Can Police Keep Someone Face Down After They Are Handcuffed?

Sometimes for a limited period, depending on what is happening. But keeping someone face down after handcuffing can raise serious legal and medical concerns, especially after active resistance has stopped.

Police may need to place someone face down while trying to gain control, stop an attack, or apply restraints.

The legal issue often becomes more serious after the handcuffs go on.

At that point, officers may need to reassess:

• whether the person still poses an immediate threat;
• whether active resistance continues;
• whether several officers already have control;
• whether body weight is still being applied;
• whether the person is having difficulty breathing;
• whether they can safely be repositioned.

There is no nationwide rule saying every second of prone restraint after handcuffing is automatically unconstitutional.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that courts must examine the kind, intensity, duration, and surrounding circumstances of prone restraint rather than treating it as automatically lawful simply because someone had resisted earlier. SCOTUSblog

What Does “Prone” Mean?

A person is in the prone position when lying face down.

During a police encounter, that may mean:

• chest toward the ground;
• hands cuffed behind the back;
• officers controlling the arms or legs;
• knees or body weight applied to the back or shoulders;
• leg restraints being added;
• several officers holding the person in place.

The legal concern is usually not that a person touched the ground face down at all.

The more important questions are:

Why did the person remain there?

How much pressure was being used?

How long did it continue?

What was the person doing during that time?

Is It Illegal to Put a Handcuffed Person Face Down?

Not automatically.

Someone may still be dangerous after being handcuffed.

A handcuffed person can potentially:

• kick officers;
• bite;
• headbutt;
• attempt to stand;
• attempt to flee;
• reach an object;
• continue violently resisting.

Police can use reasonable force to address a continuing threat.

But handcuffing changes the circumstances.

The fact that officers reasonably needed force before the cuffs were secured does not automatically mean the same degree of force remains reasonable afterward.

Why Does Handcuffing Change the Analysis?

Handcuffs generally reduce a person’s ability to:

• strike with the hands;
• grab a weapon;
• push officers away;
• protect themselves during a fall;
• escape.

That can reduce the need for certain kinds of force.

The Supreme Court’s excessive-force cases require attention to changing circumstances rather than judging the entire incident as one uninterrupted event.

In Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court emphasized that facts such as the person’s restraint status, the duration of prone restraint, pressure on the back, and surrounding circumstances could matter to the constitutional analysis. SCOTUSblog

Does That Mean Officers Must Immediately Roll Someone Over?

Not necessarily in every situation.

Police may need time to:

• secure the handcuffs;
• check for weapons;
• control the legs;
• assess continuing resistance;
• coordinate with other officers;
• make the scene safe.

The question is whether continuing the prone position remains reasonably necessary.

A brief period while officers finish gaining control can present a very different legal question from keeping a fully restrained and non-resistant person face down for several minutes under continued pressure.

What if the Person Is Still Kicking After Handcuffing?

Continued resistance matters.

If someone is:

• kicking officers;
• trying to roll free;
• attempting to stand;
• actively fighting;

officers may still have a legitimate safety concern.

A court may therefore examine whether the prone restraint was being used to manage current resistance, rather than simply because the person resisted earlier.

The Eighth Circuit, for example, has treated active resistance as an important factor in prone-restraint cases. But it has also emphasized that the inquiry is fact-specific and that prone restraint is not automatically constitutional regardless of intensity, duration, or surrounding circumstances. FindLaw

What if the Person Stops Resisting?

That can be the turning point.

Suppose the sequence is:

1. A person fights officers.
2. Officers take the person to the ground.
3. Handcuffs are applied.
4. The person continues struggling briefly.
5. The person stops resisting.
6. Several officers continue holding the person face down.

The legal question at step six may be different from the legal question at step two.

A lawyer may ask:

Why was continued prone pressure still necessary once the threat changed?

Can Earlier Resistance Justify Later Force?

Not automatically.

Police force is evaluated based on the circumstances at the time it is used.

Earlier resistance may explain why officers initially used significant force.

But if the person later becomes:

• restrained;
• compliant;
• exhausted;
• unconscious;
• medically distressed,

the justification for force may diminish or disappear.

