamed the victim's 'condition.' Proper restraint positioning prevents death regardless of the person's mental state.
We work with forensic pathologists and pulmonologists to establish that asphyxiation caused death. Autopsy findings, body camera footage showing restraint positioning and duration, and expert testimony establish causation. We counter defense claims that drugs or 'excited delirium' caused death.
Deliberate indifference generally means knowing of a serious risk and disregarding it. Facts such as continued dangerous restraint after a person says 'I can't breathe,' goes limp, or shows medical distress may be relevant. Punitive damages require a separate showing that an individual defendant acted with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.
A municipality is not liable merely because it employed the officers. Under Monell, a municipal claim requires a policy, custom, final-policymaker action, or deliberately indifferent training failure that caused the constitutional violation. We examine training curricula, prior incidents, notice, and causation.
Potential recovery depends on the proper plaintiff, governing survival and wrongful-death law, causation, and proof. Recoverable items may include funeral expense, financial support, companionship, or the decedent's conscious pain and suffering. Punitive damages require the governing standard against an individual defendant and are unavailable against a municipality.
Section 1983 claims filed in Oklahoma generally use a two-year limitations period, but federal law controls accrual, and survival, wrongful-death, tolling, or related claims can change the analysis. Evidence-retention periods may be shorter than the filing period, so prompt review matters.
Policies vary by department. Some Oklahoma agencies have banned chokeholds entirely; others restrict them to deadly force situations. Regardless of department policy, the constitutional standard applies. Even if a department permits chokeholds, using them in situations that don't warrant force remains unconstitutional.

Your Family Deserves Answers

If your loved one died in police custody from restraint asphyxiation, we can help you understand what happened and hold officers accountable.

No Fee Unless We Win

Free Confidential Consultation