That is why these cases are often analyzed minute by minute—or even second by second.

What Did the Supreme Court Say in Lombardo?

Lombardo v. City of St. Louis is one of the most relevant Supreme Court cases involving prolonged prone restraint.

Nicholas Gilbert was in police custody. According to the record viewed in the light most favorable to his family, officers eventually had him:

• handcuffed;
• in leg restraints;
• lying face down;
• restrained by multiple officers;
• subjected to pressure on his back and torso.

The restraint lasted approximately 15 minutes for purposes of the Court’s analysis. Gilbert later stopped breathing and died.

The Supreme Court did not rule that prone restraint itself was automatically unconstitutional.

Instead, it vacated the lower-court judgment because excessive-force law requires a careful, context-specific review of the facts, including restraint status, duration, pressure, resistance, and surrounding circumstances. SCOTUSblog

That is the key lesson:

There is no blanket rule. The details matter.

Did the Family Ultimately Win Lombardo?

The litigation later returned to the Eighth Circuit.

In 2022, that court again ruled for the defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, concluding that the relevant right was not clearly established in that circuit at the time of the 2015 incident. FindLaw

The Supreme Court later declined further review in 2023. SCOTUSblog

That procedural history matters because Lombardo should not be described as a Supreme Court holding that prolonged prone restraint is always unconstitutional.

It is better understood as reinforcing the need for a fact-intensive excessive-force analysis.

Why Can Face-Down Restraint Become Medically Dangerous?

Certain restraint conditions can make breathing more difficult or increase physiological stress.

Potential concerns include:

• pressure on the torso;
• pressure on the upper back;
• neck compression;
• exhaustion after a struggle;
• restricted movement;
• obesity;
• intoxication;
• underlying medical conditions;
• prolonged restraint;
• multiple officers applying weight.

The medical picture can be complicated.

A death or medical emergency may involve several contributing factors rather than one simple cause.

What Is Positional Asphyxia?

Positional asphyxia is a term often used when body position or restraint contributes to impaired breathing.

But families and attorneys should use the term carefully.

A prone restraint death may involve:

• respiratory impairment;
• cardiac stress;
• intoxication;
• exhaustion;
• trauma;
• underlying disease;
• several combined factors.

A medical examiner or qualified expert should determine whether restraint actually caused or contributed to the medical emergency.

What if Officers Put Weight on the Back?

That can make the circumstances more concerning.

In Lombardo, the Supreme Court specifically noted record evidence that officers applied pressure to Gilbert’s back and that police guidance warned that pressing down on the back of a prone person could create suffocation risk. FindLaw

A lawyer may examine:

• where the pressure was applied;
• how many officers were involved;
• how much of the officer’s body weight was used;
• how long pressure continued;
• whether the person was handcuffed;
• whether resistance continued.

The phrase “held down” may therefore be too vague.

The actual mechanics matter.

What if an Officer Has a Knee on the Back?

A knee on the back is not automatically unconstitutional.

The analysis depends on:

• duration;
• pressure;
• restraint status;
• resistance;
• threat;
• medical distress;
• other officers present.

A brief use of pressure while handcuffs are being secured can present different facts from prolonged pressure after the person is controlled and no longer resisting.

What About Pressure on the Neck?

Neck pressure can raise separate and potentially more serious concerns.

Relevant facts may include:

• exact placement;
• length of time;
• whether pressure restricted breathing or blood flow;
• whether the person was already restrained;
• whether the person complained;
• whether they lost consciousness.

Police departments increasingly regulate or restrict neck-restraint techniques.

The applicable department policy should be reviewed.

Does Department Policy Matter?

Yes, although policy and constitutional law are not identical.

A department may train officers to:

• move restrained people out of the prone position;
• avoid prolonged pressure on the torso;
• monitor breathing;
• call EMS when needed;
• place a person in a recovery position;
• intervene if another officer uses excessive force.

If officers violate those rules, the violation can be relevant evidence.

But a policy violation does not automatically equal a constitutional violation.

Likewise, compliance with policy does not automatically make force constitutional.

What Is a Recovery Position?

A recovery position generally involves moving a restrained person out of a fully face-down position once it can be done safely.

Depending on the agency and situation, that may involve placing the person:

• on their side;
• seated upright;
• in another position that allows easier observation and breathing.

The purpose is generally to reduce unnecessary positional risk and make monitoring easier.

Are Officers Trained to Reposition Handcuffed People?

Many departments have training or policies addressing this issue.

But policies differ by agency.

In Lombardo, the Supreme Court noted evidence of police guidance recommending that officers get a restrained person off the stomach as soon as practical because of suffocation concerns. FindLaw

That does not mean every department has identical wording.

A lawyer should obtain the actual policy and training used by the officers involved.

Does Saying “I Can’t Breathe” Change What Police Should Do?

It can.

A breathing complaint may put officers on notice of possible medical distress.

The significance becomes stronger when the person:

• repeats the complaint;
• becomes quieter;
• stops moving;
• shows abnormal breathing;
• loses consciousness.

Officers may need to reassess both the level of force and the need for medical care.

What if the Person Can Still Talk?

Speech does not necessarily prove that a person is medically safe.

A person may still have:

• respiratory distress;
• severe physiological stress;
• worsening oxygenation;
• cardiac problems;
• exhaustion.

The medical condition should be evaluated based on actual signs and medical evidence, not a simple assumption based on speech alone.

What if Someone Is Gasping or Breathing Strangely?

Abnormal breathing can be a serious warning sign.

Body-camera footage may capture:

• gasping;
• irregular breathing;
• snoring-type respirations;
• sudden silence;
• loss of responsiveness.

An investigation may ask whether officers recognized those signs and how quickly they responded.

What if the Person Suddenly Stops Moving?

This can be critical.

A person may stop moving because they became compliant.

But they may also have:

• lost consciousness;
• gone into cardiac arrest;
• become medically unstable.

When a person who was previously struggling becomes suddenly motionless, officers may need to reassess whether continued force remains necessary and whether emergency care is required.

Can Police Keep Applying Pressure After Someone Is Unresponsive?

That can raise significant legal concerns.

Once someone is clearly unconscious or unresponsive, the need for continued force may be substantially reduced.

Questions may include:

• Was pressure removed?
• Was the person rolled over?
• Was breathing checked?
• Was a pulse checked?
• Was EMS called?
• Was CPR started?

The medical-response timeline can become as important as the restraint itself.

Can Delayed Medical Care Create a Separate Claim?

Potentially.

A prone-restraint case may involve both:

excessive force

and

failure to provide appropriate medical care.

Those are related but distinct issues.

The applicable constitutional standard can depend on whether the person was:

• being arrested;
• detained before trial;
• incarcerated after conviction.

What if Police Immediately Roll the Person Onto Their Side?

That may support the argument that officers reduced force promptly once control was achieved.

For example:

1. Person actively fights officers.
2. Officers take person prone.
3. Handcuffs are secured.
4. Officers immediately move person onto the side.
5. Officers monitor breathing.

Those facts may be more favorable to the officers than prolonged face-down restraint.

Again, there is no automatic result.

What if Several Officers Are Already Holding the Person?

Officer numbers can matter.

Suppose six officers have control of one handcuffed person.

A lawyer may ask:

• Why was continued full-body pressure necessary?
• Was the person still actively resisting?
• Could fewer officers maintain control?
• Could the person be repositioned safely?

The defense may have legitimate answers.

The number of officers is one circumstance among many.

What if the Person Is Very Large or Strong?

Size and strength can affect officer safety.

A large person may remain capable of resistance even while handcuffed.

But those facts do not eliminate the need to reassess the use of force after control is achieved.

Relevant evidence may include:

• officer number;
• individual size;
• continued movement;
• specific threats;
• video.

What if the Person Is Experiencing a Mental-Health Crisis?

That can complicate the encounter.

A person in crisis may:

• be confused;
• fail to understand commands;
• panic;
• move unpredictably;
• appear resistant;
• become physically exhausted.

Police may have legitimate safety concerns.

At the same time, behavioral-health circumstances can make de-escalation, monitoring, and medical response especially important.

What if Drugs Are Involved?

Drug use does not automatically make prolonged prone restraint lawful.

Intoxication may:

• increase agitation;
• affect heart rate;
• increase physiological stress;
• affect judgment;
• complicate medical care.

It can also complicate the later cause-of-death analysis.

The officer’s use of force and the person’s medical vulnerability must be evaluated separately and together.

Does “Excited Delirium” Justify Keeping Someone Prone?

A diagnostic or descriptive label should not replace analysis of the actual facts.

The important questions remain:

• What was the person doing?
• Were they restrained?
• Were they still fighting?
• What force was being applied?
• What medical signs were present?
• Could they be repositioned?
• Was medical help requested?

A label does not automatically answer whether continued force was reasonable.

What if the Person Is Spitting?

Police may sometimes use additional protective measures when someone is actively spitting.

But that does not automatically justify prolonged prone compression.

Officers may have other means of addressing the specific risk.

Again, the force should correspond to the actual threat.

What if the Person Is Kicking?

Kicking can present a real safety threat even when the hands are cuffed.

Officers may need to control the legs.

But once leg movement stops or restraints are applied, the justification for continuing other pressure may need to be reconsidered.

What if Leg Restraints Are Used?

Leg restraints can further limit a person’s ability to move or reposition.

That can matter when combined with:

• handcuffs;
• face-down positioning;
• torso pressure.

A lawyer may examine whether the restraint configuration increased medical risk and whether officers followed policy.

What if the Person Is Handcuffed and Shackled?

That can further affect the analysis.

In Lombardo, Gilbert was handcuffed and in leg irons while held face down by multiple officers. The Supreme Court considered those facts potentially important to the excessive-force analysis. SCOTUSblog

But the Court did not create a categorical rule that such restraint is always unconstitutional.

What if the Person Is Only Face Down for a Few Seconds?

Duration matters.

A brief prone period while officers complete handcuffing may be easier to justify than prolonged restraint after control.

There is no universal number of seconds or minutes that automatically creates liability.

The surrounding facts matter.

Is Five Minutes Too Long?

There is no nationwide rule saying five minutes is automatically lawful or unlawful.

Five minutes while someone is violently resisting can present one situation.

Five minutes after the person is fully restrained, motionless, and complaining about breathing can present another.

Context is more important than a single stopwatch number.

What About Fifteen Minutes?

A prolonged period can heighten scrutiny.

In Lombardo, the Supreme Court treated the approximately 15-minute duration, along with handcuffs, leg restraints, back pressure, and other circumstances, as potentially relevant to the excessive-force inquiry. FindLaw

Again, duration is one factor, not an automatic rule.

Can Police Say Movement Was “Resistance” When the Person Was Trying to Breathe?

That can become a factual and expert dispute.

A prone person may move because they are:

• fighting officers;
• trying to escape;
• attempting to expand the chest;
• repositioning for air;
• panicking;
• experiencing involuntary distress.

The Supreme Court in Lombardo noted evidence of police guidance recognizing that struggles by a prone restrained person may sometimes reflect oxygen deficiency rather than intentional disobedience. FindLaw

That can be an important issue in video analysis.

How Can a Lawyer Tell the Difference?

Evidence may include:

• body-camera footage;
• witness video;
• officer statements;
• medical experts;
• restraint experts;
• timing.

There may not always be a definitive answer.

But describing the movement precisely is better than simply calling everything “resistance.”

Can an Officer Be Liable for Continuing Prone Restraint?

Potentially.

A civil-rights claim may focus on whether an individual officer personally:

• applied excessive pressure;
• continued force after resistance ended;
• ignored medical distress;
• prevented repositioning.

The precise standard depends on the person’s custodial status and jurisdiction.

Can Other Officers Be Liable for Not Stopping It?

Potentially.

A failure-to-intervene claim may arise when an officer:

• observes excessive force;
• has a realistic opportunity to intervene;
• fails to do so.

The duration matters.

Several minutes of restraint may give other officers more opportunity to recognize and address a problem than a split-second event.

Can a Supervisor Be Liable?

Possibly.

A supervisor may face questions if they personally:

• order prolonged restraint;
• participate;
• observe excessive force;
• fail to intervene.

But supervisors are not automatically liable simply because of rank.

Can the City or County Be Liable?

Potentially, under separate legal requirements.

A municipality generally is not automatically liable under §1983 simply because an officer works for it.

A family may need evidence involving:

• policy;
• custom;
• training;
• supervision;
• policymaker decisions.

The institutional claim is distinct from the claim against individual officers.

What if the Department Trained Officers to Avoid Prolonged Prone Restraint?

That can be relevant.

It may help show what officers knew about:

• respiratory risk;
• recovery positioning;
• handcuffed subjects;
• medical monitoring.

But a training violation alone does not automatically establish constitutional liability.

What if the Department Never Trained Officers About Prone Restraint?

That can raise a different question.

A possible municipal failure-to-train claim generally requires more than showing that training could have been better.

The legal standard is demanding and may require evidence that department leadership disregarded a known or obvious risk.

What if There Were Previous Restraint Deaths?

Prior similar incidents may matter to an institutional claim.

A lawyer may investigate:

• earlier lawsuits;
• use-of-force complaints;
• internal investigations;
• restraint deaths;
• DOJ findings;
• training changes.

The incidents generally need to be sufficiently similar to be meaningful.

What Evidence Matters Most?

Video

• body-camera footage;
• jail video;
• bystander video;
• surveillance footage.

Timing

• when restraint began;
• when handcuffs went on;
• when resistance stopped;
• when breathing complaints began;
• when responsiveness changed;
• when EMS was called.

Medical evidence

• EMS records;
• hospital records;
• autopsy;
• toxicology.

Police records

• use-of-force reports;
• incident reports;
• dispatch audio;
• training;
• department policy.

Why Is Every Body-Camera Angle Important?

One officer’s body may block their camera.

Another officer may capture the person’s chest, face, or full body.

One camera may clearly record:

• “I can’t breathe” statements;
• officer comments;
• when handcuffs were applied;
• whether pressure continued.

A complete investigation should seek all available angles.

What if the Police Report Says the Person Kept Resisting?

Compare it with the video.

The report may be accurate.

It may not be.

For example:

Report:
“Subject actively resisted continuously.”

Video:
Subject stops moving several minutes before restraint ends.

That discrepancy would deserve investigation.

But if video confirms continued violent resistance, that evidence should also be acknowledged.

Can a Family Sue if Someone Dies After Being Kept Prone?

Potentially.

A family may have claims involving:

• excessive force;
• wrongful death;
• survival damages;
• failure to intervene;
• delayed medical care;
• municipal liability.

The exact claims depend on the facts and jurisdiction.

Our companion article Can a Family Sue After a Death Caused by Prone Restraint? explains those eligibility issues in greater detail.

What if the Person Survives but Suffers Brain Damage?

A civil claim may still be possible.

Potential damages might involve:

• hospital costs;
• rehabilitation;
• future care;
• lost income;
• permanent disability;
• emotional harm;
• reduced earning capacity.

Medical causation must still connect the injury to the allegedly unlawful restraint.

What if Police Say Drugs Caused the Medical Emergency?

That may be part of the defense.

The appropriate question is what the medical evidence shows.

A person may have:

• drug intoxication;
• heart disease;
• physiological stress;
• restraint-related factors

all present at the same time.

Medical experts may disagree about their relative contribution.

Does an Autopsy Decide Whether the Police Broke the Law?

No.

An autopsy addresses medical questions.

It does not decide:

• whether force was objectively reasonable;
• whether officers had qualified immunity;
• whether the city had an unconstitutional policy;
• whether a constitutional violation occurred.

Medical and legal questions overlap but are not identical.

What Should Someone Do After Surviving Prolonged Prone Restraint?

If there are medical symptoms, seek appropriate care.

Preserve:

• photographs;
• medical records;
• body-camera requests;
• witness information;
• arrest paperwork;
• clothing or other relevant evidence you lawfully possess.

Write down:

• when handcuffs were applied;
• how long you remember being face down;
• where officers applied pressure;
• what you said;
• what officers said;
• when you were repositioned.

Do not guess about portions you do not remember.

What Should a Family Do After a Death?

When practical:

1. Preserve all available video.
2. Request body-camera footage.
3. Obtain the autopsy and toxicology when available.
4. Request EMS records.
5. Preserve witness information.
6. Keep funeral and financial records.
7. Avoid altering digital evidence.
8. Determine whether an independent medical review is appropriate.
9. Check government-notice requirements.
10. Identify applicable filing deadlines.

How Long Do Families Have to Act?

There is no single nationwide deadline.

Possible time limits may involve:

• §1983 limitations periods;
• state wrongful-death statutes;
• survival statutes;
• government notice requirements;
• municipal procedures.

Some evidence may disappear long before those deadlines.

Prompt preservation is therefore important.

The Core Question: What Happened After Control Was Achieved?

This is often the most useful way to evaluate a prone-restraint case.

Ask:

Before handcuffing

Was the person actively fighting?

When handcuffs went on

Was the threat reduced?

After handcuffing

Did active resistance continue?

During prone restraint

Was pressure still being applied?

As conditions changed

Did the person complain about breathing or become less responsive?

At the medical emergency

Did officers reduce force and provide aid?

The issue is not simply:

“Was the person ever resisting?”

It may be:

“Was continued prone force still reasonable after the circumstances changed?”

Signs That Continued Prone Restraint May Deserve Legal Review

No single factor automatically establishes excessive force.

But closer investigation may be warranted when several facts are present:

• person is handcuffed;
• leg restraints are applied;
• several officers have control;
• active resistance has stopped;
• person remains face down;
• body weight remains on the back or torso;
• neck pressure is applied;
• person repeatedly complains about breathing;
• movement decreases;
• person becomes unresponsive;
• officers delay repositioning;
• emergency care is delayed.

Facts That May Support Continued Restraint

A complete analysis also considers evidence that may favor the officers, such as:

• continuing violent resistance;
• kicking;
• attempts to stand or escape;
• immediate threat to officers;
• active efforts to reach a weapon;
• brief prone duration;
• prompt repositioning after control;
• prompt medical evaluation.

These facts matter.

A reliable civil-rights analysis should not ignore them.

The Bottom Line

Police do not have an unlimited right to keep someone face down simply because the person was difficult to arrest earlier.

At the same time, handcuffs do not automatically eliminate every safety threat.

The constitutional question is fact-specific.

Courts may consider:

• ongoing resistance;
• threat level;
• restraint status;
• duration;
• amount of pressure;
• number of officers;
• medical distress;
• officer response.

The Supreme Court’s Lombardo decision makes clear that prone-restraint cases require this careful, context-specific evaluation rather than a blanket rule. SCOTUSblog

How This Completes the Prone Restraint Death Cluster

The full five-article series now covers:

Prone Restraint Death Lawsuit

When can a restraint-related death support a civil-rights lawsuit?

Prone Restraint Death Lawyer

How does an attorney investigate the video, medical evidence, training, and responsible parties?

Prone Restraint Death Settlement

What damages and non-monetary relief may potentially be available?

Can a Family Sue After a Death Caused by Prone Restraint?

When may surviving family members have a viable claim?

Can Police Keep Someone Face Down After They Are Handcuffed?

When can continued prone restraint cross from necessary control into a serious excessive-force and medical issue?

Together, these pages target lawsuit, attorney, compensation, family-eligibility, and highly specific restraint-intent searches without relying on a single repetitive angle.

Talk With a Civil Rights Lawyer About Prolonged Prone Restraint

Police may need force to restrain someone who is actively fighting or threatening others.

But the need for force can change quickly.

Once someone is handcuffed and under control, continued face-down restraint—particularly with torso or neck pressure, multiple officers, breathing complaints, decreasing movement, or loss of consciousness—may require careful legal review.

If you or a loved one suffered serious injury or death after remaining face down while handcuffed, a civil rights lawyer can examine the body-camera footage, exact restraint timeline, medical evidence, department training, officer conduct, and applicable constitutional law.

Contact Ben Crump Law at +1 (800) 683-5111 for a free, confidential consultation.